1 / 140

“Rogue States”

“Rogue States”. How useful is the concept?. I. Are some states worse than others?. Possible threats to international order “Rogue states” -- States that ignore international norms and international law “Revisionist states” -- States that seek to upset the status quo

gryta
Télécharger la présentation

“Rogue States”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Rogue States” How useful is the concept?

  2. I. Are some states worse than others? • Possible threats to international order • “Rogue states” -- States that ignore international norms and international law • “Revisionist states” -- States that seek to upset the status quo • “Aggressors” – States that violate the sovereignty and independence of other states

  3. B. The US View: 1. Compare 1998, 2002, 2005 speeches • 1998: “Rogue States” -- Iran, Iraq, Libya (85% of mentions) • Other mentions: Sudan, North Korea, Serbia, Cuba • 2002: “Axis of Evil” -- Iran, Iraq, North Korea • “Beyond the Axis of Evil” Speech (2002): Libya, Syria, Cuba • 2005: “Outposts of Tyranny“ – Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Myanmar

  4. 2. Heaviest US sanctions against… • 2012 • Belarus • Cuba • Iran • Myanmar (eased April 2012) • North Korea • Syria • Sudan • Zimbabwe • Shows continuity in policy. “Hostile Dictators”

  5. C. Alleged Characteristics of “Rogue States” • Ignore international law • Build “weapons of mass destruction” • Sponsor terrorism • Violate the human rights of their own people

  6. D. Which countries actually meet these criteria?

  7. 1. Who ignores international law? • What is the only country which managed to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Nonproliferation Treaty, and the Biological Weapons Convention all at the same time? • North Korea, but… • Iran is trying

  8. 1. Who ignores international law? • What is the only state opposing inspections under the Biological Weapons Convention? • United States

  9. 1. Who ignores international law? • Which two states have not ratified “the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history,” the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? • Somalia and • United States

  10. 2. Who has WMD? Suspected Arsenals: 9 Nuke, 5 Biological, 10 Chemical

  11. 3. Who sponsors terrorism? • Which state sponsored the following act? • After it finds out that an environmental group is planning to conduct a peaceful but illegal protest, a government secretly plants a bomb on the group’s ship while it is docked in a neutral, peaceful country. The blast sinks the ship, killing the group’s photographer. • France (attack on Greenpeace)

  12. 3. Who sponsors terrorism? • Which state sponsored the following group? • An Islamic fundamentalist group fighting a civil war has the nasty habit of tying down prisoners, pouring gunpowder on their eyeballs and setting it alight. However, when it isn’t killing other groups in the civil war, it targets the military forces of a hated enemy. Its state sponsor gives it tons of weapons, including portable missiles for shooting down aircraft. It continues this aid even after the group targets a civilian airliner. • United States (Gulbuddin Hekmatyar)

  13. 3. Who sponsors terrorism? • Israel (Lebanese Phalange in the 1980s) • Pakistan (Kashmiri insurgents) • India (Tamil insurgents, Hindu fundamentalists) • Iran (Hezbollah) • Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Eritrea • DRC, Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Angola, Namibia, Congo Republic, etc. • Let’s just say Africa… • Wait a minute: Central America too • …and Asia, North America, South America, Australia (!), and Europe… • Problem: Just about everyone has provided some aid to “terrorists” / “freedom fighters”

  14. 4. Which states violate human rights? • Autocracies: Repress dissent, rig elections, imprison or murder opponents (more on “outposts of tyranny” later) • Notable democracies: • Israel, US, India: Detention without trial, prisoner abuse • Europe: Migrants, ethnic minorities, religious freedom • Japan: Racial discrimination, secret executions

  15. 5. Conclusions • Many states ignore international law, including prominent democracies such as the US • Even more states sponsor terror in some form • Similarly, most states violate human rights • Only WMD narrows the field substantially – and this field also includes prominent democracies • Conclusion: “Rogue state” is not a useful concept for predicting differences between states

  16. II. Are some states more aggressive?

  17. Interstate war initiators since 1980 • Three times: USA (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq) • Twice: Iraq (Iran, Kuwait), Israel (Lebanon 1980 and 1982) • Once: • Argentina (1982 occupation of Falklands) • China (1987 attack on Vietnam) • Armenia (1991 war with Azerbaijan, depending on definition) • Rwanda and perhaps Uganda (1998 war with the DRC) • Eritrea (1998 war with Ethiopia) • Georgia (2008 war with Russia)

  18. A. Power Great powers fight more – but also cooperate more (foreign aid, support for IGOs, etc)

  19. B. Regime: Democracy makes a difference • War initiation. Democracies: • May be slightly less likely to wage war in general • Are less likely to initiate war • Warfighting. Democracies at war: • Win battles and wars more frequently • Suffer fewer casualties • Undermine enemy morale by taking prisoners • Are not notably better at extracting resources to fight wars

  20. 3. Does Democratization  Peace? a. Raw evidence suggests democratization is dangerous

  21. b. Democratization may be more dangerous in multi-ethnic societies

  22. c. Counter-evidence: The 1989-1995 Transitions in Europe • Interpretation: Stalled transitions are dangerous but quick ones are not

  23. d. Increased democracy decreases war risk – but is this always “democratization?”

  24. e. Possible explanation: Regime change is the real danger

  25. After controlling for regime change….

  26. C. Conclusions • Watch out for powerful countries • Regime type does little to predict likelihood of war, but does reduce likelihood of aggression • Democratization is to be welcomed – if regime change is unavoidable • Limitations: Intangibles like “nationalism” are difficult to measure and evaluate

  27. III. Does the State Level Still Matter? A. Global Empire. Negriand Hardt (2000): US is privileged part of global imperial process (Empire). Features: • Decline of sovereignty on classic European model  expansion of Empire’s control (no territorial limits, since concept is post-territorial) • Empire seeks to freeze history – this is the way things always were and always will be

  28. B. Does Empire Replace States? • Empire’s goal is to rule all social life through biopower (power over the body, life, and death) • Empire dedicated to peace – “a perpetual and universal peace outside of history” • Note that Negri & Hardt’sEmpire is a system-level view of world politics

  29. C. An American Empire? • Since 2000, other scholars have argued that the United States is an empire, in the literal sense • Evidence:

  30. 1. Actual Military Control • British Empire at its peak

  31. 1. Actual Military Control • US troops (2008 data from Dept. of Defense)

  32. 1. Actual Military Control • US bases (2008 data from Dept. of Defense)

  33. 2. Economic Domination • Market Power

  34. b. Economic Domination

  35. 2. Economic Domination • Foreign Aid, FY 2012 Request

  36. 2. Economic Domination • Aid for influence? US foreign aid budget

  37. 3. Diplomatic Power • Vetoes in UN Security Council, IMF (85% needed to amend charter)

  38. 4. Scientific Leadership

  39. D. An Evil Empire? • Acts without consensus (Panama, Iraq as paradigmatic examples) • Power to destroy economies with sanctions  civilian deaths • Deprecation of international law • Expansionism after Cold War • Cynical use of human rights and democracy

  40. E. The Case(s) Against Empire 1. The hegemony/empire distinction • Empires make final decisions • Empires claim sovereign power over others • Empires maintain tribute systems • Empires appoint rulers • Analogies are not equivalents 2. Hegemonic Stability Theory – or, even if empire exists, it’s a good thing

  41. Failed States: Sovereignty without authority • Failed States Index, 2012

  42. A. Three Paths to State Failure • Catastrophe: Something overwhelms state’s ability to provide even minimal protection or enforce law. • Sovereignty without institutionalization: State is created which lacks de-personalized institutions or capacity to extract taxes and monopolize force (de-colonization in Congo) • Poverty trap: State is so poor than virtually no surplus exists to support political institutions (like catastrophe, but long-standing)

  43. B. Predicting catastrophic failure • Low capacity to absorb catastrophe: essentially determined by low wealth and inefficient governance (low GDP, high Corruption)

  44. Corruption Perceptions Index (2011)

  45. B. Predicting “natural” catastrophic failure • Low capacity to absorb catastrophe: essentially determined by low wealth and inefficient governance (low GDP, high Corruption) • Predicting catastrophe • Disease – Compare Prevalence to Resources

  46. HIV Cases

More Related