American and European intellectuals, along with their ruling and non-ruling elites, continue to define the nature of the state according to their own requirements within the parameters of development. The conceptualisations of terms such as “developed countries,” “underdeveloped countries,” the “developed North” and “underdeveloped South,” “Third World countries,” “developing countries,” “African and Asian states,” “modern states,” “secular states,” “religious states,” “terror-sponsoring states,” “narco states,” “failed states,” “criminal states,” and “rogue states” form part of these conceptual narratives. They are constructed on the basis of different parameters and shaped by ideological orientations.
Many of these narratives were developed to criticise post-colonial states and non-Westphalian states and to construct an “other” that supposedly requires modernisation, aid, and other forms of support for development. Such a colonial framework, along with its so-called civilising mission, continues to survive within contemporary knowledge traditions. These traditions shape debates on the “rogue state” and help sustain dominant narratives about the nature and character of states across the world, often serving to justify interventions in the name of combating crime, containing terrorism, ensuring regional stability, promoting peace and democracy, protecting human rights, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, and curbing narcotics trafficking.
The notion of the “rogue state” has been central to American elites in shaping US foreign policy during and after the Cold War, later during the Global War on Terror, and in contemporary wars justified in the name of destroying nuclear programmes or exporting democracy under the banner of human rights and women’s rights. In many cases, these military interventions have involved attempts to change political regimes to make them more compatible with American corporate interests and to secure access to oil, gas, and other natural resources.
Such a framework of geopolitical competition derives part of its ideological lineage from racial capitalism, which creates and sustains a system in which the “other,” deemed undeveloped, must be civilised and democratised—even if this requires military interventions and wars. If the ruling elites of the so-called “rogue states” compromise with American and European ruling elites, Western powers often form partnerships even with authoritarian or undemocratic regimes in order to secure strategic and resource interests. In this perspective, access to resources often influences the designation of a “rogue state” within the logic of American foreign policy.
From President Nixon to Donald Trump, at different stages in the evolution of American foreign policy, the U.S. State Department described countries such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Yugoslavia as “rogue states,” arguing that these countries pursued foreign policies independent of U.S. geopolitical interests. However, during the Clinton administration, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright decided not to use the term “rogue state.” Instead, the U.S. State Department began using what it described as more value-neutral terms such as “states of concern,” which later shifted to expressions such as “axis of evil” and “outposts of tyranny.” These discursive shifts in terminology accompanied military interventions, sanctions, and regime-change operations justified in the name of fighting global terrorism.
The Cartesian duality within Eurocentric knowledge traditions has often been cited as providing ideological justification for such American interventions, frequently supported by Western European allies, in countries such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, and Yugoslavia. These countries have experienced significant political, economic, and military pressure, including sanctions, trade restrictions, and technological embargoes. Their governments often faced conflict with U.S. strategic interests. In some cases, they argued that they were acting within the framework of international law and the principles of the UN Charter, while regional conflicts were shaped by external interventions and alliances with local political forces.
Who, then, are the rogue states and their international crime syndicate in reality?
The United States has conducted military bombing campaigns in around thirty countries—including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Congo, Cambodia, China, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Syria, Somalia, Serbia, Sudan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, and Yugoslavia—since the Second World War. It has also been directly or indirectly involved in more than 236 conflicts and wars. Critics argue that the United States has frequently acted in ways that violate the UN Charter and has contributed to large-scale loss of life in various conflict zones. From the Balkan crisis to continuing sanctions and embargoes against Cuba, as well as interventions in Venezuela and Iran, critics maintain that U.S. interventions have often produced destabilising effects in affected regions.
Similarly, the Israeli government has carried out extensive military operations in Gaza, resulting in large numbers of Palestinian casualties, including children, women, and the elderly, and significant destruction of infrastructure. According to the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED), Israel carried out more than 10,631 attacks across six countries—Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, Qatar, Syria, and Yemen—and also struck aid boats in the territorial waters of Tunisia, Malta, and Greece in 2025 alone. In this context, critics argue that Israel has repeatedly violated the UN Charter and numerous UN resolutions related to international law and peace.
Both the United States and Israel continue to conduct military operations against sovereign countries without what critics regard as clear legal justification under international law. These two countries are often accused of disregarding the authority of the United Nations and the broader framework of international law. Together, they are frequently criticised for contributing to the weakening of the international order and the erosion of global peace. Their military interventions have resulted in loss of life, destruction of homes and infrastructure, widespread displacement, and disruption of livelihoods in several regions of the world. From this perspective, some observers characterise these two states as “twin rogue states” in practice. Critics also argue that the alliance between the United States and Israel often advances the interests of corporate and strategic power rather than the interests of ordinary people.
Therefore, it is important to challenge the combined forces of imperialism, Zionism, capitalism, and religious fundamentalism in order to promote world peace and ensure the survival of people and the planet. Meaningful progress, many argue, requires peace. War has often been used by powerful states in ways that disproportionately affect poorer populations and divide people along national and religious lines.
There is still time to think and act collectively for world peace by questioning Eurocentric, colonial, and imperial knowledge traditions, as well as the military-industrial complex led by the United States, Israel, and their Western European allies. It is therefore important to challenge this international power structure so that humanity may pursue coexistence rather than continued conflict.
In the broader political struggle, it is also necessary to transform the nature of states and their dependence on security-centric policies, governance by force, and rent-seeking behaviour, and to convert them into “citizens’ states.” Such states would uphold the interests of the people, strengthen citizenship rights, and promote the ideals of peace, democracy, justice, liberty, and equality. There remains space for thinking and working toward forms of global citizenship beyond the territorial logic of nation-states.
---
*Academic based in UK
Comments