How should the U.S. and Europe deal with Pariah regimes?

Roundtable 1, December 11/12, 1997, Munich, Germany

Agenda Participants Summary

13.12.1997 · Improving Responsiveness

Introductory Papers

Between Morality and Strategy. Understanding US Policy Toward Rogue Regimes
By Kenneth M. Pollack, Washington Institute for Near East Policy
While US policy toward so called, "Rogue Regimes" may seem to fluctuate over time, the interaction between traditional American emphases on ethical behavior and American strategic considerations regarding US interests abroad, argues Dr. Kenneth Pollack, continues to largely determine such policy. However, such policy formulation leads the US into conflict with its European allies crippling efforts of the international community to deal with pariah regimes. After examining the historical development and sustainment of this uniquely American policy-producing interaction, Ken Pollack offers policy recommendations to help the nations on both sides of the Atlantic harmonize their policies and maximize their ability to contend with rogue nations.

Europe and the "Pariah-State"-Debate: The Quest for Realistic Pragmatism
By Sven Behrendt, The Center for Applied Policy Research
As western nations struggle to find a foreign policy orientation in the Post-Cold War world, an internationally accepted definition of, let alone policy towards, Rogue States is absent. Sven Behrendt presents his view that Europeans tend to shy away from using this ambiguous "pariah label" at all and by doing so, leave themselves more flexible policy options. Mr. Behrendt argues that engagement, not confrontation, has the most potential to bring about an evolutionary change in unfriendly regimes and policies promoting a process of gradualism, which would give the unfriendly regime the possibility to move step by step out of its role and change itself accordingly, should characterize the Euro-American approach- not bickering over the moral superiority of each others policy.

Participants' Papers (selection)

Some Thoughts on Pariah Regimes and Related Policy Options
By Harald Fuhr, International Relations Chair, University of Potsdam
Perhaps the most promising option for dealing with these "Pariah" states, suggests Prof. Harald Fuhr, are preventive policies; taking care to observe critcally which countries are on the brink of collapsing or getting closer to the "Pariah borderline", examining the local circumstances and dynamics in each nation, analyzing the regime's interactions with other states, and then enacting policies accordingly in order to prevent such a country from becoming a "Rogue". Such preventive conflict management and aid is a much better option than the armed conflict containment practiced in Somalia, Haiti, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

How Should the US and Europe deal with "pariah regimes"?
By Phil Gordon, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London
Commenting on Ken Pollack's and Sven Behrendt's papers, Dr. Phil Gordon puts forth that European and American assessments of the 'rouge state problem' are not that different. The differences lie in their respective strategies toward such pariah regimes. The US tends to favor applying broad economic sanctions, whereas European emphasize diplomacy and trade. While both sides are critical of one another's policies, neither can effectively prove the superiority of their own, nor offer a viable alternative. Gordon also stresses, that as Americans and Europeans search for common ground, the European must keep in mind that, irrespective of whether American policies are moral or not, Americans tend to think in these terms.

Defining the Problem of Rogue States
By Ben P. Meredith, Porterville College
Without either a clear rational definition, or a sensible "costs and benefits" analysis of overall goals, a transatlantic common strategy towards rogue regimes is futile. In line with this view, Asst. Prof. Ben Meredith demands that Americans and Europeans decide among themselves internally on a single, clear definition of a Rogue state. He requires that conflicting vital national interests be resolved as well as the continuing conflict between sovereignty and international justice. Just as importantly, Europeans and Americans alike must establish a clear goal of either pursing humanitarian ideals or self-interested realpolitik. Only in this way can an effective transatlantic strategy towards Rogue regimes be realized.

Options for future approaches to pariah regimes
By Michael Pulch, the European Commission
Dr. Michael Pulch summarizes the "Brussels'" perspective towards Rogue Regimes, especially policies towards such states. From a EU point of view, extraterritorial sanction legislation such as the Helms-Burton and the ILSA act are contrary to International law, misguided in principle and counterproductive in practice. Contrary to US unilateral actions, which Pulch characterizes as costly for the US and counterproductive, he explains the EU strategy by using Libya, Iran, Cuba and North Korea as case studies. However, Pulch does not view these transatlantic differences towards Rogue regimes as irreconcilable and offers possible solutions.

Dealing with Pariah States: Some Thoughts
By Joe Stork, Human Rights Watch/ Middle East, Washington D.C.
While many have viewed the Pariah label itself as being unproductive, Joe Stork is of the view that if the Pariah label is strongly linked to human rights abuses, if it is used by governments less indiscriminately, and if the obvious double standard in its application is eliminated, then it could serve as a useful common transatlantic tool against such Rogue Regimes. By looking at the case of Iran and Iraq, Stork concludes that both situations call for strong human rights interventions from the international community, and in both cases such interventions could support broader policy goals.

The Case for Lifting the U.S. Economic Embargo on North Korea: The Inefficacy of Embargoes as a Foreign Policy Tool
By L. Gordon Flake, The Atlantic Council
By taking an in-depth look at the current political situation in North Korea and the reasons for lifting the U.S. economic embargo against the DPRK, L. Gordon Flake suggests that certain lessons can be drawn from this case and applied more broadly in terms of the usefulness of embargoes as a policy towards Rogue Regimes. In his opinion, not only has the embargo failed to bring down the North Korean regime, but embargoes in general have failed to bring down any other in history.

Reflections on Rogue States
By Linda McCabe, Science Application International Corporation
Acknowledging that it will take time for the US and the EU to harmonize their policies towards rogue states but to ensure that such regimes do not take advantage of current transatlantic disagreements to acquire Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons, Linda McCabe proposes several interim steps to be undertaken immediately: implementing refined and surgical sanction policies which target dual-use-technologies, seemingly benign technologies that can be used to acquire indigenous production capability of weapons of mass-destruction, enacting catch-all laws and brokerage laws and using diplomatic channels to suspend questionable shipments.