The World's True Rogue States

[Violet_Crumble]

This article could just as easily be posted in FA/NS, but seeing as how it makes reference to Israel and discusses how rogue states are defined, I thought I may as well plonk it here for anyone interested...

By Dr. Marwan Al Kabalan
Gulf News
10 January, 2004

In 1976, former US Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger came up with a list of countries his administration accused of sponsoring international terrorism. For obvious reasons, the list included Cuba and North Korea, alongside three Arab countries: Syria, Iraq and Libya. Iran was added after the Islamic revolution and Sudan joined the club following the Islamist coup of 1989.

But as the concept of terrorism was elusive and extremely difficult to define, it meant different things for different parties. Hence, the list remained exclusively American, reflecting the national interests of the US, rather than becoming something universally accepted.

In pursuit of more consensus and to make the list internationally acceptable, Dr. Martin Indyk, special advisor to president Clinton on the Middle East and former US ambassador to Israel, suggested in the early 1990s a new term to describe these countries: rogue states.

<snip>

The only two states which qualify for this title are the US and Israel. Both countries defy international laws and violate the UN Charter, not out of security requirements, but in pursuit of supremacy and material gains.

http://www.countercurrents.org/us-kabalan100104.htm

[LARED]

1. Who's Dr. Marwan Al Kabalan kidding?

The spin this guy puts out basically says based on the accepted definition of "rouge state" many countries qualify, but he's going to change the definition so that only the US and Israel qualify.

[sushi]

3. Iraq was punished,

thrown out, when it invaded Kuwait. The US invaded Iraq and gets away with it. Israel is still occupying the WB and Gaza.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. He made sense to me...

He did point out that according to the commonly accepted definition of 'rogue state', most states would fall into that category. He then goes on to point out that while states function the same way, the amount of power they wield makes a difference in the way they break the rules. A small state will tend to break them for reasons of survival, while more powerful states will break them to further its own hegemonic ambitions and will have a complete disregard for any rules that don't suit it....

If the term 'rogue state' in its commonly accepted form does apply to most states, then why is it that the term rogue state is only ever used for states the US decides it has a problem with? It's a pretty useless term, and used very selectively, kind of like 'regime', which is generally only used for govts that people want to be seen negatively, even though every government is actually a regime...

Violet...

[bluesoul]

5. Hey there is a Bush regime

and a very negative one as well. I think most (if not all) DU'ers even agree on that...

[sushi]

2. I wonder

who is going to disagree with the good doctor.

[drdon326]

6. There aren't enough...

adjectives to describe this loathsome pathetic article.
:puke:

[Darranar]

7. Interesting piece...

I think there are a few other big powers aside from Israel and the US who do such things, though - and several small ones, too.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. So what you are saying is

It's a piece, but piece of crap theory.

[bluesoul]

9. Nope

even the USA can be a rogue state. Under Bush especially...

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. If we analyzed it

All states probably qualify. France attacked Greenpeace for example. If that isn't a rogue operation, what is?

[bluesoul]

11. Yep

people weren't shouting f*ck Chirac for nothing (even at the MTV VMA)...

[Darranar]

12. No, I'm saying that it's a little biased...

but its main point is accurate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Not a little

You underestimate. Nations states are collections of people and inevitibly do things that are not always correct. The bigger the collection, the more likely that is to occur.

[bluesoul]

14. With US currently

it's the whole state policy being the problem. Neocon madness with imperialistic desire, that leaves thousands of innocent civilians dead in other parts of the world...

[Darranar]

15. So what makes Syria, Iran, and Iraq rogue states...

while the US is the generous benefactor, almost always right, whose military actions are enforcing peace treaties?

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Syria, Iran and, formerly, Iraq

Made themselves rogue states.

That does not assume I am defending the U.S. in any way. The latest Iraq war was a stupid exercise.

[Darranar]

17. You did not answer the question...

I am not saying that Syria and Iran are NOT rogue states. I am simply asking why they are 'terrorist states' or 'rogue states' while the US, which also has engaged in plenty of questionable actions, is not considered to be such - in fact, it is viewed by many as a benevolent force.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. My earlier point

Is that ALL states can be considered such, just some are worse.

[Darranar]

19. OK.

[Darranar]

20. So...

do you believe that the US should have nukes?

Clearly, it would be next to impossible to eliminate them, but if you had the power to destroy all US nukes, would you do so?

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. I wouldn't destroy them

Nukes exist in a context, so unless I can go about changing the world, getting rid of other nation's nukes and military capabilities, etc., no.

[Darranar]

25. Okay...

What qualifications must be met for a nation to have the right to have nukes?

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. No more

That is my qualification. I wouldn't let any more nations have them if I could prevent it.

[Darranar]

31. Yet...

you support the nations that already have nukes keeping them. Why?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Depends on the case

Generally, it just being realistic.

In some cases, like Israel, it is an absolute need.

Ultimately, you can't make the technology go away, so I'd rather the U.S. or Israel have it than Syria.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. No overarching authority

EDITED for typing

In the absence of an overarching, universal authority, the international system is an environment of self-help, where the quest for survival requires states to seek their security, sometimes by violating the law. This assumption is based on the fact that all states exhibit similar foreign policy behaviour despite their different political systems and the structure of the international system makes them act the way they do.

This would also seem to apply to the very way we discuss such matters. There is no overarching authority to define terms for Socratic discourse, either.

Terms for discourse are not being defined by honest academics with an eye to facilitating a Socratic dialog; they are defined by crooked politicians with eye to justifying their brutality. An academic would at least attempt to define terrorism in a way that means more or less the same thing each time it is used. Dr. Kissinger defined terrorism in a way that would fit an act done by our enemy but not the same act performed with our blessing. Gassing Kurds in 1988 was just fine as long as Saddam was doing what we wanted (fighting a war against Iran); however, fifteen years later, that very same event was used as a reason to invade his country and seize that country's mineral wealth.

That is the very nadir of reason. One might recall a time when we could ignore one atrocity committed by a client dictator on our behalf and, once he starts acting as a free agent, at least wait for him to commit a fresh one before punishing him. In the case of Saddam, we just waited years and punished him for the same atrocity at which Reagan and his aides once winked. This even though there was a separate action against Saddam in the interim period that afforded the opportunity to punish him for his misdeeds.

Thus, when we allow the politicians and the diplomats to define terms, a rogue becomes one who acts on his own behalf when expected to act on the behalf of a superpower and terrorism is what the rogue does. It really wasn't a joke when, in the months following the September 11 attacks, somebody quipped that a terrorist is whoever pisses off G. W. Bush. When the universe is so defined by politicians or the propagandists in their employ, it is not possible for the powerful to be rogues or for them to commit acts of terrorism or a crime of any kind. It becomes the intellectual justification of might makes right.

This abrogation of the responsibility of defining terms to politicians and propagandists effects discourse on discussion boards such as this one. We can't discuss issues honestly because we allow dishonest people to define the terms of discourse.

Consequently, when we use a term, it is we who must decide what it means. If we define it honestly, then it is defined to fit a specific phenomenon and not the political end the argument is supposed to achieve.

Democracy assumes the intelligence and wisdom of common people. What the common people need to do is learn to discuss civic affairs openly and intelligently. Plato favored rule by philosopher kings because he felt common people were innately ignorant and incapable of mastering the art and science of reason. However, a democrat's faith must hold that Plato was wrong. Socratic reason is not such a complicated thing that only the elite can master it. When the common people master this art, then there will be rule not by philosopher kings but philosopher masses. That would be the flourishing of true democracy.

[bluesoul]

23. Wow

that's brilliant Jack! I could never put it that good :)

[bemildred]

24. Very nice, Sir.

We are all the authority there is, and there is not a
tinkers damn worth of difference among the lot of us,
intrinsically, so there is no reason to allow some arrogant
weasels to assume a superiority over the rest that they do
not in fact possess.

A nice defense of the integrity of language, too.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the life of a
democracy may also depend on the good and
honorable use of language and not on the scurvy
manipulation of such words as "evil" and "love"
by intellectual striplings of the caliber of our
president. -- Norman Mailer

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Very well said, Mr Rabbit...

This abrogation of the responsibility of defining terms to politicians and propagandists effects discourse on discussion boards such as this one. We can't discuss issues honestly because we allow dishonest people to define the terms of discourse.

Consequently, when we use a term, it is we who must decide what it means. If we define it honestly, then it is defined to fit a specific phenomenon and not the political end the argument is supposed to achieve.

When we define what a term means, we have to do it honestly and not to further whatever political argument we want it to support, and I've noticed that there's a fair few people posting on discussion boards who don't do that, and don't question the definitions used by politicians and their flunkies....

Did you like the article? I've spotted a few posts voicing opinions that it was crap, but I thought it was a pretty interesting article...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

28. The article is thought provoking

It may have been a little unfair to Israel. That is not because Israel is innocent of all crimes of which she has been accused, but because the US allows her to get away with such crimes and she would not get away with them otherwise.

It is likewise with Saddam Hussein and his war against Iran in the eighties. As long as that had our blessing, he could commit an act more horrid than any we could imagine any conceivable Israeli government committing and have the US government whistle past the bodies in Halabja.

Therefore, I would say that it is only the US that has the power to defy international law in and of itself, but can bestow that privilege to others.

That is a perfect description of tyranny. Those who try to bargain with the US for favor should be warned that a tyrant is a very untrustworthy beast.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. I agree with that...

The US is on a level all of it's own when it comes to rogue states. I think for other countries that violate international law with varying degrees of impunity, whether it be Israel, Australia, or any other ally of the US, without the blessing of the US, they'd not get away with it. And as I've said many times in the past, the US is only interested in it's own interests and the second the interests of an ally diverges from that of the US, they're going to find themselves out in the cold...

Violet...

[sushi]

27. Might makes right

Law of the jungle. That's what we have now. I'm printing your post.

[number6]

30. Dr. Henry Kissinger = terrorist

..eom

[Madrugada]

33. "Security"

"The only two states which qualify for this title are the US and Israel. Both countries defy international laws and violate the UN Charter, not out of security requirements, but in pursuit of supremacy and material gains."

It's funny how these two very powerful rogue states justify their abuse of their colonial subjects by jabbering about "security" when it is completely obvious to anyone with an open mind that their victims are entirely lacking even in the ability to fight back against their aggression.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Tell that to the victims of the suicide bombings

Say it loud, they won't hear you on this planet.

[Madrugada]

35. Odd

"Say it loud, they won't hear you on this planet."

Funny how some people insist that the problem isn't the occupation (which is not a normal state) but rather the resistance to the occupation (which is a normal state).

I support violent resistance to ethnic cleansing and colonial military occupation.

What Israelis have suffered in response to their aggression amounts to exactly nothing in comparison with what has been done to the brown people in Palestine.

There will be an accounting.

[Darranar]

37. The problem...

consists of both Israel's brutal policies in the West Bank and Gaza and the despicable actions of Palestinian terrorists.

The deliberate targetting of civilians - regardless of who does it - is immoral, unjust, against international law, and does nothing to accomplish each side's legitimate objectives - Israeli security and Palestinian self-determination.

If Israeli atrocities should be condemned, so should Palestinian atrocities, and vice versa.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

39. I think...

that attacks against IDF soldiers are legitimate. I cannot support them - like most violence, they seem unproductive - but they are legitimate, as are attacks against Palestinian combatants. (When such strikes - by either side - inflict unnecessary harm and suffering on innocent people, they cease being legitimate.)

[Madrugada]

40. Well

"that attacks against IDF soldiers are legitimate. I cannot support them"

They are legitimate, but you cannot support them.

People who are the victims of genocide cannot afford such contradictions in logic, right?

You didn't answer the question about settlers.

[Darranar]

41. There is a difference...

between supporting a particular policy and thinking it legitimate. There are plenty of foolish and wasteful things that can be done that are perfectly legal and legitimate, but are still stupid.

Settlers are noncombatants. They are not legitimate targets.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. What genocide

The only victims of attempted genocide in the I/P conflict are Jews.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. What genocide?

Sorry, but there is NO genocide happening in this conflict, whether it's Palestinians or Israelis. If we're to use the incredibly loose and inaccurate definition that would be needed to claim there's attempted genocide of Israelis, the same would have to be applied to Palestinians, and using such a loose definition, there could be a very good argument put up that both are victims of attempted genocide...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. You again choose to misunderstand

In case you had forgotten, Jews are the only ones of either Palestinians or Jews to have encountered genocide. It was in that place up north -- Germany.

I am not the one to bring genocide into this. The other poster was. Hence my question.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Sorry, but yr the one who chooses to misunderstand...

In case you had forgotten, you made a claim that said: 'The only victims of attempted genocide in the I/P conflict are Jews.' Completely wrong, and as it was clear that you were not talking about the Holocaust in that post, I'm not sure what yr point is in trying to inform me that the Holocaust happened. Have I ever given out any signals that I'm unaware of it having happened, Muddle?

So, back to what you actually said and what I was replying to. Let me know if you disagree with any of these:

There is no genocide being committed against the Palestinians...

and

There is no genocide being committed against Israelis....



Violet...

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.