Canada as a Rogue State
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200105600305 |
| Author | Lee-Anne Broad Head |
| Published date | 01 September 2001 |
| Date | 01 September 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
LEE-ANNE
BROADHEAD
Canada
as
a
rogue
state
Its
shamefulperjormance
on
climate
change
A
NYONE
WHO
USES A
DELIBERATELY
INFLAMMATORY
TITLE
must
offer
a
justification
for
it.
Canada
has,
after
all,
a
solid
international
reputa-
tion,
and
to
call
a
middle-sized,
eager-to-please
state
a
rogue
seems
to
border
on
the
sacrilegious.
Certainly
many
Canadians
assume
that
Canada's
performance at
international
environmental
conferences
will
be progressive
and
undertaken
in
a
spirit
of
international co-operation.
The
concept
of
rogue states
has
been used since
the
end
of
the
cold
war,
usually
by
Americans
seeking
to justify
enormous
military
expen-
diture
in
the
absence
of
a
pronounced
or
obvious
threat
to
their
national
security.
Although
never official,
the
term
was
commonly
used
to
describe
states
that
seemed
determined
to
pose
a
threat to
their
neighbours
and
that
are
either
outside international
norms
and
treaties
or
in
them
but
presumed
to
be
cheating.
In
the
final
months
of
President
Bill
Clinton's
administration,
the
State
Department
tried
to
move
away
from
the
term
(in
part
because
of
the
slipperiness
of
the
definition
and
in
part
because
of
improved
relations
with
one
of
the
main
'rogues,'
North
Korea)
and
declared
its
preference
for
the
more
muted
(but
similarly vague)
'state
of
concern.'
The
administration
of
President
George
Bush,
Jr,
re-introduced
rogue
state
as
a
valuable
con-
cept.
In
my
view,
the
sentiment
behind
this politically charged
term
Assistant
Professor
of
Political
Science,
University
College
of
Cape
Breton.
The
author
is
particu-
laro
gratefiul
to
Sean
Howard
fJr
his
thoughtful
comments
and
probing
critique
ofan
earlier
version
of
this
article.
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Summer
2001
Lee-Anne Broadhead
can
serve
us
well
in
considering
the
actions
of
a
small
group
of
states
that
has
in
recent
years
undermined
international
efforts
to
give
sub-
stance
to
the
Framework
Convention
on
Climate Change
(FCCC).
To
apply
the
word
'rogue'
with
credibility in
this
context,
which
is
far
removed
from
the
use
to
which
the
Bush
administration
would
like
to
see
it
put,
it
is
crucial
that
the
idea
of
an
international
community
be
placed
uppermost
in
the
discussion. At
a
time
of
profound
environ-
mental
deterioration
as
a
result
of
actions
that
cannot
be
contained
within
borders,
the
notion
of
community
takes
on
increased
impor-
tance.
Although
it
is
clear
that
an
international
community
does
not
exist
in
any
manner
akin
to
the domestic
community
overseen
by
state
legislation, nonetheless the
actions
of
those
states
that
undermine
(and
in
some
cases
dismantle) international
efforts
to
deal
with
the
shared
consequences
of
industrial
pollution
become
a
threat
to
their
neigh-
bours.
Any
state
that,
for
the
purposes
of
gaining
competitive
advan-
tage,
actively blocks,
stalls,
or
otherwise subverts
an
international
process
designed
in
the
interests
of
all
becomes
a
threat
to
others
by
virtue
of
the
destructive
environmental
consequences
that
are
a
result
of
such
intransigence.
The
concept
of
rogue
state
is,
therefore,
used
here
to demonstrate
how
the
language
of
multilateral
bargaining
can
be
used
not
only
to
mask
threats to
the
international
community,
but
also
to
turn
the
tables
on
those who
would
paint
a
picture
of
'good
guys'
and
'bad
guys'
solely
in
terms
of
ideological
or
territorial
struggle.
Fear
of
tanks
rolling
across
the
border
has,
for
many
countries,
been
replaced
by
new
threats
of
pollution
and
disaster
drifting
across
all
borders.
The
issue
under
discussion
here
is
Canada's
membership
in
a
coali-
tion
of
states,
the
actions
of
which
have
been successful
in
watering
down
an
international
convention
designed
to
deal
with the
causes
and
consequences
of
climate
change.
The
coalition
was
led
by
the
United
States,
assisted
throughout
by
Japan, Australia,
and,
at
times,
New
Zealand.
Although Canada
has,
in
the
past,
been
celebrated
for
its
action on
international
atmospheric
policies,
notably
for
its
prominent
role in
the
diplomatic
arrangements
for
stratospheric
ozone
depletion,
recently
it
has
demonstrated
a
diversion
from
a
responsible
international
path. The coalition
to
which Canada
belonged
in
the
climate
change
negotiations
was
greeted
with
disre-
spect
and
even
dismay
by
the broader
international community.
And
while
many Canadians
are
increasingly
aware
of
Canada's
diminish-
462
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Summer2001
To continue reading
Request your trial