 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 3 - 9 August 2000 Issue No. 493 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 3 - 9 August 2000 Issue No. 493
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Rogues with a cause
By Salama Ahmed Salama
American foreign policy has always forged expressions -- introducing adjectives and adjuncts into the discourse of international and diplomatic dealings -- to justify adding its rivals to the list of "hostile states." These states, the American political apparatus seeks to isolate from the international community, subject to punishments and even rally negative feelings against if necessary.
Among such terms is the expression "rogue state." Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba are among those declared "rogue states" by America. Though the expression is not without a certain provocative edge, in its application there is such simplicity and ease of use that it is enough for any ruler to seek to, or actually possess, any form of (chemical, biological or nuclear) arms -- or even to possess the electronic means to penetrate into computer and information networks in a way that presents a threat to America -- in order for his state to be added to the list of "rogue states," states that belong in the Empire of Evil and deserve punishment.
American policy has implemented this theory on a remarkably extensive scale, involving in most cases a violation of the dictates of international justice. The most obvious example of this was Iraq, on which America and Britain imposed a number of punishments and an economic embargo, both of which transcend the framework of international law and UN resolutions.
American and British military aircraft continue to bombard Iraqi sites on a nearly daily basis until the present time, making no distinction between military and civilian targets -- the excuse being that Iraq is a rogue state. But there is no reason why, in the light of such definitions, hundreds of women and children should be killed, houses and villages destroyed and (Arab and international) voices silenced, having conceded American political conceptions and justifications.
Finally Madeleine Albright, the American secretary of state, announced that the policy of "rogue states" has achieved its aims. These states are no longer "rogue states," but merely "states of concern," no longer quite as obnoxious and definitely somewhat improved. And to qualify the statement, America referred to the alteration in Libya's position regarding the question of Lockerbie, to the democratic transformation in Iran and North Korea's newfounded affinities with South Korea.
It is obvious any change in terms and utterances aims to justify what change might occur in American foreign policies towards these states, and to renounce policies that have been proved unsuccessful in that they did not realise their objectives. With the exception of Iraq (whose nuclear, and other, capabilities were promptly destroyed in the context of the great conspiracy of the Gulf War), other rogue states, or states of concern, continue to hold on to their arms, their missiles and nuclear capabilities. And America will not be able to dispossess them of these arms, as it did with Iraq. Most probably this is the real reason behind America embarking on a new missile-defence system that has generated much controversy.
Such an attitude might engender an international armament race, but at the same time the fact that these countries retain possession of weapons of mass destruction still justifies the presence of American military bases in the Gulf region and American troops in the Korean peninsula.
