Letters to the Editor
-
Rogue States?
In the abstact, Shannonr's comments that:
"If the alternatives being presented to a "rogue state" are "tow the UN line or face war" then it can be argued that creating doubt that the "face war" option is actually real harms the diplomatic "stance", and creates the third option, "pretend to comply because war ain't really coming". Which does bear an uncanny resemblance to Iraq's actual policy during those nine months." might have some validity.
But Kamiya's point, which has been referred to often by others of a veiled "consensus of definition" is troubling reflected even by this intelligent reader.
At the beginning of the war, I faced off with a well known reporter/journalist whoo had attacked Jonathan Schell as "not getting it" in Schell's essay "The Case Against the War". The a priori assumption that we are the "good guys" who get to declare who is a "rogue sate" and who isn't is both tragical and facical.
As I argued then, and was told "we don't do that anymore (Right!), I pointed to the long history of abuse of our country and the poisonous tree that was this administration. Therefore, although we often have been the worst "rogue state" of all, we try to dictate because of our power. China used to be defined as a "rogue state". Not anymore as they've grown in influence.
I can see the point about credible force for example in Bosnia, but the line is incredibly delicate. I would hesitate to use this argument in any way concerning Iraq do to the criminal misuse of motive involved.
No one would deny that an actual, urgent threat needs to be dealt with. But defining who is "rogue" and who isn't is a highly dangerous speculation.