Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out Radio Far Side. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.

18.6.13

Dark Pots And Black Kettles

"Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.[4] The term is used most by the United States, though the US State Department officially quit using the term in 2000.[5] However, it has been applied by other countries as well.[6]"

As the old saying goes, "If the shoe fits, wear it."

One assumes that the US "officially" stopped using the term 'rogue state' because it was becoming a bit obvious that the definition was a bit too close to home.  One tends to look a bit silly when one is a leper condemning lepers.  The tactic works for a while: pointing the finger at others to keep folks from looking at you.  Eventually, though, the ruse wears thin and people stop looking the other way.

The definition says that a 'rogue state' is characterized by an authoritarian regime.  We not that an online dictionary defines 'authoritarian' as:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an  [uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-]  adjective1.  favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2.  of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3.  exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

Favoring complete obedience or subjection?  Might that include federal agents raiding marijuana vendors in states where the laws clearly state that the practice is legal?  Or how about warrantless searches, tasering citizens for looking cross-eyed at police, or indefinite detention without trial or access to legal defense?  Perhaps the idea that personal freedom is subject to law at all, rather than a gift and state of Nature?

Certainly, having TSA, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, marshals, and any of a couple dozen other armed extralegal agencies running around subjugating the population using various means would seem to fit the definition of 'authoritarian' quite readily.

So how about sponsoring terrorism?  This is a tricky one because terrorism depends heavily on who is defining the term.  The founders of the US could easily be called terrorists by the British.  The North American native peoples might have thought of the US cavalry as terrorists.  Clearly, the Assad government considers the rebels to be terrorists, and they are openly supported by the US.  The long, sad history of CIA involvement in political coups, assassinations and other nefarious acts would qualify that agency as a terrorist group.

We can't forget the US-led blockades against multiple nations.  The denial of basic food, medicine and energy to entire nations, civilian and military alike, easily falls under the definition of 'terrorism', since the desired effect is to frighten the citizenry into predefined actions, such as overturning legitimately seated governments.  The US itself has considered blockades (British, Confederate, etc.) as acts of 'terrorism' and war against itself.  'No-fly zones' might be included here, as they deny the basic right of humans to defend themselves against attack.

It would seem that from the point of view of a great number of people, the US sponsors terrorism.

How about seeking to proliferate weapons of mass destruction?  Again, we turn to our online dictionary to check the definition of 'proliferate':

pro·lif·er·ate  [pruh-lif-uh-reyt]  verb (used without object), verb1.  to grow or produce by multiplication of parts, as in budding or cell division, or by procreation.
2.  to increase in number or spread rapidly and often excessively.

By most accounts (Nazi research aside), the US invented both the uranium and hydrogen bombs, easily the most destructive devices ever conceived by Man.  The US, as far as we know, is also the only country to have used them in warfare.  The US has designed and/or developed a great number of chemical and biological weapons, such as ricin, anthrax, LSD, and many others, and performs research, manufacturing and storage of these weapons.

As for the US Army's willingness to use them, we need look no further than the infamous smallpox blankets distributed to native Americans and the Army's refusal to provide vaccines to stop the epidemic.  While that is only the best documented event, there is substantial evidence that the US has deployed chemical and biological agents on numerous other occasions.  Among them is the use of psychotropic chemicals by the CIA when researching various forms of psychological warfare.

We also know that the US has the stated goal, if not the ability at this point, to weaponize weather, which may be considered mass destruction.  The document AF 2025 Final Report is widely available online.  There is a large body of research that points to the HAARP device and a related network of arrays across North America are used in active research, at the very least, and actual weather modification, at the most extreme.

Finally, the US and its military-industrial complex are the largest producers of military hardware on the planet.  Together, they also constitute the largest arms dealer on said planet.  The weapons manufactured and sold by this consortium include both 'smart' (highly targeted) and mass weapons.

We come now to the final part of the 'rogue state' definition: 'considered threatening to world peace'.

The US has military bases and/or personnel on active duty in at least 130 countries around the world, according to Ron Paul.  There are just over 200 recognized, sovereign states in the world.  That's about 65% of the world actively occupied by the US military.  Only Germany, as far as any credible information goes, has a reciprocal base in North America.

The US is also actively involved in nearly all of the major conflicts on Earth at this time.  Whether it is Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, or South/Central America, the US has a significant role in ongoing military situations there.

Combined, these facts would seem to strongly imply that the US is a major threat to world peace.  All euphemistic terms, obfuscations and excuses aside, the production and distribution of arms, the occupation of more than half of the world's nations, and active research into weapon technology, both smart and mass, as well as a history of willingness to use all of the above to subdue people, both foreign and domestic, defines a threat to world peace.

Regardless of whether the US has 'officially' abandoned the term 'rogue state', it did at one time actively use the term and had a significant role in defining it.  The ongoing revelations of egregious violations of individual liberties by the US against its own people, much less those of other countries, is the hallmark of despotism.  The use of multiple government agencies to subdue and forcefully rule people is the very definition of authoritarian.

History teaches us that these kinds of states end badly for all concerned.  From Rome to the Soviet Union, authoritarianism contains its own destruction by denying people their most basic desires of freedom, peace and privacy.  Eventually, whether from within, outside or a combination of the two, these types of regimes are dismantled.  It is a fact with many examples throughout world history.

In the extant case, history must serve as a cautionary tale to both the leaders and population of the US.  While these types of regimes may exist and even prosper for a time, at some point an equal and opposite force will arise.  It is one of the fundamental laws of Nature.  The historical models also tell us that the fall of these regimes is very painful for many, especially the innocent caught both by surprise and in the middle of the conflict.

It is therefore incumbent on the American people to check the unbridled expansion of the current paradigm, for it is the American people who will suffer the most should the worst-case scenario occur.  Authoritarian regimes often end with the occupation and forceful dismantling of the state's apparatus.  It is better that the American people handle this themselves, obviously, to preserve some order and ensure a way of life to their liking.

One of the hardest things to admit is that your own country is neither moral nor ethical.  We all like to think that we are a force for good in the world.  But we must look at these things objectively and examine the results obtained by those acting in our name.  It is a common fallacy to say that the ends justify the means.  Peace is not achieved through war, and order is not drawn from chaos without without an incredible amount of energy being put into the equation.

None of this is to say that the US is the only rogue state, but it is the largest and most threatening.  No political structure has ever been conceived that is so good that it must be foisted on the rest of the world by force.  One catches far more flies with honey than with salt.

The American people have many peaceful, even passive, tools at their disposal to change the direction their leaders have chosen for them.  Violence is not an answer, for it only begets more violence.  Nor is this to say that unenlightened anarchy is an answer.  It can be as simple as an overwhelming majority openly and actively refusing to participate in elections.  There can be not claim to legitimacy in a democracy if a large majority of the electorate refuse to participate on moral and ethical grounds.

Though only one example, the reader is more than able to discern a dozen other such actions that would have immediate effect on both the existence and perception of a rogue state.  The key here is that rogue states are geared to absorb and expel violence.  By approaching the problem this way is to invite certain defeat.  They are, however, incapable of understanding peaceful initiatives.  To them, all the world is a nail for which they only conceive of hammers.

Only when the people stop participating in their own subjugation will things change.