"Rogue state" is a term that's used to
refer to countries that are deemed to be
violating acceptable norms of
international behavior, or are considered
a threat to international peace and
security in some way--to countries that
are either state sponsors of terrorism,
or are developing nuclear weapons or
other weapons of mass destruction, or are
extremely repressive of their own
citizens and violate human rights.
Rogue states are almost always authoritarian.
They're either adversaries of the United States
or opposed to U.S. interests in
some way. Beyond that, though, there are
considerable variations. The term "rogue
state" has no standing in international
law. It's primarily a U.S. term.
The term "rogue state" gained real currency in the
1990s during the Clinton administration.
Before then, other terms have been used
for more or less the same group of
countries. The Reagan administration used
the term "outlaw states." The first Bush
administration used the term "renegade
states." Sometimes you hear the term
"outlier state" or "pariah state," usually
used when the country is in massive
violation of human rights. "States of
concern" is another term. One of the first
with Iran in the 1980s, following
the revolution, and then Iraq and Sudan.
In the 1990s, Serbia, the former
Yugoslavia, was designated a rogue country.
North Korea is currently seen as a rogue
player in some ways. The term "rogue state"
was banned by the State Department
in 2000 because it was not considered a
useful policy framework to guide U.S.
foreign policy. But then it was
resurrected through the famous "axis of
evil" speech in 2002, and it has been sort
of resurrected somewhat since then.
The principal interest of the United States
with rogue countries is to prevent
them from becoming sponsors of terrorist
acts. The other big concern is the
possible proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. A third area is
concern for their citizens, who live in
very repressive situations. There are
several challenges that confront the
United States in dealing with a rogue
state. By exerting more pressure on them,
you can actually strengthen them
domestically; they can use it to generate
support publicly, to point to the United States
as the Great Satan, as it was in
the Iranian case. You can reduce your own
leverage to influence policies in those
countries. When you designate a country
a rogue state it could put you at
odds with your partners and allies.
Cuba is a case in point. Whenever you design a
policy toward a rogue state you do have
to believe that it will actually be
effective in changing the behavior of
the country. But often you have to think
about the unintended consequences.
There're always countries that are
engaged in activities that you find to
be abhorrent or against U.S. interests, and I
think the main takeaway is that we have to
have much more nuanced policies toward
those countries because once you
demonize them,
it makes it difficult to design focused,
targeted policies that you might want to
change. You are locking yourself into a
designation that may frankly make it
much harder for you down the road.