>> let us know what you are reading this summer. treatise @booktv. send us an e-mail. >> up next, the hoover institution thomas hendricks and was interviewed about this book, america and rogue states in which she looks at the u.s. handling of countries like north korea and pre invasion. this interview was recorded at the hoover institution on the campus of stanford university. >> watching book tv on c-span2. on location on the hoover institution at stanford university interviewing some scholars and professors. right now we are joined by thomas hendrickson, america and the rogue states is the name of

his book. dr. hendrickson, how do you define a rogue state? >> well, it is an easy definition. it is a start definition because we used to think there states that manufacture or try to manufacture. many nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons. and also happen to be dictatorships, human-rights violators of international law. so the definition is pretty precise. i think most people understand. when we mention rogue states certain states come to mind easily. we think of north korea. we thought of it the same way before the invasion. and there are other states that have been sort of like wrote the states, close to it, such as cuba which were no longer think much of. libya was once a dictatorship.

and there have been other states such as ones that are on the path or venezuela the fourth year in chavez. the main the path is somewhat familiar, and the definition as well. >> superpowers use the rogue states or how rogue states use super power. he. >> well, i think what happened is when they're rogue states first burst on the international scene after the collapse of the soviet union, there were some what put loose and fancy free. it did not really depend too much on another major state such as the soviet union. it was gone. rogue states and the path used by great powers, particularly the soviet union, the use the

major powers for protection. currently we can see that north korea is very dependent on china . while not as dependence, and still relies on russia to run some diplomatic interference for it in the united nations. and in the case of the iraqis there were very much dependent on soviet arms. the states of used and have been using great powers. they're used because i think it's too dangerous to collide in a nuclear exchange. so both states have plans. the soviets are really bad

actors but kerrey, sibila, has the u.s. average used rogue states? >> no. but we have states that i think we cozied up to for the fear of communism or not particularly to my would say a boycott states are states that we would assume are up and standing. for example, maputo in the condo was a disreputable carrier. we backed him periodically because he was a staunch anti-communist. toward haiti, the so-called baby doc. stenciling anti-communist. we tended to overlook or excuse some of the human rights violations, we never really use these states in a confrontation or to harm them and use them in a more aggressive manner as the soviet union did.

>> is there an advantage for china to have north korea has a client state? >> that's an excellent question. i think they're hard trade-offs. it's a more complex relationship the onetime high blood at its anabantids from china who have north korea because it kept the americans a little bit of balance. it could be used is the united states whenever we were too friendly and provide too many arms for taiwan which entered the chinese. so they would use dr. rhea. however, lee lee they were somewhat of a liability. because rather than being a rogue state, it's causing the united states to reinforce its armaments in the east asia. that's something that the chinese are not kaynine.

they represent the pivot to east asia. has anything then strengthens that reinforces a is something that the chinese are very much against. the relationship is more mixed. and so i think at times the chinese officials are low bid more wary. think that what correa has become too much or liability for them. >> in america in the rogue states you talk about the iraqi war and one way to deal with the rogue states. did the u.s. deal with this and the correct way? >> that is a very complex and controversial question. many people think that the war was an unnecessary war. it was done their false premises because there is none of their

weapons. on the other hand, the united states rid the world of a very bad character, a man who spread terrorism, destabilize the region, did make weapons of mass destruction and one time, was found out after the persian gulf war in 1991, stop for a while. wheels of does -- he was going to up probably return the weapons of mass destruction. the other ingredient i think, some would argue and have argued that saddam hussein's motive was one of the necessary preconditions with the arabs bring. it took place years later, ten years after the american invasion. on the other hand, as a necessary condition it showed the arab world that the dictator could be moved.

it could happen. consequently i think historians will be fighting it, just like it will any other controversial issue. the origins of the civil war or the vietnam war, for example. any great decision was always going to have supportive attractions. probably would have been better to avoid it, once it was done we cannot go back. and we cannot replace history to say what might have been had we not injured. so it's going to be a very difficult question. and it is a political question. supporters of the former president george w. bush will have varying viewpoints on the outcome. and a justification for the war. >> well, this is kind of a double question. how did you feel in 2003? and in your book you talk about the containment policy that had been the policy for many years not working very well.

>> the containment policy had been a very vigorous containment policy. the clinton administration called it containment plus. by what they meant is the united states maintain no-fly zones in north and southern parts of the country in order to keep some% under wraps. and many times those planes shot targets on the ground now were considered, for example, radar sites that have locked on to the american aircraft. over 200 airplanes employed. there was a feeling that we had tried a lot of things. and yet saddam hussein was breaking out of this containment sanctions were not working. there were being violated. there have been a time when the united states has stopped commercial airplanes. that was being violated. hugo chavez made a big issue of going to baghdad. he broke that airlock by his

presence. and in other arab states would have been angered by the intervention into kuwait. so he was on the road to restoration, so speak. so there was a feeling among many that he had broken out of the sanctions, it would be too long before they fell apart, plus he is very adept at keeping the sanctions, the brunt of the harm done to his own people. and there was a lot of harm done people starved. there were a lot of desperate conditions among the poor particularly in baghdad and the surrounding areas. so he was very adept. so the feeling, i think, among many people that the sanctions were really breaking down. and i think the bush administration, that george w.ó bush administration felt very keenly. >> did you support the work? >> i did supported initially. i also believed that it led us on a path of destruction. i mean, a poll was taken after

president george hill the bush gave a cincinnati speech in the fall of 2002, roughly four or five months before the war. very high. americans supported the war almost 70%. so many of us thought that it was a good thing to do. we also became disenchanted. many people. the conduct, not foreseeing some of the things are going to happen, the insurgency not really having a very good plan to implement once saddam hussein had been overthrown and captured and turned over to the iraqi people. there was a feeling that this was not a well managed campaign. and also, i think people wanted a replay of the war which had been short, decisive, and notorious. and americans are not good at long, drawn-out conflict. many of us became more disenchanted. we still thought that the ultimate goal of ridding the

world of some opposition was a good one. >> what is your background? >> my background, i am a graduate of the virginia military institute, was an infantry officer in the army during the vietnam time friend. then i get a ph.d., taught at upstate new york and came to th hoover institution and have been here ever since. >> and teaching. >> i taught a variety of subjects. i taught courses on african history and european history. then more recently i get more interested in american foreign policy. >> sure also a senior fellow at the u.s. joint special operations. what do you do there? >> well, i joined the special operations unit in tampa. i write on insurgency's for them , things like winning hearts and minds or some of the military practices that we use

such as indirect warfare which is a fancy term. we get others to help and partner with us about things about dividing our enemies so that we don't take on all our enemies but, perhaps, use them against each other. currently i am looking into the relationship between specialw forces and the centralñv intelligence agency. >> we have not talked about a run yet. what is in your view the best policy? >> it is most formidable of all of the rogue states. and it is the most difference. the other rogue states were dictatorships, military dictatorships, some which imitated the soviet union with tracking this socialism and communism such as north korea and cuba. others were more military dictatorships such as libya, iran and iraq, but i should say, it emerged from the revolution

which took place in 1979, a religious revolution that overthrew a very staunch ally of the united states. have been very, very close, had been the so-called policeman of the gulf during the next to ministration. and then they underwent this really extraordinary upheaval which took a country that was on the verge of becoming a very westernized a modernized country and took it back. a sophisticated state. very many intelligent people. it's a large stake of 70 million, roughly three times. a state that is largely -- large deposits of oil right sometimes second 1/3 in deposits of oil. a state that can look after itself and is also a revolutionary state in the sense that it wants to expand its tentacles. and so it is a much more formidable adversary than north korea.

that does spawn various fronts and movements. it is also cosying of the smaller groups. so it is a much more formidable. capability to manufacture nuclear weapons is very much feared in the west because of not just it becoming a nuclear power but because of its aggressive ideologies, because of the confrontational stance, not just the united states but israel and other gulf states. so it is -- up until now we have relied on sanctions. in the current administration, the obama administration has implemented some very severe and far reaching sanctions which have caused major economic problems. for example the currency has

depreciated. inflation was 30%, considered to raise another 27% this year. but nonetheless, it has found ways to get around the sanctions by using show companies and so forth. so i am doubtful that the sanctions will bring the iranians. the protests that there entirely peaceful alike the north koreans who brag about their particular capacity. the iranians, it is seeming to be a very popular program among the iranian people. to deal with that, we're only left with one or two options. we can continue on the path and try to negotiate some sort of grand bargain offering all sorts of inducements to the iranian people, or we can resort to some sort of military option which

would mean a military strike which i think would be extremely dangerous for the united states to do. it is not that we couldn't. we could knock out substantial numbers of their nuclear factories and nuclear facilities on the other hand, it may embroil the united states and another land war, and i think that is a wariness. once the war starts no one really knows where it is going to end. and so it's a problem. i think what will probably happen, there will pro we get the nuclear-weapons. we're going to have to face a very difficult challenge in the gulf region. they will become much more aggressive. and once a country has a nuclear weapon, there's a great deal of circumspection given. as witnessed with the soviet union for years. there were certain things we just never challenged them on. we let it go. so i think that is what the

outcome is going to be. i do not think that this administration will use a military strike. we're going to have turned get the nuclear weapon. that is my feeling. >> you argued against a military strike anyway. so they get the nuclear weapon and then what happens? then do we have a military strike? >> well, it is possible. a think what is happening now in addition to sanctions, the united states policy is to build up a deterrence in the region. and so recently we -- the administration but together a very large package. the gulf states trying to reinforce anti-missile capabilities. air forces. sort of create a regional deterrent and trying.

then the other path that could be as you know widely considered fraudulent. and there was an upsurge. a precursor. in the administration did not do much. well, we are up to that came again because in june of this year there is another election. consequently there may be again an upsurge. that is the hope. somehow even though they got a nuclear weapon, it would, in fact, become a moderate state. we will become a democratic state. that is a pretty distant hope right now, but that is a possibility for what people think about. it's possible. they could become more transparent state and therefore not so fearful, not such a dread as it is now. >> i just want to go back to the spa one more time.

if the u.s. or is i'll took out a nuclear reactor, would that be a smart thing to do? not a ground war, but taking out -- >> well, if it could be done as surgically as we hope to yes, it would save a lot of problems. the arguments for it are, yes, we would retard the nuclear capability for several years. no one doubts that they would try again tomorrow or the other is will we be able to get all of the nuclear facilities? some are very deeply buried, so deeply that there are some concerns that even are so called bunker buster bonds could not penetrate far enough to devastate. that may be. no one really knows. maybe two, 300 feet below the surface.

so it is possible. we also know that there will strike out in more conventional ways. it will probably activate has the law and make strikes we are caught -- not that america cannot prevail. can. it is at what cost. and that, i think, is what is in the back of people's mind. >> your book is called american and the rogue states. what about the status rokes?

perhaps terrorist groups. >> well, that is an excellent point. there are many stateless groups that operate in countries that are poorly government or on government space. i mean, molly is a perfect example. country that has a very weak political structure. and so the concern is states were going to allow not because they wanted because they don't have the capability 

pakistan which is a much stronger state but still have areas that are not completely under control the government. so there are worries. so we are evolving new strategies to deal with that, a strategy of use of drones and special forces, training in the local forces, the indigenous forces to help us. and that, we are hoping, will at least slow it down. there is always a feeling that terrorists will get through. it happened in the boston marathon bombing. some got through. not because there were organized by foreign countries, but because the ideologies, there is a feeling of victimization, the feeling of the radical is

ideology in powering them that has a hold on a certain small number of people. and so that will be almost impossible to stop, but we can certainly do a better job of covering it and then be more aware of it. nonetheless, the whole element of stateless terrorist groups is a very important factor and will be for the foreseeable future. >> what percent of american foreign policy attention is focused on the roads? >> a great deal. it is episodic. i mean, we do have a problem with china from time to time. we have dealings with the european allies to go out of hand, and recently have a recurrence of power struggles with the government in russia, but a great deal of time has been spent on rogue states. yet they are very small and medium weight states. because of the nuclear factor or

chemical or biological they attract a lot of attention. as a consequence we spend a disproportion of time -- sometimes it's almost 100 percent, certainly moving up to the iraqi war. then the case of north korea it comes and goes. for example, the heightened tension of the last three or four weeks and now it seems to be dissipating. perhaps it will go down. it will reemerge later on. so, there are times when the united states is 100 percent, the tungsten percentage of the%. looking and other problems are we have an internal crisis or an internal political event that captures the american media's attention . it might be a piece of legislation, some economic problem or challenge, but none the less the foreign policy, but broke -- for the size that they are they occupy a great deal of american attention and have done so for the last -- says the

soviets the collapse. >> to you think of cuba as a rogue state? >> cuba was at one time the spear point of the soviet union. the most aggressive. new york or, bolivia. they tried to even send a 16,000 troops to angola. there were at the forefront. there were committed. they provide a cushion -- that provided oil. when the soviet union collapsed, so did cuba. they're military no longer had the provisions. around the fields growing their own food. it lost the royalty was saved and is they have to look to venezuela. hugo chavez looked upon the

cubans the with the romans looked upon the ancient greece. so he would -- field in a great deal. he sent to oil. and in return the cubans sent medical doctors and police organizers to venezuela to help. so there was a relationship. it's another example of how they slipped from one great power into the orbit of another. today i don't consider to a rogue state. think it's a state that is failing in many respects and moving away very slowly from a doctrinaire communists in the elegy and allowing some minor changes in the economy which are more free market than in the past. >> one of the takeaways from this book, as the world relapses back to a great power politics,

modern-day might give dalliance will look for their prince and find him. the this says it may come of loan will states have traditionally succumbed to align themselves with a more powerful patron. >> well, that is true. there have been many rogue states. they do fade. they are not strong. garrison states. larger power. that has happened in the case of states, south yemen at one point was a rogue state. so was libya. and so was, of course, cuba. but the stakes become weekend have to look to others. that's the good news. in the short term we still have

to deal with them. in the long term while these rogue states make disappear, others will surface. it is a reoccurring problem. and so we may get rid of some. others will surface and replace them. that this kind of an ongoing pattern of history. this small militarized state is causing the rest of the world lot of problems. >> the publisher, author of america and the rogue states, american foreign policy at 21st century. book tv is on location at stanford university. >> making the transition from journalism to books is exhilarating and completely overwhelming and frightening but wonderful. >> why did you make that choice? >> i made that choice because i had long wanted to be working on a book just because of the free and that is allowed to really dive into the topic and lose yourself and go off on a tangent and have enough time to really

explored fully. >> next sunday taboos sciences, living in space, the afterlife, and the human digestive system. mary roche will take calls, e-mails, facebook comments, and tweets. three hours live next sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> stanford university law professor jenny martinez talks about efforts and a late 18th-century to ban the international slave trade which she argues laid the foundations for the modern international human rights movement. book tv sat down with professor martinez at stanford university in california. this is about 20 minutes. >> and book tv from stanford university continues. now we are joined by law professor jenny martinez whose book of the slave trade and the origins of international and human rights law is our next