Abstract:

With the passage of the cold war, the United States increasingly focused its attention on threats posed by states it categorizes as 'rogues.' This label was given to a disparate group of countries – including Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and, oddly, Cuba – considered by American policy-makers to support terrorism, pursue weapons of mass destruction, oppose the existence of Israel and Middle East peace, and vilify the United States. With few exceptions, the United States has sought to use punitive policies such as sanctions, military force, and covert action to compel these regimes to change their behavior. Although the record of these policies of punishment in achieving US goals is far from impressive, American policy-makers have struggled to offer more promising strategies. This article argues that one of the greatest obstacles to exploring alternative policies is the concept of 'rogue' states itself. A flawed and subjective term, the 'rogue' label is useful in fomenting domestic US opposition to these states, but effectively excludes less confrontational approaches, such as engagement, from the matrix of plausible policy options.


To read the full text in french