The Far Horizon: Rogues, runts and rats
UPI, May 18
By HARLAN ULLMAN
WASHINGTON, May 18 (UPI) -- When is a state a "rogue"? And when is a rogue
merely a "runt" or a "rat" elevated to this higher status by excess rhetoric
or an exaggerated sense of danger? The answers will help define the future
success or failure of United States foreign policy for some time to come.
Both Presidents Clinton and Bush have been publicly preoccupied with
certain relatively small states ruled by despots and dictators of
unpredictable and unsavory behavior, whose interests clashed with those of
the United States. What distinguished these characters as rogues, however,
was the temptation of nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction
and, at some future date, a potential capacity for using or threatening
their use against the United States and its friends.
Iraq, Iran and North Korea are America's current principal rogues with
Libya and Cuba junior rogues in waiting. China and Russia form separate
categories of worry at least for the time being. The Clinton team softened
the term rogue to states of concern. The Bush administration prefers the
former along with tougher talk. Hence, missile defense has been promised
higher priority, in part to keep the rogues in line.
But why are these states "rogues"? What about them is so threatening? And
why is the United States virtually alone not only in condemning them but in
spending a great deal of political capital to isolate them? Or is it
possible that these rogues are merely runts and rats promoted above their
stations?
North Korea's Kim Jong Il has moved from hermit and recluse to
international bon vivant. He danced with former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright, impressed his Chinese hosts in Beijing and, most recently, charmed
- yes, charmed -- a senior delegation from the European Union including its
chief of security and foreign policy, former NATO Secretary-General Javier
Solana. Kim promised to continue a moratorium on testing long-range missiles
but not to restrain arms sales that he said were important funding sources
for an enfeebled economy -- reasons not very different from other states
whose annual arms sales run in the billions of dollars. In return, the EU
has just recognized North Korea.
Recent reports from North Korea predict another harsh year of famine.
While the North Korean Army remains large, Kim's country is poor and
starving. Hence, is North Korea more runt than rogue?
Iraq is still a nagging reminder of the limits to American power.
Contained, embargoed and occasionally bombed by the remnants of the allied
coalition that won Desert Storm, Iraq refuses to yield to U.S. pressure.
Indeed, Saddam Hussein is a desert phoenix gaining in political strength as
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American frustration with Iraq worsen.
But isn't Saddam more rat than rogue nibbling off opportunities created by
American policy and attitudes?
The more interesting case is Iran. A large state with huge oil reserves,
it is also a fledging Islamic republic. Its public turns out in large
numbers to vote and elect a president even though the clerics have the final
say in making the laws and rules. That reality may be gently changing
especially if Mohammed Khatami is re-elected president.
Iran has legitimate grievances against the United States. Almost 50 years
ago, the United States contributed to overthrowing the Mossadegh government
and bringing back the shah and then supported his repressive regime for
another quarter of a century. During the extended war against Iraq in the
1980s, America was a de facto ally of Saddam's. And, in 1987, a U.S. warship
shot down an Irani airliner killing nearly 300 civilian passengers for which
no apology was given even though the United States was flagrantly at fault.
On the other hand, the United States has not forgotten the seizing of its
embassy in Tehran in 1979 and the year and a half long captivity of 54 of
its citizens, most carrying diplomatic immunity.
When the Soviet Union imploded, Mikhail Gorbachev asked what the United
States would do now that the threat had been taken away from it? To some,
China may replace the Soviet Union as the long-term strategic competitor and
threat. For the short term, "rogues" have that assignment (while Libya's
Gadhafi and Cuba's Castro are irritants and not actual dangers even if Libya
resells U.S. oil leases to non-American companies).
For psychological and political reasons, the United States may require an
enemy or enemies to rein in the centrifugal and divisive byproducts of its
government and to rally the nation. Still, the United States could end up
turning a runt or a rat into a real rogue. That would be very unfortunate
especially since more appropriate remedies are at hand.
(Harlan Ullman is a UPI columnist.) |
