Arguments Against Rogue Nation

This scenario was demonstrated during World War II; the Japanese were committing horrendous acts that violated the rights of human beings in foreign countries. These actions could only be stopped if the country lost its military powers, both domestically and in foreign nations. To that end, Japan could only lose its power if it lost the war. The Japanese Imperial Army had taken on horrible crimes and made them the cultural criterion. The army rampaged through China, endorsed human sex trafficking, incorporated slavery, and supported Nazi Germany. A while before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was outraged upon hearing the savagery of Germany and the Japanese Imperial Army. He quickly called for the preparations to build a massive American air force,” only if the residents of East Asia needed America to step in (Wolk). Franklin D. Roosevelt gradually became more and more appalled at the atrocious actions being performed by the Japanese Imperial Army in East Asia, and publicly made it clear that the Axis Powers would be viciously attacked and bombed (Wolk). Over the course of many years, “Japan ‘caused much harm to various countries, largely in Asia, through a reckless war.’” (Kirk). President Roosevelt's response exemplifies the point of stopping a country from harming its citizens through whatever

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

In 1993, the United Nations (UN) attempted to negotiate for a peaceful resolution with Gen. Cedras, which proved unsuccessful. Gen. Cedras would agree to different stipulations, to include stepping down to get the embargo lifted, and each time he would fail to honor his end. In one such incident, with few rounds fired, thugs in his employ forcibly prevented an American ship, the USS Harlan County, from off-loading UN troops intended to retrain the Haitian Army and police force.4 The UN reestablished the embargo, a naval blockade and passed UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 940, authorizing the "application of all necessary means to restore democracy in Haiti".5 This set the planning assets in motion for forcible entry into Haiti.

There are some debates that are put against precautionary principle. One of those debates says that "If precaution applies to everything, precaution would stop all technology in its tracks." This reproach complicates the rational precautionary methodology to policymaking with definite precautionary action. It is incorrect on two bases. Firstly Precautionary principle is not always meant to halting or implementing a ban. It can also mean implying a temporary suspension while further research is steered, calling for checking of technologies and products that are in use already, adapting to safer substitutes, and so forth. Secondly, a wide precautionary approach will boost the growth of better technologies. Using this line, society will accept some technologies while rejecting others. Making uncertainty clear, seeing substitutes, and increasing transparency and the accountability of

The United States being a permanent member of the Security Council could not sit back and watch such a magnitude die in the hands of Aidid. Respect for human rights could only

War is inevitable when nations with an insufficient amount of power in any respect is present, representing a weakness as was evident in the US during the time of the Cuban Revolution. In the past the Cuban Revolution displayed to the world a flaw in the United States’ ability to react to potential disaster. Moreover a later attempt to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro with a force of American trained Cubans failed to prove anymore successful than prior actions. Therefore, only through a strong leader with the ability to make the “right” choices with confidence as well as a calm demeanor can we be better prepared in the event of a domestic or even a world wide disaster.

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his impressive diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” He wielded that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy during the early twentieth century. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him was the superior muscle power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nations ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms within the state. Powerful states employ all the elements of power to include diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and of course military to meet their national objectives. Although one might expect that militarily powerful states regularly triumph over weaker states in matters of war, superior military power does not guarantee a victory. This paper will show that states possessing weaker military power are capable of defeating militarily superior states that struggle to formulate sound military strategies for their armies, fail to generate the required military effectiveness on the battlefield, or cannot overcome the unpredictability of war.

The cholera outbreak in Haiti in the late part of 2010 raised a lot of question within the community and abroad. As the country tried to recover from the horrible devastation of the earthquake. Speculation has arose among many human right organizations within Haiti and internationally that the United Nation (UN) have accidental or purposeful dumped waste in the population’s drinking water. In a short period of time, many were infected or have died from the cholera infection. The ethical dilemma comes from the vulnerability of the Haitian population failed infrastructure and the missed steps in protocol by the UN. While the core value of the UN missions, or any other peace keeping mission to say the least, is to “do not harm”, nonetheless harm

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

Being curious of how the water in Haiti became contaminated, I found this article from the New York time which stated that the United Nation accepts responsibility for the cholera outbreak that killed thousands of people in Haiti. It was reported that the office of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted that the water contamination from feces that caused this devastating epidemic, was in deeded started because of the “United Nation actions” (Katz, 2016). Furthermore, even the deputy spokesman Farhan

So the theory suggests that because democracies externalise their interstate norms, they resolve disputes with other states like them in a peaceful way. Hence domestic inner-state policies influence their foreign policies. However, this proclamation is disputed by C. Layne who argues that the ‘crux’ of this theory is that if the assumption that democracies promote their peaceful inner-state norms and beliefs, then they shouldn’t ever threaten other democracies, especially not in a crisis. I will use the case study of the ‘Trent affair’ to provide evidence of how war was avoided. I will argue that in this case, war was avoided not because of the domestic pacific influence on foreign policy but because of other strategic reasons.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).