Labeling a state rogue justifies invasive violence against it

Evidence

Rogue or mutant states supposedly represent a more radical difference or otherness than those states properly plugged into the neoliberal global network of robust and unrestricted trade, free markets, and exploitable labor forces and natural resources. Their management is seen logically to require a greater degree of invasiveness, of surgical strike, of the imposition of duress or violence to control, to transmogrify or metamorphose, than those states where intercourse is considered more appealing and effective. Falling outside the reach of control through commerce, debt regulation, structural adjustment, and cultural or ideological suasion, they are subjected to increasingly invasive measures of regulation. Their supposed racial distinction renders them vulnerable to external imposition, restraint, and ultimately violence. — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race, 1809

Categorization

• SEED: Article angle: how the ‘rogue state’ label is a racializing move that licenses military intervention the way Jim Crow racialization licensed police violence — a through-line from domestic racism to geostrategic war.
• XREF: Connects to Goldberg’s earlier ‘born again racism’ concept and to the container-state/free-state distinction developed in chapter 1.