Rogue States summary

Throughout history, superpowers have created and maintained their position through force. However, following the destruction of World War II, the 1945 UN Charter outlawed the use of force except for self-defense. The charter was a historic commitment to the idea that sovereignty is a cornerstone of world peace and should be universally respected. The United States, however, has opted to consistently violate the charter and instead follow the example set by its superpower predecessors; it uses the rule of force in pursuit of power. 

In recent years, the US military has directly intervened in Vietnam, Iraq and Kosovo, while also sponsoring brutal state violence in countries such as Indonesia, Turkey, Columbia, Croatia, and, before they changed their minds, Iraq. Whether the United States is pointing the weapons or just paying for them, the drastic human effects remain the same. 

Contrary to media and official rhetoric, the United States’ interventions abroad are not driven by moral superiority. The United States seems to feel obliged to intervene in certain conflicts, whereas others are completely disregarded. This discrepancy begs the question, what really drives intervention? The answer, inevitably, is economic interest.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States’ government has focused on opening global markets and implementing wider neoliberal reforms abroad. This Washington Consensus is promoted in order to create optimum conditions for large US corporations to generate profit.

Official Western rhetoric describes the post-Cold War era as a glorious US-led new age in which freedom, democracy and human rights prevail. This emotional rhetoric works as a powerful tool in legitimizing US foreign policy.

However, when US foreign policy is considered as a whole, it becomes clear that any commitment to morality is plain rhetoric.

The mainstream news media act as an important link between the government and public. The way the media report and frame foreign and domestic policy decisions determine how the public perceives them.

In order for the US government to maintain the public support for their wholly self-interested foreign policy, they must maintain the façade domestically and internationally that their actions stem from strong morality and an obligation to protect the world. While government rhetoric and propaganda play a key role in this, the media hold even greater weight as an ‘objective’ commentator.

In theory, international law is meant to play much the same role in the international arena as domestic law does in the domestic arena. Largely formulated after the Second World War, international law is a tool to punish states that act unilaterally to disrupt peace and security.

However, as the sole global superpower, the United States frequently chooses to ignore international law when its confines prove inconvenient for foreign policy goals. In the wake of the illegal US-backed Indonesian invasion of East Timor, the United States UN ambassador shed light on the United States’ disdain of the United Nations: ‘The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective... I carried this forward with no inconsiderable success.’

The ruthless pursuit of power and financial gain by successive US governments are not without human consequence: the losers are many and the benefactors few.

Through direct illegal military interventions and indirect support for brutal regimes, the United States has — in pursuing its own ends — violated the basic human rights of countless innocent people. Furthermore, many countries that are desperately in need of support but cannot contribute to US interests are ignored. In addition, the vast majority of developing countries, desperate for income, are burdened with ‘odious’ debt originating from Washington. This debt carries conditions that solely serve US interests as opposed to those of the debtor states, ultimately making their development intricately tied to the United States.

The post-Cold War era has been characterized by almost complete neoliberal globalization, under which markets are free to run with little intervention from governments. The unregulated nature of this economic system, along with the sheer power wielded by those with money, has created a world in which markets and large corporations reign supreme and dictate the political and economic landscape for the majority of the world.

The problem is that large corporations are by no means democratic institutions, and markets have little interest outside of financial growth and capital gain. As such, the current world order is one in which the small number of individuals leading those companies, largely based in one country and interested solely in their own ends, dictate the fate of the global majority. Freedom, democracy, sovereignty and human rights are of little concern in a world ruled by market forces.