- The Debate Daily
- Posts
- Should The Global Community Engage With Rogue States?
Should The Global Community Engage With Rogue States?
Welcome to today’s issue of The Debate Daily!
In today’s email: The term rogue state has increasingly been used over the last few decades to describe countries that pose a particular threat to the West because of their authoritarian regimes, sponsorship of terrorism or abuse of human rights. However, while it easy to label these countries as rogue, it is more difficult to decide what to do about them. Some see them as relatively insignificant international players whose lack of power makes taking them seriously pointless but others believe ostracising will only make them more dangerous.
By Kiran Thomas and Kierat Basi
The Headlines
Trump and Harris Debate: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris met for the first time on the presidential debate stage in Philadelphia on Tuesday night. Even with Trump insisting to have won the debate “by a lot”, Republicans were virtually unanimous that Trump had come off second best.
Renters' Rights Bill: New legislation is set to ensure landlords can't charge tenants more than the advertised rent, aiming to curb bidding wars that drive up costs.
US / Ukraine Weapons Policy: The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken's comments yesterday suggest the U.S. might ease restrictions on Ukraine's use of long-range weapons against Russia, saying the US had “from day one” been willing to adapt its policy.
Debate #008
Should The Global Community Engage With Rogue States?
Engaging with rogue states as serious international players undermines the international consensus which states rely upon for a healthy and peaceful global community. It would therefore be wrong to take them seriously.
Rogue States’ Lack of Influence - Rogue states such as North Korea and Afghanistan exist outside the global systems of trade, diplomacy and wealth exchange. This means they generally lack the soft or hard power to challenge established states or threaten the harmony of intergovernmental organisations (IGOs). The global community’s attention and resources are therefore better directed towards states that lie within international frameworks where the results will be more productive. By strengthening the bonds between rational states, the global community can best protect itself from the unpredictable, but nonetheless minor, threat posed by fringe states.
Taking them seriously legitimises their behaviour and sends a dangerous message to other leaders who do not want to follow international law
Rewards Bad Behaviour - By definition, rogue states cannot be relied upon to follow standard or reasonable codes of conduct. Entering negotiations with them is therefore dangerous as they are unlikely to honour the terms of an agreement. Taking them seriously instead legitimises their behaviour and sends a dangerous message to other leaders who do not want to follow international law. By taking one rogue state seriously, the global community opens itself up to more and more threats from unaccountable outsider states seeking to take advantage of them.
Poor Use of Resources - There is no shortage of issues that the global community faces: extreme poverty, climate change and health crises to name a few. These issues require international cooperation, innovation and resources to be devoted to them for solutions to be found. Engaging with rogue states is an unnecessary and unproductive distraction from these more pressing issues. By focusing on solving the issues faced by those within the international community, rogue states are left increasingly isolated, and global problems are solved more effectively.
However… Rogue states may have dangerous governments or support terrorism but they should nevertheless be taken seriously as ostracisation can lead to irreparable harm.
Consistency in Application - The concept of a rogue state is American and was coined at the end of the Cold War. These states have effectively been blacklisted by the US and generally face condemnation and sanctioning. However, the term is usually only applied to smaller, less powerful states like Cuba and Venezuela as opposed to larger, more powerful states like Russia and China that arguably share the characteristics of rogue states but crucially, are more of a threat to US interests. Therefore, rogue states should be taken seriously too because treating them differently to their more powerful counterparts risks antagonising them.
Ostracising rogue states does little to harm the regime but can instead deter compliance with international law
Makes Cooperation More Likely - Ostracising rogue states does little to harm the regime but can instead deter compliance with international law. Punitive sanctions can lead to further breaches of international law and reduced interest in cooperation rather than stopping the regime. This is evident in Venezuela and Iran where US ostracisation has led to increased anti-American rhetoric and strengthened authoritarian regimes. Iran, for example, has continued to bolster its nuclear stockpiles in the face of US sanctions, increasing international tensions.
3) Reduces Humanitarian Harm - Sanctions intended to curb the behaviour of rogue states typically harm the general population rather than the government. In North Korea, sanctions exacerbated food shortages and health crises, leaving many unemployed. The general population has no say over governance or international policies and may even oppose the actions of their government but they are punished for the actions of leaders who care little about their wellbeing. Not taking them seriously thus does more harm than good.
Summary
While it may not be entirely clear exactly which states should be labelled rogue, the question of how to deal with dangerous and illiberal countries remains. Arguably, it is pointless to take rogue states seriously because historically, no state labelled as rogue has been powerful enough to pose a direct and serious threat to the West as a whole. More pressing issues like climate change world hunger deserve our attention instead. However, it is also crucial to consider how rogue states may react if the West fails to take them seriously. Ostracising them generally makes their leaders more extreme and can increase their hostility to the West. Ultimately, what relationship do we want with these states?
What do you think?
Are there any examples of Western countries behaving like a rogue state?
Is there anything to be gained by identifying states as rogue if the term isn’t applied consistently?
To what extent is cooperation with so-called rogue states necessary for addressing global challenges like climate change and poverty?
What on earth is going on?
Middle Eastern Muslim states have had varying levels of opposition against Israel, and someone has had enough of it. The President of Turkey, Erdoğan, called for an “Islamic” alliance to quash what he believes to be Israeli expansionism.
On the one hand, Turkey’s stance embodies the Palestinian/Hamas side of the conflict and sees Israel as a sworn enemy causing mayhem.
On the other hand, Erdoğan’s statement has to be made in a specific context. Turkey is one of the hotspots for Hamas’ network and opposes Israel as a show of its regional power.
All in all, this statement indicates Turkey’s growing interests in the Israel-Gaza war and its ambition to be the uniting leader of the Middle Eastern Arab World.
Presidential Debate
Following the debate, CNN’s Daniel Dale reported Trump made at least 33 false claims during the debate, but one stood out from the rest.
At one point, in an immediately viral moment, the former president repeated a conspiracy about immigrants in Ohio eating household pets: “They’re eating the dogs… they’re eating the cats… they’re eating… the pets.”
In a poll on our instagram we asked who won the debate and 94% of people voted for Kamala Harris. It is safe to say this was not the night the Trump Campaign would have hoped for.
Do you have friends who’d love The Debate Daily too? Send them the link below to invite them to sign up now!
This newsletter was brought to you by Kiran Thomas, Kierat Basi, Kit Swift, Ozan Selcuk and Daniel Ord
Was this email forwarded to you? Sign up here.
Feedback
If you have have any questions or feedback, feel free to reach out to us directly on any of our social media, or at [email protected]
Reply