..

>> is a in easy definition and, a start definition because we usually think of rogue states to manufacture or try to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, a chemical biological and nuclear weapons also with a dictatorship, of pressing human-rights come of violators of international norms. the definition is pretty precise in most people understand when we mentioned a rogue state we think of iran, north korea we thought of iraq of the same way and

such as cuba which we no longer think of as a rogue states or libya at one time because it was a dictatorship manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and also burbot which was on that path or venezuela before chavez died. the past did someone familiar. >>host: you get into how superpowers use the rogue states or vice versa? >> defeat what happened is when the rogue states first cave on tuesday in to national sea after the collapse of the soviet union, they were somewhat footloose and 53 in did not

depend on another major state because it was going. gradually we have seen that rogue states in the past three used by great powers and they use the major poppers for protection. we can see number three is very dependent and iran was not independent although it still relies on russia to run diplomatic interference for it in the united nations. and in the case of iraq it was very much dependent on soviet arms and so is libya. the states has been used by great powers because it is too dangerous to collide in

a nuclear exchange. both states had clients or alliances but the differences, the soviet states were bad actors such as iraq or north korea. >>host: has the u.s. ever used rogue states? >> note. but those we have cozied up to read a fear of communism. boy scout states or states we would assume are upstanding. the condo is a very reputable character in we backed him periodically because he was a staunch anti-communist.

because they were staunchly anti-communist we tend to excuse the human rights violations we have never used them in a confrontation to use them in a more aggressive manner as the soviet union did. >>host: is there did vintage for china with a nuclear state? >> it is a trade-off. that when time i would say directly yes it was an advantage for china to have north korea because they could be used against united states if we would provide too many arms for taiwan's. however the lee they are a liability because what is

happening is a paradox rather than being a rogue state, it causes the united states to reinforce the armament in east asia that is something the chinese are not keen on and they resent the privet of east asia. they are against at and anything there reinforces it is something the chinese are very much against. consequently their relationship is more mixed now so at times the chinese officials are more wary and that it hasn't become a liability for them. >>host: thomas henriksen in "america and the rogue states" you talk about the iraq war and how to deal with a rogue state. did the u.s. deal with iraq in the correct way? >> a very controversial

question. many people think the war against iraq was a necessary come a dozen under a false premises because there were no nuclear weapons found. on balance, the united states and rid the world of a very bad character of a man whose spread terrorism and did make weapons of mass destruction at one time and was found at the persian gulf war they stopped for a while. but to be truthful once the sanctions were relaxed he would return to weapons of mass destruction. as some have argued saddam hussein's removal was a

precondition for the arabs bring that to place 10 years after the american invasion of iraq but on the of their hand, was a necessary condition to show the arab world that a dictator could be moved in a new beginning could happen. to a site they are fighting in the other country version issue such as the origins of the civil war or the vietnam war. in a great decision will have supportive detractors. there probably would be better to avoid a provences said we cannot go back or replay history web might have been. so it will be a very difficult question and ended it is difficult. supporters or detractors have varying viewpoints of the outcome in the

justification for the iraq war. >>host: how did you feel in 2003 in your book you talk about the containment policy now working very well >> the containment policy which was very vigorous the clinton the administration called it contain a plus. that we maintain no-fly zones in north and south iraq to keep saddam hussein under wraps and betty times they shot targets on the ground that were considered its radar sites locked on to the american aircraft. there was a feeling that we tried a lot of things plebiscite on hussein was breaking at of the containment and sanctions are violated even a period

where the united states stopped commercial air flights going into baghdad and that was violated cuban chavez native big issues to go to baghdad and he broke the airlock by his presence in the other arab states were anchored by his intervention in kuwait. he was on the road to restoration's a there is a feeling that he had broken out to but it would not be too long before they fall apart plus he was adept at keeping the sanctions the front or the harm done to his own people and people start, a lot of desperate conditions among the four particularly in baghdad said he was very adept so it was a feeling among many people that they were breaking

down. the bush administration felt that. >>host: did you support the war to thousand three? >> not initially but to the poll was taken after the president bush gave his speech in the fall of 2002 for five months before the war it was very high in americans supported the war almost 70 percent. many of us thought it was a good thing to do. we also became disenchanted by the conduct of the war and not really having a good plea and although captured and turned over to the iraqi people. this is not a well managed campaign and people wanted a

replay of the first war and were sure indecisive and praetorius and we're not good at long and drawn-out conflicts. many become disenchanted of the we still thought deal to the goal was to bring down saddam hussein was a good win -- good one. >>host: with your background, thomas henriksen? >>guest: a graduate of the virginia health institute in industry officer during the vietnam period than a ph.d. and tie in upstate new york and i have been here ever since. >>host: teaching? >>guest: european history history, african history more recently i have gotten more interested in rogue states and american foreign policy. >>host: also a senior fellow at special operations

university? >> joint special operations unit in tampa at the error force base, i write on the insurgencies for them like winning hearts and main store some of the military route practices we use which is a fancy term of the indirect warfare to get others to partner with us. things about dividing our enemies so we don't take on all the enemies but use them against each other and currently i work about the relationships between the forces and the cia. >>host: aid your view what is the best policy to deal with iran? >>guest: is the most formidable of all of the rogue states and the other ones were military dictatorships and some imitated the soviet union

were from north korea and cuba. libya, iran, iraq but i ray and i should say he emerged from the revolution that overthrew a staunch ally of the united states, the shop. iran had been very close to the united states and the police man of the gulf and then underwent this extraordinary upheaval with those that were on the verge to become a westernized and modernized country. iran is a sophisticated state, a large state of 70,000,003 times the size of iraq, large deposits of oil, as sometimes ranking

second or third, a state that it is revolutionary that it wants to expand its tentacles. it is a much more formidable adversary such as north korea or even iraq. and that is on various fronts and movements such as hezbollah it has cozied up to those that are not shiite so it is a much more formidable in the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons because it will become another nuclear power but to the aggressive ideology because of the confrontational stance and other gulf states. it is very difficult. up until now we have relied on sanctions coming and the

current administration has implemented a very severe and far reaching sanctions which have caused major economic problems for the iranians. the currency has depreciated roughly 80% to it, inflation the past year was 30% and considered to raise another trip to 7%. -- 27 percent but they can get away from those by using a shell company so i am doubtful it will break the iranians. they say the nuclear program is peaceful and like the koreans to brag about the nuclear capacity the iranians profess it is within their rights and also a very popular we are left

with one or two options. we can continue on this ancient path to negotiate grand bargain, or we can resort to the military option or the military strike that i think would be extremely dangerous for the united states to do. it is a that he could not do it but from the nuclear factories or facilities but on the of the handmade and real the united states in another land war that once the war starts nobody knows where it will end. so as a problem, and i think well happen is every and would get the nuclear weapon in we will have to face a very difficult challenge in the gulf. because they've will become

much more aggressive than once they have nuclear weapons there is circumspect given toward it. >> with there were things you never challenged the soviet union and we let it go. so i think that is what the outcome will be. i don't think thisz administration will use a military strike. with they would get the nuclear weapon. that is by a feeling. >>host: and you argued against a military strike anyway? they get the nuclear weapon, then what happens? then it is there a military strike? >> possibly. what is happening now in addition to sanctions the policy is to build up a deterrent so we've recently are putting together the very large package not just states trying tome of the

reinforce the anti-missile capabilities, the error force, navy, and in order to create a regional deterrent for iran. then the other prospect could be, iran had the election because it was laid -- widely considered fraudulent and it was a precursor to the air of spring. they did not do much but they are up to the game again because in june and iran has another election so consequently there could be the upsurge that somehow it will lead in fact, be a moderate state. that is a pretty distant help a could become a more

transparent state iandñ therefore soul. >>host: if the u.s. or israel to a cattle nuclear reactor in iran would that be a smart thing to do? not a ground war but take it out? >> it could be done as surgically as we hope to save a lot of problems. the arguments are we would retard the capability for several years. nobody doubts they would try again or could we get all of the nuclear facilities? and some are very deeply buried, some are so deep that there are concerns even

the bunker buster bombs could not penetrate far enough into the earth to devastate them. that may be. maybe they are two or 300 feet below the surface. with reinforced concrete and steel plating above that but we do know iran will strike out in more conventional ways to separate the nine hezbollah, of lebanon, baby widespread terrorist activities in various parts of the world by iranian agents to our undercover so we have to face not just a conventional cycle but several unconventional attacks in the region itself may be there are some we're not aware of but not that

america can prevail but at what cost? that will come back on people's minds. >>host: your book is called "america and the rogue states" what about those that perhaps the terrorist groups like al qaeda at, a television, a hezbollah? >> that is excellent because there are groups operate in countries that are reported governed a hint one perfect example that has a weak political structures so the concern such as somalia, or others will allow because they'll have the capability. putting it is used for tears streaming in and that was the fear in afghanistan. it was never considered a

rogue state never put on as a terrorist states even but it was because it knowingly lent its territory to al qaeda elements as this training base in the operational center for al qaeda that hit the but it states on 9/11. but some states we cannot control so that is why it is a worry in places like somalia, even parts of pakistan that is a much stronger state to have very, etc. complete leander control so there are also worries. so we've all the new strategy with the use of drones, a special forces forces, the training of local forces to help us. we're hoping that strategy will slowly down. it has happened as in the

boston marathon bombings. but because the ideology, the feeling of victimization into empowering them has a small number of people so that would be almost impossible to stop. we could do a better job of uncovering it to be more aware but the whole element in stateless terrorist groups is a factor it will be for the foreseeable future. >>host: what percent of foreign policy is focused on the road? >> a great deal. it does not go. we have a problem with china from time to time or our european allies, and

certainly recurrence of power struggles with the government is in russia but also very small states but because of the nuclear factor or chemical or biological, they attract a lot of attention to as a consequence we spend a disproportionate time may be some times when her to% but then in the same as the case of boris korea it comes for example, negative tension over the last three or four weeks and how it seems to be dissipating in.will reemerge later on. there are times the unit's states is focused would have to present or 40 percent of our we have the internal crisis or a political even to a and all of the

attention. i could give you legislation or in economic problem but the foreign policy from the size that they are, they+ argue -- occupy a great deal of attention that it has collapsed. >> would about cuba? >>guest: at one time it was the spearpoint they were the most aggressive with nicaragua, bolivia, even though they sent 16,000 troops there for not a metaphor for a but committed ideologically and the soviets were happy to have them. but when it collapsed, a slew did in cuba.

there no longer had the largest and they were probing their own food in their lost seats way of hugo chavez locus says essen said culture original inspiration for go so he helped them a great deal. he read turn the medical doctors in said descend into venezuela. so there was a relationship so depending on how a row slips from one great power into the orbit of another, but today i don't consider cuba a rogue state in the lunker. i think it is failing in many respects and moving away very slowly from the

communist ideology to allow some major or minor changes in the economy that are more free-market than the past. >>host: one take away from "america and the rogue states" as the world relapses back to great power politics, modern-day machiavellian will look for their prints and fined him such as kim jong-il or herb negative year alice sighed. we it as they may come the loan will states have succumbed or aligned himself with the more powerful in we should say kim jong noone. >> that'd is true. i bring that out in a classical period but they are not strong they are to go into a shelter of the march -- much larger power in that has happened self yemen at 1.was

a rogue state. so was libya. and of course, cuba but they have to look good in the short-term we still have to deal with them. long-term while the rogue states may disappear others will surface. it is a reoccurring problem so we may get rid of some but others will surface and replace them with the tall militarize state that cause the rest of the world a lot of problems. >>host: thomas henriksen is the author of "america and the rogue states" booktv is on location at stanford university.

>>host: booktv from sid third university continues know we're joined by jenny martinez whose book "the slave trade and the origins of international human rights law" is our next topic. professor, when did the u.s. slave trade star in how did this start? >> u.s. was involved in the slave trade from the moment that we began as a colony of britain's and one of the interesting things of u.s. history is in the constitutional convention there was a compromise for the states that had slaves