Rogue States against Puppet States
How can a state be defined as a rogue one? This definition was given by Ronald Reagan first, in an attempt to describe states which caused a headache to the United States, for possesing their own ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons.
Very soon Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Libya and North Korea were given the title "rogue state", so that the west would make it more than clear that they caused a threat to the rest of the world.
But what is important here to notice, is that even under Ahmadinejad, Iran's most unreasonable and harsh leader, who's successor is today's leader Ruhani, the Islamic Democracy of Iran, showed an extremely careful policy, in the use of nuclear weapons. In other words, if Iran (considering its external policy on nuclear power and only that) was willing to demonstrate power and act unreasonably, it could have done it. But it didn't.
Iran and all the other "rogue states", simply want to show to the rest of the world that they have a voice. And in order to do that, international politics dictates, that states must be a potential threat. And no state can be a threat without nuclear weapons.
But it is the "strong" west which defines who must be a threat and who shouldn't. For the west, it is ok when a "civilized" western power posseses nuclear weapons, which undeniably knows how to use it and gain profit from them, but it is not acceptable, when a non-western power enters the international arena with that "asset".
So, rogue states are defined by western ideology, and it is the western ideology which still defines what is "good" and what is "bad". We are still living in a world where mainstream diffusion of ideas and public opinion is formed by the western states and in the western states. And if one takes a closer look to the recent historical facts, all those so-called "rogue states" acted exactly like their western counterparts concerning the use of nuclear weapons.
Sometimes when negotiations remain stale, or when the anticipated progress, or an expected turnout proves intangible, a nuclear show-off starts, with testings of nuclear weapons in new nuclear infrastructures, but that is a communication game most of the times.
The distressing thing in this story, is that many people believe that these states "rogue states", actually are a threat. And they never get to think, that it all has to do with a game of power, or they never pay attention to the fact that it is always the west that defines and is in the saddle. Western invasions are always faced under the argument of "humanitarian goals" and people have learned to accept that.
And the world's public opinion is more peaceful in mind, when "rogue states" become "puppet states", controlled by the western superpowers, and thus the game is played, ruled and dictated by the popular western states.
A great example on this is the new president of Mexico Lopez Obrador, who succeded the most corrupted Enrique Pena Nieto. Lopez Obrador, appears exactly with the same promising profile as the previous president, ensuring people about forthcoming changes in finance, health, education, corruption. He is presented by international media as a rising star in politics, trying to trasform the internal political scene in Mexico and clear corruption. But except for being promoted by the international media, what will he finally do for his country, other than struggling to have the best relations he can with the west, be their "puppet", and "carress their hand"?
And by this, i am not implying that holding an extrovert profile towards the outer world, is a bad thing. Not at all. We live in an open world, we should be interactive, there is no progress, no action, no nothing without interaction.
But we should be aware of the difference between interaction, a puppet state with no agenda, a state willing to play the western (domineering) game for personal profit, and a country that chooses (even if we agree or not with all its political agenda, or we agree upon nothing) to play a role more than obeying, and to possess the same weapons and voice with its counterparts, simply because it craves to be heard and respected as equal.
written by Themis Panagiotopoulou, PhD in Political Science