As often when I begin a column that I think might
be particularly offensive to some readers (apparently,
some readers will find a way to be offended by
almost anything I say each month, but I can do
little about that), I will begin this one with
a couple of disclaimers. You are about to read
some disturbing things about the United States
of America. This does not imply: a) that I don’t
appreciate the US as the only experiment in history
of a country established on the rational principles
of the Enlightenment; nor: b) that I have any
sympathy whatsoever for tyrants and dictators,
be they Saddam Hussein or Augusto Pinochet.
This said, let me make a case for the idea that
the United States is, in fact, the ultimate “rogue”
state and that it—therefore—cannot use the label
on other nations as an excuse to attack them (at
least, not rationally). Let’s start from the basics:
the Oxford dictionary defines rogue (first meaning)
as: “Dishonest or unprincipled person; mischievous
child.” I assume we can transfer this definition
to the level of state, though that raises interesting
philosophical questions about the “character”
of a nation which we will need to set aside for
now.
Here, then, is my evidence for the conclusion
that the US is the mother of all modern rogue
states. First, arguing for a pre-emptive strike
against another sovereign nation is in direct
violation of the United Nations charter, and therefore
puts the US outside of the international community.
To vow to abide by a certain code of conduct and
then refuse to do so when it is inconvenient for
oneself surely qualifies as “mischievous” behavior.
Second, the US has consistently avoided joining
the international community in a number of treaties
that have—ironically—seen it side with “rogue”
states such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq (in other
words, seen from outside, we look a lot like part
of the “axis of evil”). Examples include: back-pedaling
on the Kyoto accord on the environment; refusing
to join the anti-land mine treaty; refusing to
join and actively sabotaging the international
tribunal. It is “dishonest” and “unprincipled”
to ask for other people to respect international
law and then arrogate for one self the right to
violate it.
Third, the US has recently announced that it
will allocate funds to train anti-Iraqi militias
recruited among the many dissenting minorities
harassed by Saddam Hussein. How, exactly, is this
not equivalent to setting up a terrorist training
camp? Is it just because these people will be
doing the dirty work for and not against the US?
Because we are right and they are wrong? I am
reminded of a Star Trek—Next Generation episode
(one of the highest sources of my enlightenment)
in which an otherwise seldom judgmental Captain
Picard is reproaching a defecting Romulan general
for his past military actions against the Federation.
The general reminds Picard that one people’s butcher
is another people’s hero. What should distinguish
the US as a democracy are not only its principles,
but the way they are defended. If the end justifies
the means, then the US is moving perilously close
to the sort of behavior that it condemns in others.
Which brings me to the fourth point: surely our
impending aggression of Iraq cannot seriously
be framed as a defense of democracy. Doing so
would be another example of dishonesty and lack
of principles. If the US is really interested
in democracy, why on earth is it attacking puny
Iraq while at the same time give permanent most
favorite nation status to China? Have we forgotten
Tien An Mein? Do we really think that the Chinese
leaders threat their people better than Hussein?
And don’t we know for sure (as opposed to speculating)
that the Chinese do have plenty of weapons of
mass destruction? I am not, of course, suggesting
that the US declare war to China, just that it
be a bit more consistent (principled, not rogue)
in its foreign policy.
Now, being a rogue state in the sense in which
the US surely is can, and has been, defended on
rational principles. Robert Kaplan, for example,
has written a book entitled Warrior Politics:
Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos, in which
he makes the argument that the US, as the only
superpower in the world, should behave outside
of international law. Indeed, Kaplan criticizes
most American politicians for being held back
(ironically, I would add) by their Christian ethos.
Instead, he claims, they should embrace Machiavelli’s
“pagan” attitude and do what needs to be done.
Kaplan’s dichotomy is, I think, the real conundrum
that the US has to resolve during the 21st century.
Does the US want to be seen by the rest of the
world as a principled nation, fighting fairly
for what it sees is right, or as a Machiavellian
entity willing to lie and cheat to get whatever
it feels is due it? Think about it really hard,
because this will determine how history will see
the US and, more importantly, is already affecting
the lives of millions of people on this planet.
Back
to Article Index | Home
|
