“ROGUE NATIONS” KRITIK SHELL - wcdebate.com · Web viewThe United States cites Iraq, Iran,...

West Coast Publishing 1“Rogue Nations” K and Answers

“Rogue Nations” Critique and Answers

“Rogue” Nations K – 1NC Shell 1/2..........................................................................................................................2“Rogue” Nations K – 1NC Shell 2/2..........................................................................................................................3“Rogue” Nations K – Threats are Constructed – General.........................................................................................4“Rogue” Nations K – Threats are Constructed – Specifics........................................................................................5“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Militarism.................................................................................................................6“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Hypocrisy.................................................................................................................7“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Adventurism.............................................................................................................8“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Kills Cooperation......................................................................................................9“Rogue” Nations K – Link – A2: Changing Rhetoric................................................................................................10“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Policy Failure..........................................................................................................11“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Must Reject............................................................................................................12“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Nuclear Militarism..................................................................................................13“Rogue” Nations K – Alternative............................................................................................................................14

A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Changing Rhetoric Fails...................................................................................................15A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Threats are Real..............................................................................................................16A2: “Rogue” Nations K – WMD Threats are Real....................................................................................................17A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Militarist Policies are Good.............................................................................................18A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Definitions are Determinate...........................................................................................19A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Rogue Rhetoric is Good..................................................................................................20A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Rogue Nations are Undeterrable....................................................................................21


“Rogue” Nations K – 1NC Shell 1/2

A. THE EPITHET “ROGUE STATE” DEMONIZES COUNTRIES AND IS USED TO JUSTIFY ATTACKING THOSE COUNTRIES WITH ANY MEANSPatrick Martin, social activist, “State Department drops the term "rogue state"—cynicism and crisis in US foreign policy,” WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE, June 24,2000, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/rogu_j24.shtml, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The US has used the epithet “rogue” to demonize countries that ran afoul of American foreign policy and commercial aims, deliberately choosing the term to conjure up an image of countries whose leaders—and people—were, as it were, contaminated with the virus of terrorism. The implication was that virtually any measures were justified against such nations.

B. THE “ROGUE STATE” PARADIGM IS FLAWED AND IRRELEVANT, BUT PERVASIVEIvan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, Daniel Lee, research assistant at the Cato Institute, CATO FOREIGN POLICY BRIEFING NO. 65, March 29, 2001, p. 2.

The vacuum in U.S. foreign policy left by the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the pressing need to create an alternative justification for the widespread presence of American forces throughout the world. One such justification is the rogue state doctrine – originally formulated by Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and later adopted by the administrations of George Bush and Bill Clinton. As Professor Michael Klare of Hampshire College notes, the rogue state doctrine was intended to be only an interim measure to justify Cold War-level defense expenditures in the Post-Cold War era. He notes, however, that the doctrine has become the “defining paradigm for American security policy,” even though the evolving international security environment has rendered it increasingly irrelevant.

C. THE ROGUE STATE DOCTRINE IS BASED ON TWO FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED ASSUMPTIONSNicholas Berry, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, "The Self-Serving “Rogue State” Doctrine," June 16, 2000, http://www.cdi.org/asia/fa061600.html, Accessed May 21, 2001.

Although the origin of the word “rogue” is unknown, a rogue has come to mean an unprincipled, disorderly character. It may have come from the term “rogue elephant,” designating a vicious, male elephant rampaging outside the herd. Now the word is used in conjunction with the word “state” as a derogatory label for a country led by a crazy, habitually belligerent person rampaging outside the norms of civilized society and international law. The leaders of rogue states are simply too irrational for the international community to deter, presumably because rogue leaders are incapable of calculating the costs and benefits of their aggressive actions. A rogue state, by definition, is a threat to the peace-loving world. The United States cites Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya as the usual suspects. Give some of these states weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and _ this clinches the case _ ballistic missiles and they constitute a menace against whom it is imperative to develop defenses. Adherents to the rogue state doctrine insist that: The United States must have a national missile defense, especially against North Korea and Iran. The United States requires the ability to fight two major theater wars (MTWs), especially in light of the track record of Iraq and North Korea. The United States needs greater resources and specially-trained U.S. military forces to respond to terrorists capable of employing WMD against the American homeland, especially with Iran, Libya, and Syria still on the list as states sponsoring international terrorism and with Osama bin Laden still in business. Undoubtedly, these states did “rogue” things in the past. Iran, Syria, and Libya were once highly active in terrorism, and the United States fought wars against North Korea and Iraq after they invaded their neighbors. But two factors debunk the rogue state doctrine. First, their rogue behavior is fading fast, and in some cases, heading for extinction. This suggests that deploying expensive defensives represents misplaced and unnecessary policies. Second, their supposed irrationality is an ethnocentric misreading of their decision-making ability. What appears to the United States as irrational behavior can, from their perspective, represent quite rational behavior. This suggests that they can be deterred by using current offensive capabilities without erecting costly defenses.


“Rogue” Nations K – 1NC Shell 2/2

D. THE CONCEPT OF “ROGUE STATES” ALLOWS THE U.S. TO CONSTRUCT NEW ENEMIES, SERVING AS GLOBAL JUDGE AND EXECUTIONERNoam Chomsky, professor at MIT, Z MAGAZINE, April 1998, http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/chomskyapr98.htm, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The record lends considerable support to the concern widely voiced about "rogue states" that are dedicated to the rule of force, acting in the "national interest" as defined by domestic power; most ominously, rogue states that anoint themselves global judge and executioner. It is also interesting to review the issues that did enter the non-debate on the Iraq crisis. But first a word about the concept "rogue state." The basic conception is that although the Cold War is over, the U.S. still has the responsibility to protect the world—but from what? Plainly it cannot be from the threat of "radical nationalism"—that is, unwillingness to submit to the will of the powerful. Such ideas are only fit for internal planning documents, not the general public. From the early 1980s, it was clear that the conventional technique for mass mobilization was losing its effectiveness: the appeal to JFK’s "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy," Reagan’s "evil empire." New enemies were needed. At home, fear of crime—particularly drugs—was stimulated by "a variety of factors that have little or nothing to do with crime itself," the National Criminal Justice Commission concluded, including media practices and "the role of government and private industry in stoking citizen fear," "exploiting latent racial tension for political purposes," with racial bias in enforcement and sentencing that is devastating black communities, creating a "racial abyss" and putting "the nation at risk of a social catastrophe." The results have been described by criminologists as "the American Gulag," "the new American Apartheid," with African Americans now a majority of prisoners for the first time in U.S. history, imprisoned at well over seven times the rate of whites, completely out of the range of arrest rates, which themselves target blacks far out of proportion to drug use or trafficking. Abroad, the threats were to be "international terrorism," "Hispanic narcotraffickers," and most serious of all, "rogue states."

E. “ROGUE STATE” RHETORIC ANGERS OUR ALLIES: ADOPTING THE ALTERNATIVE, “STATES OF CONCERN,” IS MUCH BETTERMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, “The Politics of Dismantling Containment,” THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Winter 2001, p. 70.

In addition, the rogue rhetoric irked European and Asian countries that saw it as a product of U.S. hubris and as indicative of a preference for punitive approaches. Finally, the rogue concept mandated policies of punishment; any approach that sought to incorporate incentives or limited engagement was incompatible with the rogue paradigm. Given these multiple flaws in the rogue concept, its retirement is welcome. The adoption of the far less caustic "states of concern" terminology— although still subject to the criticism of classifying countries, not conduct— opens the door for a more effective policies toward countries such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq. The change in rhetoric makes it possible for new strategies not only to be better formulated to the circumstances of the country in question, but also to incorporate elements of engagement where appropriate.

F. WE MUST SHIFT OUR DIALOGUE TO SOLVE, WITHOUT RESORTING TO HYPERBOLE LIKE THE AFFIRMATIVE AND THEIR AUTHORS DORobert Litwak, director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center, served on the National Security Council staff during President Clinton's first term, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 20, 2000, p. B3.

Above all, the shift from a generic to a targeted approach requires a different kind of foreign policy dialogue between the executive branch, Congress and the general public. That entails making the case to meet a threat on its own terms, without recourse to hyperbole or some misleading catchall category. Such a debate about how to deal with states like Iran and Iraq, each of which poses a unique challenge, will yield no ready answers. But it will provide a sound basis for choice.


“Rogue” Nations K – Threats are Constructed – General

“ROGUE” NATIONS ARE CONSTRUCTED TO INSPIRE FEAR IN AMERICAN CITIZENSMichael Klare, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace Research, 2002.ROGUE STATES AND NUCLEAR OUTLAWS, p. 150.

As the 1980s drew to a close, U. S. officials began to describe WMD seeking Third World powers in terms previously applied to terror-sponsoring states. "A dangerous proliferation of high technology has begun," Secretary of State-designate James Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in early 1989. "Chemical warheads and ballistic missiles have fallen into the hands of governments and groups with proven records of aggression and terrorism." To counter this new peril, he argued, vigorous nonproliferation efforts were needed. From this point on, U.S. leaders increasingly employed "rogue," "outlaw," and "renegade" imagery when speaking of hostile, WMD-equipped Third World powers. This imagery, although hastily manufactured in response to the sudden collapse of Soviet power, proved surprisingly effective, tapping into American fears of nuclear weapons and malevolent Third World leaders. The Rogue Doctrine played particularly well on Capitol Hill, where several prominent senators, including Sam Nunn of Georgia and William Roth of Delaware, had already begun describing weapons-seeking states in the Third World as an emerging peril. By the spring of 1990, senior Pentagon officials and many members of Congress had begun using a common analysis and terminology to describe the threat posed by a new type of enemy. From 1990 on, the general model of a "rogue state" ruled by an "outlaw regime" armed with chemical and nuclear weapons became the standard currency of national security discourse. All that was required was the emergence of a specific "demon"-a particular ruler of a specific state-to bring the newly developed doctrine into vivid focus and thereby forestall an even more terrifying enemy, the Congressional advocates of a peace dividend, from launching a full-scale attack on the U.S. military establishment.


“Rogue” Nations K – Threats are Constructed – Specifics

1. NORTH KOREA IS NOT DESERVING OF THE LABEL “ROGUE STATE”Nicholas Berry, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, "The Self-Serving “Rogue State” Doctrine," June 16, 2000, http://www.cdi.org/asia/fa061600.html, Accessed May 21, 2001.

What is the level of belligerency and irrationality of the designated rogue states? North Korea has developed ballistic missiles and had started a nuclear program. Per capita, North Korea’s million-man army is the world’s largest and ranks number five in size. Its leader, Kim Jong Il, has been hermetically sealed in his homeland _ having rarely traveled abroad _ and rules the most closed society on earth. Surely this state must be the prime candidate for rogue number one. Yet, a close analysis reveals a different story. North Korean saber-rattling gets desperately needed aid for its crumbling economy. It has accepted the 1994 Agreed Framework that suspended its nuclear program in exchange for two nuclear power plants and fuel oil. Outside inspectors find no evidence of the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. In 1999, special envoy William Perry negotiated a deal stopping North Korea’s ballistic missile tests in exchange for more foreign aid and closer relations. Sacrificing belligerency for massive aid seems to be quite rational behavior _ and seems to be habit forming. Furthermore, Kim Jong Il just hosted a successful historic and symbolic summit with his southern counterpart, Kim Dae Jung, as part of his overall policy of advancing international engagement. North Korea received large quantities of fertilizer from South Korea in return for the long-sought invitation to Kim Dae Jung to visit Pyongyang. The U.S. and North Korea have had six years of active diplomacy. Perhaps most amazingly, North Korea has entrusted the advanced legal training of its top officials to an American, Jerome Cohen, who conducts his seminars in Beijing. Diplomatic relations with Italy and Australia have been established on North Korea’s initiative, and talks are underway with Japan and ASEAN nations towards the same end. Both China and Russia continue to counsel Kim strongly to abandon saber rattling in order to remove America’s rationale for national missile defense. What the New York Times calls Kim’s “success at gamesmanship” indicates that North Korea quite ably assesses the costs and benefits of its foreign policy. Once a rogue not always a rogue, but certainly North Korea is not yet a Switzerland. Nevertheless, its current policies point directly away from actions that could be characterized as reckless, military adventures.

2. IRAN MAY HAVE ONCE BEEN A ROGUE, BUT IS NOT NOWNicholas Berry, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, "The Self-Serving “Rogue State” Doctrine," June 16, 2000, http://www.cdi.org/asia/fa061600.html, Accessed May 21, 2001.

Iran at one time deserved the rogue state label. Taking American diplomats hostage was behavior that violated well-established international law, as was Iran’s enthusiastic sponsoring of terrorism against exiled Iranian dissidents, Americans, and Israelis. But much has happened since the 1997 election of President Mohammed Khatemi. For three years he has been in a struggle with clerical hard-liners - who still control the courts, military, and intelligence services - over his efforts to install the rule of law, relax restrictions on women, free speech, and the media, and re-establish extensive diplomatic relations. Hard-liners continue to support militant Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, Khatemi’s authority gained a significant boost with the 2000 election of a solid reform majority in parliament, the Majlis. The new parliamentary speaker, Mehdi Karrubi, is an ally of the President and strong supporter of reform. “Iran’s government does not support terrorism,” Karrubi said after taking office. “If we think in the parliament that there is such a center, we will confront it.” Iran has re-established normal relations with most of Europe and has taken small steps _ such as having the U.S. soccer team play in Teheran _ toward reversing its past hostility to the United States. The trend is clearly away from rogueness.

3. SYRIA IS NOT A ROGUE STATENicholas Berry, Senior Analyst at the Center for Defense Information, "The Self-Serving “Rogue State” Doctrine," June 16, 2000, http://www.cdi.org/asia/fa061600.html, Accessed May 21, 2001.

Syria’s new leader, Bashar al Assad, presents the persona of a British-educated, mild-mannered eye doctor who previously spearheaded Syria’s anti-corruption campaign and the introduction of the Internet, and who has promoted his country’s foreign economic relations. He will likely continue his father’s policy of telling


anti-Israeli terrorist organizations based in Damascus, as cited in the State Department’s report, “to refrain from military activities and limit their actions solely to the political realm.”


“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Militarism

1. THE ROGUE STATE DOCTRINE JUSTIFIES OUTMODED AND USELESS POLICIESNicholas Berry, senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information, "The Self-Serving “Rogue State” Doctrine," June 16, 2000, http://www.cdi.org/asia/fa061600.html, Accessed May 21, 2001.

If a simple simile may be permitted, the world is an express train heading for Modernization City, with stops at Information Land, Technology Valley, Trade Center, and Peace Park. Virtually all governmental leaders want to get their countries on board for the ride. Maintaining the rogue state doctrine only persists as the self-serving foundation for those pressing for national missile defense, a large force structure able to fight two major regional wars, and new programs to fight international terrorism. The rogue state doctrine increasingly departs from reality. And so do the programs based upon it. Policies based on deterrence remain as effective as ever in the eventuality that a state might be tempted to act like a rogue against its neighbors.

2. THE TERM “ROGUE STATE” JUSTIFIES MAINTAINING THE BLOATED MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXPatrick Martin, social activist, “State Department drops the term "rogue state"—cynicism and crisis in US foreign policy,” World Socialist Web Site, June 24,2000, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/rogu_j24.shtml, Accessed May 22, 2001.

Besides the specific acts of American intervention for which the leaders of the “rogue states” served as scapegoats, the existence of such states provided a pretext for maintaining virtually intact the enormous US Cold War military and espionage apparatus. US officials had maintained for decades that a huge war machine was necessary to confront the nuclear-armed Soviet Union, occupying a sixth of the globe. Now they shifted, without skipping a beat, to citing the alleged threat from tiny and relative powerless countries to justify a $300 billion US military budget, with warships, bombers and bases throughout the world.

3. ROGUE STATE DOCTRINE IS USELESS FOR DETERRING WMDNicholas Berry, Senior Analyst at the Center for Defense Information, "The Self-Serving “Rogue State” Doctrine," June 16, 2000, http://www.cdi.org/asia/fa061600.html, Accessed May 21, 2001.

Effective deterrence even applies to aggressive states that have developed WMD. Some analysts, again without much reasoning, believe U.S. deterrence would evaporate against aggressive states with WMD, arguing that the fear of a responding small WMD missile attack on the United States would paralyze Washington decision makers. Such reasoning is absolutely flawed. With only the slightest rationality, foreign leaders would know without a shred of doubt that to strike America with WMD would compel, yes compel, any U.S. president to utterly destroy the offending regime. (This would not include the destruction of that regime’s society, a target all current U.S. war plans reject.) Swelling with nationalism, popular and congressional pressure to respond would be overwhelming. Irresistible. The status of American superpower and the ability to strike anywhere in the world would also compel a relentless campaign to eradicate any foreign leader who authored mass destruction on American soil. The rogue state doctrine is full of holes.

4. ROGUE STATE RHETORIC HAS BEEN USED TO JUSTIFY NMDSteven Mufson, Washington Post staff writer, WASHINGTON POST, June 20, 2000, p. A16.

More recently, the rogue rubric has been used to justify plans for a U.S. national missile defense system. Only last week, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen employed the term on Russian state television. "I came to explain the United States's position in terms of the nature of the threat that we face from rogue states and the nature of a limited national missile defense system that would be directed against a North Korea, an Iran, Iraq, or other so-called rogue states," he said.


“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Hypocrisy

1. THE HYPOCRISY OF CALLING IRAQ A “ROGUE STATE” IS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE U.S. SUPPORTING SADDAM FOR YEARSNoam Chomsky, ZMag, April 1998, http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/chomskyapr98.htm

Returning to Iraq, it surely qualifies as a leading criminal state. Defending the U.S. plan to attack Iraq at a televised public meeting on February 18, Secretaries Albright and Cohen repeatedly invoked the ultimate atrocity: Saddam was guilty of "using weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors as well as his own people," his most awesome crime. "It is very important for us to make clear that the United States and the civilized world cannot deal with somebody who is willing to use those weapons of mass destruction on his own people, not to speak of his neighbors," Albright emphasized in an angry response to a questioner who asked about U.S. support for Suharto. Shortly after, Senator Lott condemned Kofi Annan for seeking to cultivate a "human relationship with a mass murderer," and denounced the Administration for trusting a person who would sink so low. Ringing words. Putting aside their evasion of the question raised, Albright and Cohen only forgot to mention—and commentators have been kind enough not to point out—that the acts that they now find so horrifying did not turn Iraq into a "rogue state." And Lott failed to note that his heroes Reagan and Bush forged unusually warm relations with the "mass murderer." There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988; on the contrary, the U.S. and UK extended their strong support for the mass murderer, then also "our kind of guy." When ABC TV correspondent Charles Glass revealed the site of one of Saddam’s biological warfare programs ten months after Halabja, the State Department denied the facts, and the story died; the Department "now issues briefings on the same site," Glass observes.

2. THE UNITED STATES IS THE REAL ROGUE STATEAshfak Bokhari, syndicated columnist, “Behind the 'rogue state' construct,” DAWN, Pakistan's english newspaper, July 20, 2000, http://www.dawn.com/2000/07/30/op.htm, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The concept of "rogue state" is highly nuanced. Cuba qualifies as a leading "rogue state" because of its alleged involvement in "international terrorism" but the US does not include itself in the same category in spite of its covert and overt military attempts to overthrow the government and the Marxist system in Cuba for almost forty years. The basic idea (of the American establishment) is that although the cold war is over, the US still has the responsibility to protect the world from those who refuse to submit to the will of the sole superpower _ previously it was the Soviet Union (also called the "evil empire"), now they are so-called "rogue states".

3. THE U.S. IS A “ROGUE SUPERPOWER”Edward S. Herman, professor emeritus at Wharton College, “Global Rogue State,” Z MAGAZINE, Feb. 98, http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/feb98herman.htm, Accessed May 22, 2001.

Dictionary specifications of "rogue" include three elements: viciousness, lack of principle, and propensity to engage in unilateral action. This would certainly properly characterize Saddam Hussein's Iraq: viciousness and lack of principle were displayed, for example, in his attacking and using chemical warfare against both Iran and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s; unilateralism in his assaults on Iran and Kuwait. But consider that the United States used chemical warfare on a far greater scale against Vietnam in the 1960s, and its overall attack on Indochina was as vicious and far more devastating than Iraq's on its local victims. As to principle, it should be noted that the U.S. aided Saddam Hussein during the 1980s and protected him from any international sanctions, finding his possession of "weapons of mass destruction" intolerable only after he stepped out of line and ceased to be of service. The U.S. is also at least as prone to unilateral actions as Iraq, and commonly ignores an international consensus and international law when they stand in the way of a preferred option. The difference between the two countries in respect of roguery is that the U.S. is a superpower with global reach, whereas Iraq is a relatively weak regional power. The U.S., we might say, engages in wholesale roguery, whereas Iraq is a retail rogue. But nobody in the mainstream calls the wholesale rogue by such a name, any more than they would label it a terrorist state or sponsor of terror, no matter how close the fit. If a country is sufficiently powerful, it naturally assumes the role of global


policeman, and as such it designates who are terrorists and rogues. This role is accepted and internalized not only by its own media, but by politicians and the media of its allied and client states. As La Fontaine pointed out in his fable "The Wolf and the Sheep," "The opinion of the Biggest is always the best."


“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Adventurism

1. THE DEFINITION OF A ROGUE STATE IS INDETERMINATE: IT ONLY MEANS THOSE WHO DEFY THE INTERESTS OF THE POWERFULNoam Chomsky, professor at MIT, Z MAGAZINE, April 1998, http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/chomskyapr98.htm, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The concept "rogue state" is highly nuanced. Thus Cuba qualifies as a leading "rogue state" because of its alleged involvement in international terrorism, but the U.S. does not fall into the category despite its terrorist attacks against Cuba for close to 40 years, apparently continuing through last summer according to important investigative reporting of the Miami Herald, which failed to reach the national press (here; it did in Europe). Cuba was a "rogue state" when its military forces were in Angola, backing the government against South African attacks supported by the U.S. South Africa, in contrast, was not a rogue state then, nor during the Reagan years, when it caused over $60 billion in damage and 1.5 million deaths in neighboring states according to a UN Commission, not to speak of some events at home—and with ample U.S./UK support. The same exemption applies to Indonesia and many others. The criteria are fairly clear: a "rogue state" is not simply a criminal state, but one that defies the orders of the powerful—who are, of course, exempt.

2. NO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA EXISTS FOR THE TERM "ROGUE STATE"Meghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 38.

Even while the concept of "rogue states" reigned supreme, no objective criteria defined the term. Former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake identified rogues as nations that "exhibit a chronic inability to engage constructively with the outside world." Others described them as countries that sought to challenge international norms. Despite such amorphous characterizations, the common use of the term to describe Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea allowed observers to establish that they were countries associated with several undesirable behaviors-_namely, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism, blatant disregard for human rights, and vocal animosity toward the United States.

3. THE TERM “ROGUE STATE” WAS CREATED TO JUSTIFY U.S. ADVENTURISM ALL OVER THE GLOBEPatrick Martin, social activist, “State Department drops the term "rogue state"—cynicism and crisis in US foreign policy,” World Socialist Web Site, June 24,2000, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/rogu_j24.shtml, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The category of “rogue state” was created by the US State Department at the end of the Cold War, as the Stalinist regimes crumbled in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union disintegrated. The existence of the Soviet bloc had made it possible for nationalist regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America to balance between imperialism and Stalinism and occasionally even thumb their noses at the dictates of Washington. As the prospect of subsidies or military aid from Moscow dried up, most of these governments quickly made their peace with imperialism. Those that held back soon discovered that the Pentagon, CIA and State Department viewed the collapse of the USSR as a green light for unrestrained American bullying and military/diplomatic intervention all over the globe.

4. A “ROGUE STATE” IS WHOEVER THE U.S. SAYS IT ISMark Strauss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, December 15, 2000, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/rogue.asp, Accessed May 22, 2001.

Robert S. Litwak has a pretty good answer: A rogue state is whoever the United States says it is. Litwak speaks from experience. He served on the White House's National Security Council staff during President Clinton's first term, as director for nonproliferation and export controls. In his recent book, Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment After the Cold War, Litwak sifts through hundreds of government documents and speeches to reconstruct the bureaucratic history of this controversial concept and shed light on how rhetoric can take on a life of its own. And Noam Chomsky, in his recent book, Rogue States:


The Rule of Force in World Affairs, labels the United States not only the chief determiner of rogue states, but chief among them.


“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Kills Cooperation

1. “ROGUE STATES” RHETORIC IS MISLEADING AND UNDERMINES UNDERSTANDINGGeneral George Lee Butler, former Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Air Command, professor of nuclear subjects at the Air Force Academy, former principal nuclear advisor to the president, member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the Committee on International Security and Arms Control for the National Academy of Sciences, Acceptance Speech for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, April 30, 1999, http://www.wagingpeace.org/awards/butler99.html, Accessed May 22, 2001.

Third, I believe the rhetoric about nuclear issues and dangers is becoming badly overheated. The shrill language and exaggerated portrayal of threats coming from parties on both sides of the nuclear debate is damaging to their credibility and detrimental to public understanding. It may well provoke precipitous responses, such as abrogation of the ABM treaty and a rush to defenses that will exacerbate tensions and foreclose options. Demonizing labels, such as "rogue states;" disparaging personal attacks; and scare tactics regarding ballistic missile threats, Y2K failures, or a "new cold war," are a disservice to intelligent debate and unworthy of the stakes involved.

2. ROGUE STATE RHETORIC JUSTIFIED THE SANCTIONS ON IRAQ, CUBA, NORTH KOREA AND VARIOUS BOMBINGSPatrick Martin, social activist, “State Department drops the term "rogue state"—cynicism and crisis in US foreign policy,” World Socialist Web Site, June 24,2000, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/rogu_j24.shtml, Accessed May 22, 2001.

In the name of combating the “rogue state” of Iraq, the US-led embargo has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Similar measures have caused economic devastation in Cuba, North Korea and other countries. The US has bombed the “rogue states” Iraq, Libya and Sudan.

3. THE CONCEPT OF “ROGUE STATES” ENCOURAGES BAD, ONE-SIZE FITS-ALL POLICY MAKING AND DESTROYS INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITYMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, “The Politics of Dismantling Containment,” THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Winter 2001, p. 70.

Although the rogue-state concept helped justify punitive U.S. policies and made such strategies easy to sell at home, it impeded an effective policy toward this category of country in a number of ways. By lumping these countries together, the rogue classification encouraged a one-size-fits-all policy, when in fact the very different domestic politics, capabilities, and ambitions of each country demanded differentiated approaches. At the same time, labeling countries— rather than their behaviors— as roguish suggested that certain countries were beyond rehabilitation, thereby removing any incentive that a regime might have to improve its conduct in the hope of moving out of the rogue category.

4. POLICY RECORD OF ROGUE STATE DOCTRINE IS ONE OF FAILUREMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 38.

The record of these punitive policies has been, for the most part, unimpressive. Although often exacting heavy costs in terms of lives lost and U.S. credibility jeopardized, covert action has failed to dislodge any of the targeted regimes. Qaddafi, Saddam, and Castro remain securely in power. Although presidential action has prevented any secondary sanctions from coming into effect against Europeans and others involved in Iran, Libya, and Cuba, the mere existence of the legislation has irked our allies and raised transatlantic tensions. The effect of military force is somewhat harder to assess. Although delivering benefits in terms of destroying weapons and military capabilities, the collateral costs of military force have often been substantial. In addition to the immediate human costs, the use of force in Iraq over the past several years has strained the multilateral coalition put in place after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. And some argue that the 1986 U.S. bombing of Tripoli spurred Libya to plot and execute the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103.


“Rogue” Nations K – Link – A2: Changing Rhetoric

1. EVEN IF THE TERM “ROGUE STATE” IS REPLACED, THE ROGUE STATE DOCTRINE CONTINUES, WHICH STILL LEADS TO POLICY PROBLEMSIvan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, Daniel Lee, research assistant at the Cato Institute, CATO FOREIGN POLICY BRIEFING NO. 65, March 29, 2001, p. 2-3.

Indeed, recognizing that the so-called rogue states are acting less roguish, the U.S. Department of State has proposed replacing the term "rogue state" with the less-abrasive term "states of concern" or SOCs for the purpose of this paper. Although the U.S. government's moniker for such states has changed, the rogue state doctrine remains a cornerstone of U.S. policy.

2. ROGUE STATE FRAMEWORK RESULTS IN FLAWED POLICY AND A LACK OF CONCERN FOR CIVILIANSMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 39.

That framework was also unable to accommodate important differences among states. Rather, it encouraged a standardized policy of isolation toward all, regardless of how different they might be in terms of regional ambitions, strategic capabilities, and domestic politics. The now-abandoned strategy of dual containment toward Iran and Iraq is only the most glaring example of this tendency. Moreover, the rogue paradigm failed to distinguish between a country's regime and its often reluctant citizens, thus precluding the United States from engaging nonstate actors.

3. CHANGING THE RHETORIC DOES NOT RESULT IN A CHANGE IN POLICYSteven Mufson, Washington Post staff writer, WASHINGTON POST, June 20, 2000, Page A16.

"I think it would be fair to say that we think the category has outlived its usefulness," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said later, explaining the altered state of departmental vocabulary. "It's not really a change in behavior or policy or what we're doing as much as it is finding a better description or a different description, because a single description, 'one size fits all,' doesn't really fit anymore."

4. THE ENTIRE FRAMEWORK OF THE ROGUE STATE DOCTRINE STOPS GOOD POLICY OPTIONSMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 39.

The realization that punitive measures - economic sanctions in particular - had not achieved their aims, or had done so only at extremely high costs, catalyzed the U.S. search for alternative strategies. Yet, policymakers struggling to offer more promising ways of dealing with the so-called rogues faced a major impediment: the concept of "rogue states" itself. The label was a pejorative designation, not an analytical one. It was therefore useful in fomenting domestic support for hard-line policies, but, by implying that these countries were beyond rehabilitation, it restricted policy options to punitive measures only. Other approaches that might serve American and global security interests by engaging the target country-rather than isolating it - were simply incompatible with the rogue framework.


“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Policy Failure

1. THE ROGUE STATE LABEL CREATES A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: DEMONIZING COUNTRIES AS ROGUES MAKES THEM ACT LIKE ROGUESIvan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, Daniel Lee, research assistant at the Cato Institute, CATO FOREIGN POLICY BRIEFING NO. 65, March 29, 2001, p. 3.

Moreover, the "rogue state" label unnecessarily antagonizes countries that are beginning to show signs of willingness to cooperate with the United States and adhere to accepted norms of international engagement. A statement by James Rubin, former spokesman for the State Department, shows the importance of removing the label: "When the United States speaks, the world listens ... so it matters what language the United States uses." That label perpetuates the demonization of those nations and, in effect, creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that specific countries will certainly behave in a hostile manner.

2. EMPIRICALLY, POLICIES THAT ARE JUSTIFIED BY ROGUE STATE RHETORIC FAILPatrick Martin, social activist, “State Department drops the term "rogue state"—cynicism and crisis in US foreign policy,” World Socialist Web Site, June 24,2000, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/rogu_j24.shtml, Accessed May 22, 2001.

It is by now widely conceded within the US foreign policy establishment that the policy of demonizing countries and imposing sanctions on them has proven a failure in geopolitical and strategic terms. For American corporate interests, it has been a debacle. European, Japanese and Canadian companies have stepped up their activities in Cuba, leading to moves in the US, with the support of business interests and a section of the congressional Republican leadership, to loosen the embargo. There are similar considerations in relation to Libya, Iran and Iraq, all important oil-producers, and even Sudan and North Korea.

3. THE ROGUE STATE LABEL DEMONIZES COUNTRIESIvan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, Daniel Lee, research assistant at the Cato Institute, CATO FOREIGN POLICY BRIEFING NO. 65, March 29, 2001, p. 3.

Central to the rogue state doctrine has been the assumption that so-called rogue states are irrational and thus "undeterrable." However, some critics note that the rationality criterion applied to states such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran is much stricter than the one applied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Some observers -- such as Litwak -- speculate that this approach has been an elaborate strategy to demonize those countries in order to justify the development of NMD.

4. ROGUE STATE LABEL UNDERMINES DETERRENCEIvan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, Daniel Lee, research assistant at the Cato Institute, CATO FOREIGN POLICY BRIEFING NO. 65, March 29, 2001, p. 3.

Others -- such as Robert Joseph -- argue that the attempt to classify rogue states as irrational reflects the perceived lack of mutual understanding needed for deterrence to work effectively between states armed with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. Although SOCs are often ruthless, no reason exists to suppose that they are immune from the logic of deterrence or are less rational than other states in anarchic international framework.


“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Must Reject

1. LABELING STATES WITH RHETORIC LIKE “ROGUES” IS BAD FOR POLICY – IT LIMITS OUR OPTIONS AND LOCKS US INTO POOR DECISIONSRobert Litwak, director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center, served on the National Security Council staff during President Clinton's first term, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 20, 2000, p. B3.

Since the Cold War ended, one of the main objectives of U.S. policy has been the "containment" of rogue states. But this approach, and the label itself, sharply limits diplomatic flexibility. It pushes policymakers into a one-size-fits-all strategy. Once a state, such as Iran, is declared "beyond the pale" and relegated to the "rogue" category, it is politically difficult to pursue an alternative approach.

2. IT MATTERS WHAT LANGUAGE THE U.S. USES: PEOPLE LISTEN AND GLOBAL ACTIONS ARE TAKEN BASED ON THAT DIRECTIONSteven Lee Meyers, staff writer, NEW YORK TIMES, June 22, 2000, p. A4.

James P. Rubin, the former spokesman for Dr. Albright, said the categorization of problem countries as rogue states had initially served as an effective way to make sense of the increasingly complex geopolitics after the fall of the Soviet Union. Rogue states were those that, in the American view, sponsored terrorism or pursued weapons of mass destruction. But with some of those formerly rogue states taking steps to act in good faith, it was important not to allow colorful language to stand in the way of diplomatic progress. ''When the United States speaks, the world listens,'' Mr. Rubin said. ''So it matters what language the United States uses.''

3. WE SHOULD DEAL WITH STATES INDIVIDUALLY, NOT LUMP THEM TOGETHER Robert Litwak, director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center, served on the National Security Council staff during President Clinton's first term, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 20, 2000, p. B3.

The alternative to the rogue state policy is to develop what might be called "differentiated" strategies that address the particular conditions in each "rogue" country. This alternative is not an argument for blanket engagement with every unsavory regime. Iran's domestic politics create opportunities to be pursued, while Iraq's do not--because politics there simply do not exist beyond Saddam Hussein's cult of personality. Rather than lumping some states into the rogues' gallery and selectively omitting others, the United States should focus on actions by regimes that contravene established international norms with respect to both external and internal behavior. These criteria enjoy broad international legitimacy--unlike the unilateral American "rogue state" designation--and provide a basis for accountability (such as indicting war criminals).

4. ROGUE STATE RHETORIC USED BY THE AFFIRMATIVE AND THEIR AUTHORS OBSCURES UNDERSTANDING, DISTORTS FOREIGN POLICYRobert Litwak, director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center, served on the National Security Council staff during President Clinton's first term, THE WASHINGTON POST, February 20, 2000, p. B3.

The question is not whether such regimes are threatening or odious. They are. But by lumping together a diverse group of states under the "rogue" rubric, the term obscures understanding and distorts U.S. foreign policy. This is not an issue of semantics: The Clinton administration has elevated the phrase from its rhetorical roots into a basis for policy, and that has proved to be a diplomatic liability.


“Rogue” Nations K – Impact – Nuclear Militarism

1. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREATS ONLY CREATES THE NEED FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONSMichael Klare, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace Research, 2002.ROGUE STATES AND NUCLEAR OUTLAWS, p. 155.

Having filled in the "threat blank" identified by Senator Nunn in early 1990, senior Pentagon officials began to develop a strategic blueprint to guide the development of military policy and justify the preservation of a near-Cold War military apparatus. Hoping to have a new strategic blueprint completed and ready for public airing by the early summer of 1990, Powell's staff worked throughout the winter and spring of that year to produce the necessary plans and concepts. The Pentagon's new strategic plan now rested on the assumption that in the absence of a significant Soviet threat, the greatest danger to U.S. security would be posed by well-equipped Third World hegemons. It was further assumed that some of these countries would be tempted to attack fundamental U.S. interests in the years ahead, and that the military would be called upon to engage and defeat such states in combat. The only tasks remaining were to determine the nature and scale of the threat posed by these countries and calculate the type and number of U.S. forces that would be needed to overcome them. From the perspective of U.S. strategists, many of the rising Third World powers bore considerable resemblance to the pre-1990 Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe in that they possessed fairly large armies with substantial numbers of serviceable (if not always very sophisticated) tanks, artillery pieces, and combat planes. Many of these states also possessed ballistic missiles of one type or another, along with chemical and/or nuclear weapons. This was heartening news for American military officials, as it could be used to justify the retention of heavy tank units, artillery brigades, fighter squadrons, and other high-tech forces in the U.S. military lineup. It also provided a rationale for the preservation of a nuclear arsenal and the application of "Star Wars" technology to defenses against future Third World ballistic missile attacks.

2. “ROGUE NATIONS” DISCOURSE OBSCURES THAT THE US IS A MAJOR THREAT TO PEACEKaren Engle, Professor of Law at the University of Texas, Winter, 2004.COLORADO LAW REVIEW, p. 81.

In October 2003, the European Union commissioned a Gallup poll that asked 7,500 people in member states to identify, from a list the pollsters provided, those countries they considered to pose a threat to world peace. Fifty-three percent of the respondents listed the United States, tying it for second place with North Korea and Iran. Israel was in first place with fifty-nine percent of respondents naming it as a threat. Behind the United States, North Korea, and Iran were (in the following order) Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, China, India, Russia, Somalia, and the European Union. The European Union denounced the poll result ranking Israel as the greatest security threat, largely out of concern that the poll represented anti-Semitic sentiments and because of potential diplomatic consequences with Israel. In contrast, there was no similar denouncement of the perception that the United States posed a threat.

3. SUCH CLAIMS ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SECURITY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXBenjamin Hayes, Director of the ASEM Project, September 7, 2004.THE WAR ON TERROR AS A WAR ON FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY, p. 41.

Quite simply, the “military industrial complex” has spawned a sprawling “security industrial complex”. In the same way that multinational arms companies and the global arms trade has been the biggest promoter of war around the world, the security industrial complex has developed quickly and promotes new technologies of control and the militarisation of policing and internal security. The globalisation of security means that technologies of control developed by states in the name of “external security” are being turned inwards.


“Rogue” Nations K – Alternative

1 . ABANDONING THE TERM “ROGUE STATE” MAKES FOR BETTER POLICYSteven Mufson, Washington Post staff writer, WASHINGTON POST, June 20, 2000, Page A16.Robert S. Litwak, director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center and a National Security Council staff member under Clinton, said the dropping of the term "rogue state" would permit more latitude in U.S. policy.

"The term inhibits the ability of policy makers to adapt to changed conditions and is rejected by the U.S.'s major allies," said Litwak, author of "Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy." "No longer thinking of this very disparate group of states as a specific category . . . will permit the necessary differentiation to deal with each country in its own terms."

2. ROGUE RHETORIC JUSTIFIES POLICIES WHICH HURT POOR NATIONSAshfak Bokhari, syndicated columnist, “Behind the 'rogue state' construct,” DAWN, Pakistan's english newspaper, July 20, 2000, http://www.dawn.com/2000/07/30/op.htm, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The rogue state policy also provided a pretext for keeping virtually intact the enormous US cold war machine and espionage apparatus. The US officials had maintained for decades that a huge war machine was necessary to confront the nuclear-armed Soviet Union, occupying a sixth of the globe. With the end of the cold war, no military preparedness of that scale was needed and, in fact, what was badly needed was a drastic cut in defence spending so that the money thus saved could be utilized for some better purpose, like helping the poorest countries.

3. CHANGING RHETORIC OPENS THE WAY TO A MORE EFFECTIVE APPROACHMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 40.

Limited in its policy options and increasingly feeling the need for greater flexibility, the Clinton administration officially abandoned the rogue label. This welcome change could open the way to a more effective approach toward problem countries, one whose approach is not "one size fits all" and whose goal is rehabilitation, not isolation.

4. FAILURE TO CRITIQUE THIS WORLDVIEW DESTROYS MORALITY AND NORMALIZES THE MORE VIOLENT ACTS OF THE SUPERPOWEREdward S. Herman, professor Emeritus at Wharton College, “Global Rogue State,” Z MAGAZINE, Feb. 98, http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/feb98herman.htm, Accessed May 22, 2001.

Under the rule of the Biggest, the law and rules of morality only apply to others, not to the ruler himself. This double standard rests on sheer power. It is effected through a variety of processes involving the mainstream media, which ignore or play down outrageous behavior and law violations by the ruler, but wax indignant at comparable or lesser enemy actions. Cuba's shooting down of a Cuban refugee plane which flew over its territory was excoriated by the media, but disclosure of multiple U.S. attempts to assassinate Castro caused neither indignation nor reflection on "who is the terrorist." When the global rogue justified terrorizing Nicaragua in the 1980s by the "national security threat" posed by that tiny power, and bombed Baghdad in 1993 following an alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush, on the ground of the right to "self defense," nobody important responded with laughter or indignation. The absurd rationalizations were reported "objectively" and the violent acts were accepted and normalized.

5. RHETORICAL CHANGES, SUCH AS "STATES OF CONCERN," CAN IMPROVE POLICYMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 40.

Such a strategy would require critical changes in U.S. foreign policy, some of which are tentatively under way. First, policymakers would have to reconceptualize America's relationships with problem countries. Adopting the "states of concern" terminology is a useful beginning. A next, and more meaningful, step would be to classify certain behaviors - rather than particular regimes - as "rogue" or "demanding of concern." This approach would signal that rehabilitation is possible for countries that abandon offensive actions, thereby offering them one powerful incentive for changing their behavior.


A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Changing Rhetoric Fails

1. RHETORIC AND POLICY IS ALREADY CHANGING IN GOVERNMENTMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 38.

Last June the Clinton administration formally retired the label "rogue states," which it had long used to describe Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea, and replaced it with the more innocuous "states of concern." The change in rhetoric acknowledges the need to reevaluate current policy toward these states but stops short of formulating a new strategy. Among the challenges facing the next U.S. Congress and the new administration will be defining the parameters of a new approach.

2. “TERRORIST STATE” DESIGNATION WILL STILL REMAIN, MEANING DEMONIZATION CONTINUESAlston and Bird LLP, international law firm, INTERNATIONAL REGULATION ADVISORY, June 22, 2000, http://www.alston.com/docs/Advisories/199709/Changes.htm, Accessed May 24, 2001.

While more cosmetic than legal, the policy nuance is nonetheless significant because it should provide for more flexibility in dealing with individual problem countries and a shift away from convenient “demonization” of certain states. It is possible that further, more concrete liberalizations short of lifting sanctions outright, will occur with respect to some of these countries, especially Iran and Libya. However, the “Terrorist Seven” designation apparently still is in vogue, even if these states are no longer “rogue.”

3. CHANGING RHETORIC ALONE WILL NOT CHANGE POLICYMeghan L. O'Sullivan, fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution, BROOKINGS REVIEW, Fall 2000, p. 40.

While no policy tool will be universally applicable, initial moves toward limited engagement with North Korea suggest the value of this strategy in at least some situations. The 1994 Agreed Framework signed by North Korea and the United States set forth a series of choreographed steps designed to lead to the denuclearization of the North. Although not without its complications, the agreement offers the best prospect for a Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons and has provided the backdrop to a possible thaw in relations between Pyongyang and its neighbors and the United States. Simply abandoning the "rogue state" label in itself is not a fundamental policy change.

4. A SHIFT IN LANGUAGE SIGNIFIES NOTHING OF SUBSTANCEJacques Beltran, lecturer in international relations at the French Institute for International Relations, LOS ANGELES TIMES, October 16, 2000, p. A16.

Recently, the United States has made significant steps toward abandoning this containment policy, successively announcing the easing of the embargoes on Iran, North Korea and Cuba. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright decided in June to drop the ambiguous and counterproductive "rogue state" label. These steps are good news. But the question today is whether they reflect a genuine change in policy or whether they are only pragmatic adaptations to what is often known in Washington as the "sanctions fatigue," not only among U.S. allies but also within a growing part of the American electorate. But a close examination of the U.S. attitude leads to the conclusion that the "rogue state" concept, which has tailored the American strategic thinking during a decade, is still very steadfast among many decision-makers. First of all, Albright's decision to stop using the "R" word was diminished--from a European viewpoint--by the fact that these countries are now referred to as "countries of concern" by the State Department, a change in words that does not necessarily imply a change in deeds.

http://www.alston.com/docs/Advisories/199709/Changes.htm,


A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Threats are Real

1. THE THREAT FROM ROGUE STATES IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSTATESenator Evan Bayh, Indiana, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, March 18, 1999, p. S2975

As most of my colleagues know, today, the United States faces a serious, credible, and growing threat from limited ballistic missiles that could potentially carry nuclear, biological or chemical payloads. This new threat is not from Russia, our partner in many important arms control agreements. Instead, this threat comes from the increasing proliferation of ballistic missile technology. In particular, certain rogue states pose the greatest threat as they continue to push for--and make great progress in acquiring--delivery systems that directly threaten the United States. I do not believe that the threat from these rogue states, most of which have demonstrated a complete disregard for the well-being of their own citizens as they relentlessly pursue the acquisition of this ballistic missile technology, can be understated.

2. SEVERAL ROGUE STATES ARE THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITYTimothy M. Beard, research associate at the Cato Institute, and Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, CATO FOREIGN POLICY BRIEFING, No. 51, February 11, 1999, p. 1.

Although the end of the Cold War reduced the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers, several smaller rogue states, through their dedicated efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, have emerged as potential threats to U.S. national security. National Intelligence Estimate 95-19 stated that no new missile threats to the United States would develop before 2010. However, given the curious circumstances of the estimate's release and the many analytical faults contained in the document, its results have been questioned.

3. THREAT POSED BY ROGUES IS REALStephen Hubbell, editor, former Cairo correspondent for The Nation, "The Containment Myth: US Middle East Policy in Theory and Practice," MIDDLE EAST REPORT, Summer 1998, p. 3.

Dual containment was premised on the notion that "rogue states" posed the greatest threat to the West following the Soviet collapse. The priority given to containing the rogue states (whose ranks are rarely enumerated publicly, but presumed to include Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and, on occasion, Syria and Sudan) supposedly reflects Washington's growing concern about human rights, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The threat posed by the rogues is hardly imaginary: nearly all of them have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs and all have poor human rights records.

4. THE THREAT FROM ROGUES IS EVEN GREATER THAN ANTICIPATEDTimothy M. Beard, research associate at the Cato Institute, and Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, CATO FOREIGN POLICY BRIEFING, No. 51, February 11, 1999, p. 1.

In the summer of 1998, the congressionally appointed Rumsfeld commission reported that the ballistic missile threat to the United States was greater than the intelligence community had postulated. The commission noted that any one of several rogue states could decide to acquire a capability to inflict major destruction on the United States and then do so within five years. Only recently has the Clinton administration begun to grudgingly acknowledge that the threat may be more severe than it had anticipated.

5. ROGUE NATIONS AND TERRORISTS WILL BE EMPOWERED BY NUCLEAR WEAPONSDavid Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, ENDING THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ERA, January 2001, http://www.wagingpeace.org/endnuke/, Accessed Feb. 20, 2001.

Without the elimination of nuclear weapons, humanity will remain at risk, a choice some would make on the basis of narrow national interests. But in today's world, nuclear weapons are not good tools for the most powerful nations. Rather, they hold the promise of being equalizers for the less powerful states. In the future, nuclear weapons may become tools for terrorists. The nuclear weapons states are courting disaster by refusing to shake off their addictions to nuclear weapons and get on with the process of eliminating

http://www.wagingpeace.org/endnuke/,


them. They will be convinced of this only by unrelenting pressures from other states, and by demands from their own citizens that they publicly commit themselves to abolition and move in this direction.


A2: “Rogue” Nations K – WMD Threats are Real

1. ROGUE NATIONS ARE STOCKPILING WEAPONS, COULD THREATEN U.S.Baker Spring, defense policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, PRIORITIES FOR THE PRESIDENT, 2001, http://www.heritage.org/mandate/priorities/chap9.html, Accessed May 27, 2001.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the proliferation of ballistic missiles throughout the world have changed the threat and make deploying an effective missile defense system an urgent necessity. China and Russia already possess long-range missiles that can reach U.S. territory, and some 20 Third World countries have or may be developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. For example, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are stockpiling weapons. In 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage rocket over Japan, demonstrating that it could threaten U.S. territory with ballistic missiles in the very near future.

2. ROGUE NATIONS ARE DETERMINED TO BE MISSILE THREATS: TECH IS MORE AVAILABLE NOWSenator Thad Cochran, Chairman of the International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, HEARING BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, PROLIFERATION, AND FEDERAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE, February 9, 2000, http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_020900.htm, Accessed May 27, 2001.

We are now aware that several nations, which may not be impressed with our overwhelming missile forces, are working hard to build long-range ballistic missiles. North Korea is one example. In August 1998, North Korea launched a three-stage Taepo Dong-1 ballistic missile. This missile demonstrated that despite the economic difficulties and isolation of North Korea, it has made impressive progress in developing a multi-stage ballistic missile capable of flying to intercontinental ranges. North Korea appears ready to test an even more capable Taepo Dong-2; Iran has tested a medium-range ballistic missile and has begun developing longer-range weapons. These developments reflect not just a determination by rogue states to acquire ballistic missiles, but the increasing availability of the technology required to develop these weapons. Recent assessments make clear that one factor enabling rogue states to acquire ballistic missiles is the continuing flow of missile technology from Russia, China, and North Korea. Of even greater concern is the fact that traditional importers of ballistic missile technology are now becoming suppliers. CIA Director Tenet testified just last week that, ``Iran's existence as a secondary supplier of this technology to other countries is the trend that worries me the most.'' More suppliers will create greater opportunities for proliferation in the future.

3. EMPIRICALLY, MISSILES ARE POWERFUL WEAPONS FOR ROGUE STATESBaker Spring, defense policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, PRIORITIES FOR THE PRESIDENT, 2001, http://www.heritage.org/mandate/priorities/chap9.html, Accessed May 27, 2001.

The Persian Gulf War proved that ballistic missiles are powerful weapons in the hands of rogue leaders in regional conflicts. Saddam Hussein used these missiles to attack Israel, hoping to split the coalition assembled against him. The U.S. Patriot air defense system's limited missile defense capability helped to convince Israel not to retaliate on its own, which protected the coalition. The importance of missile defense to future regional conflicts cannot be overestimated, and the President should ensure that these capabilities are not overlooked in defense planning.

4. ROGUE NATIONS POSE AN IMMEDIATE, SERIOUS AND GROWING MISSILE THREATJim Mannion, staff writer for Agence France Press, SPACEDAILY.COM, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo_99h.html, Accessed May 27, 2001.

Iran and Iraq as well as North Korea could test intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States by the end of the next decade, a new US intelligence estimate made public Thursday concludes. The National Intelligence Estimate also found that the proliferation of medium range missiles has created "an immediate, serious and growing threat to US forces, interests and allies," according to an unclassified summary of the document. The study projected that "during the next 15 years the United

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-99h.html,

http://www.heritage.org/mandate/priorities/chap9.html,

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2000_hr/hr_020900.htm,

http://www.heritage.org/mandate/priorities/chap9.html,


States most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia, China and North Korea, probably from Iran and possibly from Iraq."


A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Militarist Policies are Good

1. ROGUE STATE DOCTRINE ALLOWS CONTAINMENT, PROTECTS OIL RESOURCEMark Strauss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, December 15, 2000, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/rogue.asp, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The main virtue of the rogue state doctrine from the administration's perspective is that it provides a new pretext to "contain" the same countries whose sovereign rights the US routinely violated during the Cold War. The fact that three of the five rogue states are Middle East oil producers, and that two in particular - Iran and Iraq - are clearly the main targets of the doctrine, points to the continuing centrality of oil in American strategic calculations.

2. DIFFERENT POLICIES ARE NEEDED TO DEAL WITH ROGUE STATESBarry Rubin, Deputy Director of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies and Editor of The Journal of Turkish Politics and Foreign Policy, THE MIDDLE EAST REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Vol. 3, No. 3, September 1999, http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue3/jv3n3a7.html, Accessed May 24, 2001.

Since a rogue regime does not respond to normal diplomatic measures--for example, a rogue will misinterpret signals or refuse to stop systematic subversion and terrorism--confidence- building or conflict-avoidance methods do not work. Other, harsher measures and attitudes are needed. These mechanisms do not necessarily involve war, unless the rogue state takes a specific step which makes such an outcome unavoidable. The United States prefers tactics such as non-recognition, embargoes, isolation, and international condemnation.

3. THREAT OF ROGUE STATES SERVES POSITIVE GOALS SUCH AS NON-PROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, AND OTHERSMark Strauss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2000, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/rogue.asp, Accessed May 22, 2001.

The rogue threat -- often simplified as a good-versus-evil clash between democracy and dictatorship -- has occasionally served the Clinton administration well, Litwak argues. It has helped mobilize popular support for efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, thwart terrorism, and defend U.S. interests in far-flung regions at a time when the American public, no longer faced with the Soviet threat, might be inclined to disengage from the world.

4. SAYING POLICY TOWARDS ROGUE STATES FAIL IS TOTALLY MISGUIDEDBarry Rubin, deputy director of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies and Editor of The Journal of Turkish Politics and Foreign Policy, THE MIDDLE EAST REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Vol. 3, No. 3, September 1999, http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue3/jv3n3a7.html, Accessed May 24, 2001.

Finally, it is extremely important to correct a misunderstanding about the goals of U.S. policy concerning rogue states. It is true that the highest objective has been to remove the regime from power or to force it to change policy. Still, a secondary purpose has been to prevent the state from implementing its extremist policies, denying it the resources to do so, weakening it economically, ensuring that it did not find allies, and so on. In short, the policy cannot be said to fail merely because the rogue government is still in office and preserves the same rhetoric. U.S. policy is a success if the rogue regime is unable to act effectively in fulfilling its ambitions.


A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Definitions are Determinate

1. ROGUE STATES THREATEN NATIONAL SECURITY WITH WMD: THAT DEFINES THEMMark Strauss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2000, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/rogue.asp, Accessed May 22, 2001.

Litwak notes that, until the late 1970's, "pariah" or "rogue" was used to describe dictatorial regimes whose internal policies were considered abhorrent (Pol Pot's Cambodia, Idi Amin's Uganda, white_ruled South Africa). To be sure, the pariah states of today are hardly models of enlightened democracy __ but what makes Iran, Iraq, or North Korea a rogue and not, say, Burma or Nigeria? If you strip away the Clinton administration's lofty rhetoric on anachronistic despots trying to defend themselves from the spread of democracy, it's all a matter of national security. A rogue is a dictatorship that seeks to acquire weapons of mass destruction, sponsors international terrorism, and more generally threatens the well-being of U.S. allies in key regions such as the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

2. CURRENT DEFINITION OF “ROGUE STATE” EXISTS, AND IS IF ANYTHING TOO LIMITINGDr Maqbool Ahmad Bhatty, vice president of Islamabad Council of World Affairs, DAWN, Pakistan’s English-language newspaper, June 12, 2000, http://www.dawn.com/2000/06/12/op.htm, Accessed May 24, 2001.

The convergence in the views of Washington and Moscow on the threat from international terrorism, and the need to take joint measures to contain possible nuclear blackmail by "rogue states" has great significance for the rest of the world. Though the existing definition of "rogue states" is confined by Washington to state it has designated as terrorist states, such as North Korea, Iraq, and Libya, the term could be extended to other countries that do not "cooperate" in this regard.

3. ROGUES ARE DICTATORSHIPS THAT ARE OUTWARDLY AGGRESSIVEBarry Rubin, deputy director of the BESA Center for Strategic Studies and Editor of The Journal of Turkish Politics and Foreign Policy, THE MIDDLE EAST REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, Vol. 3, No. 3, September 1999, http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue3/jv3n3a7.html, Accessed May 24, 2001.

It is virtually inevitable that a state considered a rogue will be a repressive dictatorship, but that form of government alone is not sufficient for such a classification. More important, the United States must see the regime as outwardly aggressive. Similarly, a rogue state is not just a country whose interests clash with the United States, but one that also jeopardizes the international order. Such a state threatens to draw the United States into conflict even if America seeks to avoid it.

4. THERE IS A CLEAR DEFINITION FOR “ROGUE STATE” THAT INVOLVES WMDJan Verkade, Ph.D. candidate, Dublin City University, SYRIA, ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES: THE TRIANGULAR RELATIONSHIP AND THE QUEST FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, 2000, p. 2-3.

Lake sums up the criteria that make a state a ‘rogue’. “Ruled by cliques that control power through coercion, they suppress basic human rights and promote radical ideologies [...] [T]heir leaders share a common antipathy toward popular participation that might undermine the existing regimes. These nations exhibit a chronic inability to engage constructively with the outside world, and they do not function effectively in alliances even with those like-minded. They are often on the defensive, increasingly criticised and targeted with sanctions in international forums. [...] [T]hey share a siege mentality. Accordingly, they are embarked on ambitious and costly military programs--especially in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missile delivery systems--in a misguided quest for a great equaliser to protect their regimes or advance their purposes abroad.” US policy toward rogue states Lake explicitly mentions Iran, Iraq, North-Korea, Libya and Cuba has been that of comprehensive containment and isolation.

http://www.dawn.com/2000/06/12/op.htm,


A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Rogue Rhetoric is Good

1. THE TERM "ROGUE" IS THE IDEAL TERMMark Strauss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2000, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/rogue.asp, Accessed May 22, 2001.

In that respect, the term "rogue" was ideal -- far more appropriate than outlaw, pariah, backlash state, state of concern, or any other label that gets thrown around. That's because, in the animal kingdom, a rogue is defined as a creature that is born different. It is incapable of mingling with the herd, it keeps to itself, and it can attack at any time, without warning. Using the "rogue" taxonomy, countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea are not simply outlaws who circumvent international norms -- they're "bad to the bone," dysfunctional, unpredictable, and incapable of moderation.

2. "DEMONIZATION" IS A USEFUL DIPLOMATIC TOOLMark Strauss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2000, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/rogue.asp, accessed May 22, 2001.

Moreover, Litwak cites an anonymous administration official who admits that the demonization of rogue states has proved to be a useful diplomatic tool. Unless the United States appears "completely maniacal" in multilateral forums, such as the Group of Eight industrialized countries, the Europeans and Japanese will not take necessary actions to address American concerns over the behavior of Iran, Iraq, and the like, the official says.


A2: “Rogue” Nations K – Rogue Nations are Undeterrable

1. ROGUE STATES CANNOT HAVE DETERRENCE APPLIED TO THEMMark Strauss, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2000, http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/rogue.asp, accessed May 22, 2001.

And that makes them appear very, very dangerous. "When we faced the former Soviet Union, we had a clear understanding of what it would take to deter adventurism by Brezhnev or Khrushchev," observed Congressman Doug Bereuter during a 1993 hearing on rogue states. "It seems more difficult to deter Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi." Likewise, in a 1998 news conference convened to discuss the threat of ballistic missiles to the United States, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned: "We had a core assumption about the nature of the Soviet Union, that it was essentially a collective, bureaucratic leadership susceptible to deterrence. ... They would not commit suicide. I think there are at least two or three regimes who will clearly, in the not-too-distant future, have access to weapons of mass destruction, about whom you can not say with certainty, deterrence will work."

2. DETERRENCE ABSOLUTELY WON’T DETER A CRAZY LEADER OR A TERRORISTDavid Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, ENDING THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ERA, January 2001, http://www.wagingpeace.org/endnuke/, accessed Feb. 20, 2001.

We don't know with any degree of certainty that the theory worked during the Cold War. We know that there was no nuclear war, but we can't say with certainty that this was because of fear of retaliation or for some other reason. We do know that the U.S. and USSR came very close to a nuclear exchange during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that the decision-makers who were involved on both sides later discovered that they had many mistaken beliefs about the other side. We can say with certainty that deterrence would not prevent an attack by an attacker who did not fear retaliation such as a terrorist or the leader of a nation who, for one reason or another, was not acting rationally.

3. ROGUE NATIONS ARE UNDETERRABLE THREATS William Pfaff, syndicated columnist with the International Herald Tribune, THE NATIONAL INTEREST, Winter 2001, p. 62. The rogue nation threat is that of an “irrational” one-off attack. If it cannot be deterred by the same measures that prevented Cold War nuclear disasters, it is unlikely to be deterred at all. America’s bombing of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya in 1986 did not, as is usually claimed, deter terrorism, but, according to the assertions of the U.S. government itself, provoked the Libyan government to have a bomb placed aboard Pan American flight 10 two years later, whose explosion over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 persons, most of them Americans.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/endnuke/,

“ROGUE NATIONS” KRITIK SHELL - wcdebate.com · Web viewThe United States cites Iraq, Iran,...

Documents

Transcript of “ROGUE NATIONS” KRITIK SHELL - wcdebate.com · Web viewThe United States cites Iraq, Iran,...