Abstract
The identification and naming of an ‘enemy’ is an age-old element within foreign policy and (domestic) security policy discourses. It serves to stabilize speakers’ benign conceptions of the self, to structure threat perceptions of ‘the world outside’ and to legitimate ultimately violent policy options. This article compares the notions of ‘rogue’ and ‘evil’ in order to analyse the political implications of such a use of derogative actor categories. The notion of ‘rogue states’ has played an important role in the security strategies of the US presidents Clinton and in particular George W. Bush and alludes to criminal law. ‘Evil’ has been a much older, religiously loaded concept and has been invoked in politics for describing the inconceivable, monstrous violence and destruction. While many liberal critics argue that one should abandon the metaphysical category of evil and dispose of the stigmatizing category of the ‘rogue’, this article concludes with the suggestion that a self-reflexive use of these categories can be instructive: It can make ‘us’ – the very modern secular liberals – think about ourselves, about responsibility and moral standards as well as about the fundamental ambivalence of our actions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See, for example, from different theoretical-methodological backgrounds Balzacq (2011), Ish-Shalom (2010) and Jackson (2005).
As Peter Singer notes, ‘tens of millions of Americans’ have an apocalyptic view of the world (Singer, 2004, p. 208). He also refers to David Frum, Bush’s speechwriter at the time of his ‘axis of evil’ speech, who said of Bush’s use of the term ‘evil ones’ for the terrorists: ‘In a country where almost two-thirds of the population believes in the devil, Bush was identifying Osama bin Laden and his gang as literally satanic’ (quoted in Singer, 2004, p. 208).
A list of references to ‘evil’ in the speeches of US presidents is presented in Jeffery (2008a, p. 145). At the top of the list is G.W. Bush with more than 800 references, followed by Ronald Reagan (351) and, perhaps more surprisingly, Bill Clinton (309). Fourth and fifth come Roosevelt (141) and Truman (111).
Speech on Pearl Harbor Day, 7 December 2001. cf. also the State of the Union Address by the President on 28 January 2003.
Speech to the German Bundestag, 24 May 2002.
Speech on Pearl Harbor Day, 7 December 2001.
Speech on the Middle East, 3 April 2002.
Speech at West Point Academy, 1 June 2002.
For an overview on the ‘rogue state’ concept see, for example, Henriksen (2001), Klare (1995), Litwak (2000), Wagner et al (2014).
The National Security Strategy of 2002 characterized the ‘rogue state’ as follows (The White House, 2002, pp. 13–14): ‘These states brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers; display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; sponsor terrorism around the globe; and reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands’.
For an alternative perspective on ‘rogue states’ as norm entrepreneurs in international politics, see Wunderlich (2014).
Q&A with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, USA Today, 18 September 2002, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-18-iran-full-interview_x.htm.
BBC ‘Bush’s “evil axis” comment stirs critics’, 2 February 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1796034.stm.
For a similar argumentation, see Chomsky (2000, p. 1), Litwak (2000, p. 254), Thompson (2002) and Derrida (2006, p. 113).
References
Abdel-Nour, F. (2004) An international ethics of evil? International Relations 18 (4): 425–439.
Alexander, M., Brewer, M.B. and Herrmann, R.K. (1999) Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (1): 78–93.
Balzacq, T. (ed.) (2011) Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. New York: Routledge.
Beeman, W.O. (2005) The ‘Great Satan’ vs. ‘the Mad Mullahs’: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bellah, R.N. (1967) Civil religion in America. Daedalus 96 (1): 1–21.
Bernstein, R.J. (2002) Radical Evil: A Philosophical Interrogation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bernstein, R.J. (2005) The Abuse of Evil: The Corruption of Politics and Religion since 9/11. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Blum, W. (2002) Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. New updated edition. London: Zed Books.
Buzan, B., Waever, O. and De Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO; London: Lynne Rienner.
Calhoun, C. (1995) Critical Social Theory: Culture, History and the Challenge of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Campbell, D. (1992) Writing Security. United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Casebeer, W.D. (2004) Knowing evil when you see it: Uses for the rhetoric of evil in international relations. International Relations 18 (4): 441–451.
Chomsky, N. (2000) Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Connolly, W.E. (1991) Identity\Difference. Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press [Expanded Edition, 2002, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press].
Derrida, J. (2006) Schurken. Zwei Essays über die Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Fearon, J.D. (1999) What is identity? Department of Political Science, Standford University, Standford: http://www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2.pdf, accessed 8 September 2012.
Feres, Jr. J. (2006) Building a typology of forms of misrecognition: Beyond the Republican-Hegelian paradigm. Contemporary Political Theory 5 (3): 259–277.
Geis, A., Müller, H. and Schörnig, N. (eds.) (2013) The Militant Face of Democracy: Liberal Forces for Good. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greiner, B. (2011) 9/11: Der Tag, die Angst, die Folgen. Munich, Germany: Beck.
Henriksen, T.H. (2001) The rise and decline of rogue states. Journal of International Affairs 54 (2): 349–371.
Herrmann, R.K. and Fischerkeller, M.P. (1995) Beyond the enemy image and spiral model: Cognitive-strategic research after the cold war. International Organization 49 (3): 415–450.
Herrmann, R.K. and Keller, J.W. (2004) Beliefs, values, and strategic choice: U.S. leaders’ decisions to engage, contain, and use force in an era of globalization. The Journal of Politics 66 (2): 557–580.
Horstmann, R.P. and Norman, J. (eds.) (2001) Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoyt, P.D. (2000) The ‘rogue state’ image in American foreign policy. Global Society 14 (2): 297–310.
Ish-Shalom, P. (2010) Defining by naming: Israeli civic warring over the second Lebanon war. European Journal of International Relations 17 (3): 475–493.
Jackson, R. (2005) Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Jeffery, R. (2008a) Evil and International Relations. Human Suffering in an Age of Terror. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jeffery, R. (ed.) (2008b) Introduction: Evil, responsibility, and response. In: Confronting Evil in International Relations. Ethical Responses to Problems of Moral Agency. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–10.
Kennedy, C. (2013) The Manichean temptation: Moralising rhetoric and the invocation of evil in US foreign policy. International Politics, online publication, 19 July 2013.
Klare, M. (1995) Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy. New York: Hill and Wang.
Kline, S. (2004) The culture war gone global: ‘Family values’ and the shape of US foreign policy. International Relations 18 (4): 453–465.
Koselleck, R. (1979) Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik Geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Kustermans, J. (2014) ‘Roguery’ and CItizenship. In: W. Wagner, W. Werner and M. Onderco (eds.) Deviance in International Relations. ‘Rogue States’ and International Security. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–37.
Lake, A. (1994) Confronting backlash states. Foreign Affairs 73 (2): 45–55.
Lang, A.F. (2008) Evil, agency, and punishment. In: R. Jeffery (ed.) Confronting Evil in International Relations. Ethical Responses to Problems of Moral Agency. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–114.
Lara, M.P. (ed.) (2001) Rethinking Evil: Contemporary Perspectives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Litwak, R.S. (2000) Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment after the Cold War. Washington DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Malici, A. (2009) Rogue states: Enemies of our own making? Psicología Política 39: 39–54.
Neiman, S. (2004) Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nincic, M. (2005) Renegade Regimes: Confronting Deviant Behavior in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
O’Reilly, K. (2007) Perceiving rogue states: The use of the ‘rogue state’ concept by U.S. foreign policy elites. Foreign Policy Analysis 3 (4): 295–315.
Rawls, J. (1999) The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Risse, T. (2004) Der 9.11. und der 11.9. folgen für das fach internationale beziehungen. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 11 (1): 111–121.
Sadjadpour, K. (2009) Reading Khamenei: The World View of Iran’s Most Powerful Leader. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Saunders, E. (2006) Setting boundaries: Can international society exclude ‘rogue states’? International Studies Review 8 (1): 23–53.
Schmittchen, D. and Stritzel, H. (2011) Securitization, culture, and power: Rogue states in US and German discourse’. In: T. Balzacq (ed.) Securitization Theory. London: Routledge.
Schwab, G. (1987) Enemy or foe: A conflict of modern politics. Telos 72: 194–201.
Senn, M. (2009) Wolves in the Woods: The Rogue State Concept from a Constructivist Perspective. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Singer, P. (2004) The President of Good and Evil: Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush. New York: Dutton.
Steele, B. (2013) Alternative Accountabilities in Global Politics. London, New York: Routledge.
Stritzel, H. (2007) Towards a theory of securitization: Copenhagen and beyond. European Journal of International Relations 13 (3): 357–84.
The White House. (2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 17. September 2002; http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/pdf, accessed 8 September 2012.
Thompson, J. (2002) Is There Such a Thing as a Rogue State? Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics. Working Paper Series 2002/8.
Werner, W. (2014) International law, renegade regimes and the criminalization of enmity. In: W. Wagner, W. Werner and M. Onderco (eds.) Deviance in International Relations. ‘Rogue States’ and International Security. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 193–213.
Wagner, W., Werner, W. and Onderco, M. (eds.) (2014) Deviance in International Relations: ‘Rogue States’ and International Security. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wunderlich, C. (2014) ‘Rogues’ gone norm entrepreneurial? The case of norm renovator Iran in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In: W. Wagner, W. Werner and M. Onderco (eds.) Deviance in International Relations: ‘Rogue States’ and International Security. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 83–104.
Zarefsky, D. (2004) Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 607–619.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Geis, A., Wunderlich, C. The good, the bad, and the ugly: Comparing the notions of ‘rogue’ and ‘evil’ in international politics. Int Polit 51, 458–474 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.19
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.19