The term “rogue state” has been a significant component of American foreign policy lexicon, especially post-Cold War. Its usage by American presidents reflects shifting international dynamics and U.S. foreign policy priorities. This article explores how various U.S. presidents have defined and deployed the concept of a “rogue state” in their international strategies.
Origins and Definition
The term “Rogue State” gained prominence in the 1990s after the Cold War. Initially, it was used to describe nations that were thought to pose a security threat beyond conventional military aggression.
These states were often characterized by their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, support for terrorism, severe human rights abuses, and aggressive posturing against other states.
George H.W. Bush and Post-Cold War Adjustments
George H.W. Bush’s administration marked the transition from Cold War geopolitics to new global challenges. Though he did not frequently use the term “rogue state,” his administration set the stage for its later use by highlighting the dangers posed by nations like Iraq, particularly following the Gulf War.
Bill Clinton: Formalizing the Concept
Bill Clinton’s presidency was where “rogue state” entered regular usage. Clinton’s administration used the term to refer specifically to countries like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. These states were seen as unpredictable actors on the global stage, resisting global norms and pursuing policies that threatened regional and global stability.
George W. Bush and the “Axis of Evil”
George W. Bush expanded the concept significantly with his “Axis of Evil” speech in 2002, in which he included Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. This terminology signaled a hardline U.S. stance that these states not only acted contrary to international norms but were also active threats requiring direct confrontation, possibly even military intervention.
Barack Obama: Strategic Patience
Barack Obama’s approach marked a shift. His administration tended to avoid the inflammatory rhetoric of “rogue states,” preferring terms like “outliers.” Obama emphasized diplomacy, multilateralism, and strategic patience, particularly evident in the negotiations that led to the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which sought to bring Iran back into compliance with international norms through agreement rather than isolation.
Donald Trump: Return to Confrontation
Donald Trump revived the confrontational rhetoric similar to earlier administrations. His approach to North Korea and Iran, often communicated via fiery speeches and tweets, signaled a return to aggressive posturing against states perceived as threats to U.S. interests and global peace.
Joe Biden: Balancing Act
Joe Biden has aimed to balance between negotiation and deterrence. His administration has continued to recognize the challenges posed by states like North Korea and Iran but has also sought to re-engage diplomatically, reflecting a nuanced approach that attempts to integrate lessons from past administrations.
“Rogue State” Definition
The term “Rogue State” as used by various U.S. presidents broadly refers to a nation that is:
1. Perceived to systematically violate international norms and standards,
2. engage in aggressive actions that threaten regional or global stability,
3. and often pursue or possess weapons of mass destruction.
This designation is typically applied to countries that are also accused of supporting terrorism and committing human rights abuses within their own borders.
A “Rogue State” 1) systematically violates international norms and standards, 2) engages in aggressive actions that threaten regional or global stability, and 3) often pursue or possess weapons of mass destruction.
“Rogue States” by Definition
Those Non-signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty:
- India
- israel
- Pakistan
- South Sudan
- North Korea
- China (partial)
Those Currently In Violation of multiple UN Resolutions:
- israel
While several countries have outstanding violation of UN Resolution, only one country stands alone by more than doubling the combined world total of UN Resolutions. In 2020 alone, israel was condemned 17 times to the six for the rest of the world.
“Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings. Over the same period, it has passed 68 resolutions against all other countries, UN Watch said.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/
Human Rights Violations:
- Haiti
- Portugal
- North Korea
- South Korea
- Japan
- Morocco
- Saudi Arabia
- Ethiopia
- Yemen
- Tunisia
- China
- Iraq
- israel
- Serbia
https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights
South Africa has officially accused israel of systematic “apartheid” against Palestinians in its case presented to the International Court of Justice.
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
Possessing Nuclear Weapons:
- Russian Federation
- United States
- israel
- China
- France
- United Kingdom
- Pakistan
- India
- North Korea
“Certain fundamental laws, orders, and regulations legally depend on the existence of a “state of emergency,” which has been in effect since Israel’s founding in 1948.”
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/israel-west-bank-and-gaza
Judgement
While it may not be hard for any country to meet any one of the definitions of “Rogue State,” it seems quite difficult for any one country to meet all three parts of the definition, especially when nuclear weapons are considered.
Certainly, per U.S. presidential definition, North Korea deserves the title “Rogue State,” which I assume they wear with honor, adding to their stature.
But if North Korea easily meets the definition of “Rogue State,” than anyone would have to agree that israel deserves the title by more than double the reasons North Korea deserves the title.
Conclusion
While the rhetoric behind the use of “Rogue State” may shift with each presidential administration, the core concept remains a central element in understanding how the U.S. addresses global security challenges. Each president’s approach to these states not only shapes U.S. foreign policy but also influences international relations more broadly, demonstrating the power of presidential rhetoric in global governance.
Therefore, any U.S. president who does not label israel as a “Rogue State,” per the U.S. presidential definition of “Rogue State,” and deal with them accordingly, becomes Complicit to Genocide against the Palestinians.
