Despite various changes of US State Department phrasing, the term “Rogue State” seems to have stuck. It was usually applied to those States which the US considered to be intent on acquiring illegal weapons of mass destruction and, in some cases, also acting as a haven for state sponsored terrorist organisations. The term managed to capture a sense of outrage about countries which appeared to be unconstrained by the norms of international behaviour. Rogue States became more widely known once they became the justification for vast investment in the American missile defence programme. There are three countries that are usually so identified: Iraq, Iran and North Korea. In each case, the US fear is that they are both hostile to America and are engaged on a covert programme to produce long range missiles, and suitably unpleasant warheads to put on the missiles. 

Iraq has certainly been engaged on the development of both missiles and warheads for many years. It had used chemical weapons on its own people and also during its long war with Iraq. It had an advanced programme for the production of nuclear weapons by the time of the Gulf War. Its missile development was much more limited in range and accuracy as was seen by its use of SCUD missiles during the Gulf War. For the past decade it has been under close observation by the international community. The UN inspection teams uncovered a vast industry devoted to the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Much of that has been destroyed. Nevertheless, Iraq almost certainly retains a chemical and perhaps a biological weapon capability, although at a much lower level than it was in the late 1980s. While it may have been within a year of developing a nuclear capability before the Gulf War, this is now much more difficult for it to do. Its missile development is also still limited in range, and was probably always more concerned with its immediate neighbours (Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia) than with Europe or North America. The current international strategy of painful sanctions, air exclusion zones and control of technology transfer seems to be keeping Iraq under control.

Iran is a quite different problem. The West had supported Iran under the Shah and supplied them with the most modern weapon systems. The revolution changed all that, and in particular the seizure of the US Embassy in Teheran has made it difficult for reconciliation with the US. Iran saw the West support Iraq during the long attrition war between these two States. Iran is surrounded by neighbours who have,or try to have, nuclear weapons. Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia are all areas of concern to the Iranians. It is scarcely surprising therefore that they are considering developing their own nuclear programme. Again this seems to be more likely to be as a deterrent to attack by one of its near neighbours. The European approach of constructive engagement with Iran seems likely to be more productive than the alternative approach of isolating them.

North Korea is usually credited with being closest to gaining a nuclear capability and also to be developing long range missiles. It has the problem of an economy that is bankrupt and a people who are starving. It is a strange hangover of the Cold War period: a communist state prepared for war with its other half. Just as the most dangerous place in Europe was the inner German border, so the division of the two Koreas is a potential flashpoint. However, the long term solution is likely to be the same as for Germany: that is,  they will eventually reunify.

The three countries with Rogue State status are different, and they require different approaches. They can be dealt with in the normal ways of international relations, and do not seem to merit billions being spend on a high tech military solution. Perhaps of greater danger are those nuclear weapon states which are not demonised as rogues. There is more danger of a nuclear war, which could involve others, between India and Pakistan than anywhere else. Yet both are seen as superior to the Rogue States. Israel is certainly a very capable nuclear power and flouts many of the norms of international law. Yet the United States is most unwilling to criticise it, and provides most of its high technology weapons. Perhaps most interesting of all is Saudi Arabia. No one until recently has been prepared to even acknowledge that it might be acquiring a nuclear capability. However, it has the perfect rationale for going down this path. It feels threatened by Israel, Iraq and Iran who are proliferators. It has a large land area with a small population. It has the money and the secrecy necessary for a nuclear weapons programme. It has procured Chinese missiles that would be useless with conventional warheads. We may have to wait a long time for the West to add Saudi Arabia to its list of Rogue States.

Finally, the five official nuclear powers need to look to their laurels. The USA, Russia, China, Britain and France undertook at the last non proliferation treaty review conference to work to eliminate all nuclear weapons. They will need to take this promise seriously if they are to continue to criticise other states for looking after their security interests with nuclear weapons.