Is The U.S. A Rogue Nation ?

By Dennis Barbour

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been talk by the United States and its allies about “rogue nations”. These rogue nations have replaced the Soviet Union in the role as the international threat to world security. The question remains, what is the definition of a rogue state? Is it blatant disregard for norms of the international community, such as human rights, state sovereignty, and international governing bodies like the United Nations or the International Criminal Court? Is it the threat of state supported terrorism? The combinations of all of these factors appear to be the working definition used today to determine rogue nations. If these criteria are strictly adhered to, a startling conclusion can be reached. The United States, with its disregard of International law, multiple violations of state sovereignty, violations of human rights within its borders and abroad, and a history of state sponsored terrorism is increasingly becoming a rogue nation itself. U.S. foreign policy is riddled with examples of U.S. exeptionalism, such as the rejection of almost every International Court ruling that has been brought against the U.S. This American exception to international responsibility is crystallized by the Connally reservation. This gives the U.S. the right to reject any decisions because the situation is under U.S. jurisdiction, which allows the United States to act in any way it sees fit. The United State’s adoption of at times a strictly unilateral policy towards international intervention has also helped to codify the United States as the new supreme superpower. Unfortunately the abuse of this ”untouchable” status for U.S. economic and political advancement, has given the United States the International Persona not of the “shining city on the hill” but instead the “shining empire on the hill”.

UNIITED STATES AND THE UNITED NATIONS

The United States has historically disregarded the United Nations in matters of national interest. This undermining of U.N. policy can be seen from it inception. The United States played a huge role in writing human rights into the U.N. charter in 1945, however they also “took the lead in insisting that this language be general” (Forsythe 204). Other nations pushed for more binding language that would in effect make violations punishable through court action. However, as David P. Forsythe mentions “the Truman administration, knowing that the United States was still a racially segregated society in the 1940’s, and fearful that particularly powerful senators from the U.S. south might scuttle consent for the U.N”, refused more precise language (Forsythe 204). This trend was seen again in 1948 with the creation of the Universal declaration of Human Rights, and Washington’s insistence that the declaration “was a non-binding General Assembly resolution “(Forsythe 204). Another example of U.S. undermining can be seen in the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. The U.N. called for an immediate withdrawal but its request went unheeded. The main reason is that United States, who backed the Suharto regime to strengthen U.S. control over the Indo-China economy, blocked the U.N. at every step. In fact according to the then American U.N. Ambassador Danial Patrick Moynihan: "The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffectual in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success. (Chomsky 2)" This is not only an isolated instance but is evidence of a formal policy of the United States. One just has to look at the number of U.N. Security Council Vetoes per nation, with an overwhelmingly large number of vetoes from the United States. As Noam Chomsky points out, “The more general principle is that if an international organization does not serve the interests that govern U.S. policy, there is little reason to allow it to survive”. (Chomsky 3) The U.S not only tends to undermine the U.N. through political support but in economic support as well. The United States still refuses to pay back dues in which it owes over $1.07 billion dollars (Singer 198). This amount does not include the amount of $582 million that congress allowed to be paid in back dues after September 11. The United States is also often at odds with the legislation of the United Nations. The United Nations conference on Environment and Development was held in 1992 to “call for green house gasses to be stabilized at safe levels” (Singer 21). When developing nations asked to include the “Over-Consumption of resources by developed countries”, George Bush Sr. objected by stating that, “the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation” (Singer 2). This was a precursor to the actions of George W. Bush in 1997 when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol, creating an uproar in the international community including the U.S.’ major ally, the United Kingdom.Human rights legislation is also another international arena that the United States often rejects. The International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination created in 1965 still to this day has not been ratified by the United States. One year later two more human rights covenants namely, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights, were introduced. They became ratified in 1977 by “a sufficient number of national governments, but again, not by the United States” (Barash & Webel 445). Indeed if one looks at the state of civil rights in the United States in 1965, you can easily begin to see why they have not been ratified. The unofficial policy towards human rights can be seen in the comments made by the U.S. strategic planner George Kennan in 1948:“We have 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to maintain this position of disparity. To do this we have to dispense with all sentimentality, we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization”(Pilger101).American attitudes towards the international criminal court has fared no better.

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT

Historically the United States Government “formally agreed to refer all of its international disputes to the international court of justice” in 1946 (Barash & Webel 379). However, in true exceptionalist fashion, the U.S. Senate attached what is called the Connally reservation. The Connally reservation stipulates, “That the world court will not have authority over any disputes that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America as determined by the United States of America” (Barash & Webel 379). Plainly put it exempts the U.S. from the jurisdiction of the International Court. This reservation would prove to become indispensable in the pursuit of American foreign interest. The Effect of the Connally reservation can be seen in almost every case in which the International Court has ruled against the United States. Each one of these rulings are met by the United states either by silence or by the declaration of illegal jurisdiction. When the International court ruled in favor of Nicaragua in 1986 on the case concerning illegal military and paramilitary activities by the United States, the International Court received no reply from the United States. Realizing the futility of the decision and fearing more retribution from the United States, Nicaragua sent an agent to “inform the court that his government had decided to renounce all further right of action on the case and did not wish to go on with the proceedings.”(Nicaragua V. U.S.A 5). It is interesting to note that the U.S. did break the silence to “inform the court that the United States welcomed the Nicaraguan request for discontinuance of the proceedings” (Nicaragua V. U.S.A. 5). The United Nations response to the blatant disregard for international law, was to propose a Security Council resolution that called for ‘all states to observe international law” (Chomsky 4). However, with its veto power the United States quickly blocked this resolution from being passed. The Nicaraguan case is just one of many such as Paraguay vs. U.S.A, Iran vs. U.S.A, Germany vs. U.S.A, and many others, that again establish the United States claim to be above the reach of international law. The International Court has slowly been able to grow stronger despite U.S. interference. A governing statute was passed for a new international court in 1998. This gave the court the ability to bring to court accused citizens of any country for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Predictably, the U.S. has refused to sign. However, the United States has also started a policy of strong-arm tactics in order to refuse aid to countries that support this new court. Human Rights Watch has published reports specifically condemning the United States for withholding “military assistance from 35 democratic countries because of their resistance to bilateral immunity agreements” (Flattau 1). According to Isaac Flattau of HRW, “These agreements are not only contrary to article 98(2) of the ICC treaty but also to international law” (Flattau 1).One question does arise when looking at the United States record on upholding International law. Why won’t the U.S. comply? The former Secretary of Defense William Cohen gave an interesting answer. According to Cohen, “the U.S. is committed to the unilateral use of power to defend vital interest, which include, ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources” (Chomsky 6).Cohen statements give quite an insight into the real reasons behind a lot of what the United States does internationally whether it is in the protection of human rights or international law.

U.S. VIOLATIONS OF STATE SOVERIGNTY AND STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM

The description of the United States foreign policy given by William Cohen can also be seen as an adequate critique of The United States policy of intervention. The United States government has sought repeatedly to displace or otherwise influence nations uncooperative to the American agenda with force. The interventions in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Indonesia are only a few examples. The United States has also committed various acts of terrorism in the name of U.S. security. One glaring example of the U.S. history of foreign intervention is the Suharto regime in Indonesia. Suharto’s predecessor, Achmed Sukarno was a populist who came to power after Indonesia won its Independence. Sukarno created what he called a “guided parliamentary democracy”, encouraged trade unions, women’s organizations, and peasant organizations. However, his mistake was to encourage his people to “challenge British and American influence in the region” (Pilger 31). The threat of loosing one of the richest sources of metal ores and other essential commodities was too great a threat to the United States and Great Britain. According to a CIA memo, “Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and president John Kennedy had agreed to liquidate President Sukarno, depending on the situation and available opportunities”(Pilger 30). With a combination of propaganda and General Suharto’s death squads, the coup was successful. The death toll was placed anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million deaths during the coup. Unfortunately, after the pro-American Suharto took power, the death tolls continued while Suharto compiled “one of the worst human rights records of the modern era”(Chomsky 3). The fact that the U.S finally changed allegiances after Suharto’s genocide in East Timor does not cover the fact that the United States made all of these deaths possible. There is no doubt that the Sovereignty of Sukarno’s government was violated. This pattern is familiar to a long series of situations including the regimes of Allende, Tujillo, Mubutu, Marcos, Hussein, Noriega, and many others. State sovereignty is of no real importance when compared to the omnipotent American agenda.The role of the United States as a terrorist state can be exemplified by a 1995 report by the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM). The study of “Post Cold War Deterrence” was produced in response to the fall of the Soviet Union. It addressed the role that the United States should now take to ensure national security. Along with the usual call for nuclear deterrents, STRATCOM also made some startiling suggestions. Primarily STRATCOM suggested that the United States “appear to be out of control” (Chomsky 7). They go on to explain that the fact “that the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project” (Chomsky 7). One may be lead to ask how would a state project itself as “irrational and vindictive”. The two modes of delivering this policy according to STRATCOM is of course the use of nuclear deterrence and what they called ‘creative deterrence”. STRATCOM suggested one particular example as a perfect model:"When Soviet citizens were kidnapped and killed in Lebanon, the Soviets delivered to the leader of the revolutionary activity a package containing a single testicle—that of his eldest son.” (Chomsky 7) This unconcealed approval of the use of tactics that at best would be called terrorism, would be right at home with any of the regimes that the U.S has labeled as the “Axis of evil”. In fact, some of the worst terrorist attacks pre September 11 involved the United States direct or indirect involvement. The murder of 80 Lebanese in a 1985 car bombing orchestrated by the CIA was the worst terrorist attack of the year, which is saying a lot given the year. There is also the U.S. “Destruction of half the pharmaceutical supplies of a poor African country (Sudan) in 1998”, the death toll of which was never determined due to the United States block of an U.N. inquiry(Chomsky 10).
The United States has always prided it self as being the self-proclaimed leader of the free world. Now with the War on Terror in full force, Americans have a new enemy to patriotically and sometimes unquestiongly fight. The only problem is that this new enemy has no real name or face. This allows less than sincere government officials to put whatever face they see fit to this invisible enemy and use it to further economic and political agendas under the guise of national security. Brigadier-General William Looney, the director of the bombing missions in Iraq, eloquently proves this point. When asked about the U.S. policy in Iraq he answered:"They know we own their country, we dictate the way they live and talk. And that’s what’s great about America right now. It is a good thing, especially when there’s a lot of oil out there we need. (Pilger 49)" The opportunity for the United States to become a rogue nation is greater now than it ever was. With no real check to military power and an international policy that fears no international organization or state, it is easy to see the United States as just as dangerous to the international community as any of the U.S appointed rogue states. Saddam Hussein ignored countless U.N. resolutions, so has the United States. Hussein violated human rights, and used chemical weapons against the Kurds, just as the United States has violated human rights of other countries such as Nicaragua and Cuba and used weapons of mass destruction on both Vietnam and Japan. Just as Saddam violated state sovereignty in an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, so did the U.S in Panama in 1989. The question of what makes a rogue state becomes increasingly more difficult when you hold all nations including the United States up to the same standards. Perhaps the only criterion the United States does not have in common with other rogue nations is non-compliance with the United States. The hypocritical policies fueled by U.S. exceptionalism are not only a national character flaw but also an increasingly dangerous international position. The lack of international support in the invasion of Iraq is a perfect example of the alienation that is being felt by many international communities. The fact is with globalization and technological advances such as the internet, the distance across the Atlantic and Pacific that once buffered the U.S. from the rest of the world is growing smaller. International policy must be changed if only for the sake of national security. As more groups throughout the world continue to become disillusioned with the United States, membership in terrorist groups will continue to grow. The United States must work with International bodies such as the United Nations and the ICC not based on what America can economically gain from the relationship, but on the principles that our constitution was founded on. The United States must treat every humanitarian intervention not as an opportunity to further the interests of the U.S. but as an opportunity to further the interests of human rights. If this does not change, the United States “risks falling into a situation in which it is universally seen by everyone except its own self-satisfied citizens as the world’s rogue superpower’ (Singer 199). Some may say that this is not a problem because the United States is strong enough to take care of itself. However to see the error of this, one must remember the quote from Hugo Grotius:“There is no state so powerful that it may not sometime need the help of others outside of itself, either for purposes of trade, or even to ward of the forces of many foreign nations united against it”(Grotius 17) With the United States budget and military force being spread very thin by the war on terror, now more than ever Grotius is proven right.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bibliography

Barash, David and Charles Webel. Peace and Conflict Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, 2002

Chomsky, Noam. Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs.Cambridge: South End Press, 2000

Flattau, Isaac. (2003) U.S. Punishes Latvia in Campaign Against theICC. Human Rights Watch . Http://www.hrw.org(2003, September 6)

Forsythe, David P. “Human Rights: From Low to High Politics in International Relations” The Global Agenda.Ed. Charles Kegly (2002)

Germany v. United States of America, International Court of JusticeNovember 13-17 2000

Grotius, Hugo. The Law of War and Peace. New York: Bobbs-MerrillCompany

Islamic Republic of Iran v. U.S.A. , International Court of Justice(1989)

Nicaragua v. U.S.A . International Court of JusticeJune 27 1986

Paraguay v. United States of America. International Court of JusticeApril 3 1998

Pilger, John. The New Rulers of the World. New York: Verso publications, 2002

Singer, Peter One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002

© 2005