Axis of evil’ comes back to haunt U.S.
Bush White House has reached crisis point with N. Korea, Iran and Iraq
ANALYSIS
By Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker
Updated: 5:14 a.m. CT Oct 10, 2006
Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.
Each problem appears to feed on the others, making the stakes higher and requiring Bush and his advisers to make difficult calculations, analysts and U.S. officials said. The deteriorating situation in Iraq has undermined U.S. diplomatic credibility and limited the administration's military options, making rogue countries increasingly confident that they can act without serious consequences. Iran, meanwhile, will be watching closely the diplomatic fallout from North Korea's apparent test as a clue to how far it might go with its own nuclear program.
"Iran will follow very carefully what happens in the U.N. Security Council after the North Korean test," said Robert J. Einhorn, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "If the United Nations is not able to act forcefully, then Iran will think the path is clear to act with impunity."
Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar and co-author of the new book "Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security," said the U.S. response to North Korea will have ripple effects. "Iran will certainly watch what happens. North Korea watched what happened with Pakistan and decided that the world didn't punish Pakistan too hard or too long," he said. "Iran will certainly notice if North Korea gets treated with kid gloves."
Political strategists debated the domestic implications of the North Korean test with midterm elections four weeks away. Some Republicans predicted it would take the focus off the Mark Foley congressional page scandal and remind voters that it is a dangerous world best confronted by tough-minded leaders. Some Democrats argued it would be seen as another failure of Bush's foreign policy and moved quickly to try to pin blame on the Republicans. "Is this going to help Republicans?" asked Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "The answer to that is absolutely not. This is another significant foreign policy failure for the administration."
2002 State of the Union speech
In Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, a speech designed to shift the political debate from a battle against al-Qaeda to a possible confrontation with Iraq, the president mentioned North Korea, Iraq and Iran and declared: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. . . . In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."
All three issues came to a head in 2003: The United States invaded Iraq and discovered no weapons of mass destruction; North Korea began to obtain weapons-grade plutonium from fuel rods that had been under international observation; and Iran disclosed that it had made rapid progress with a previously secret uranium-enrichment program.
In contrast to its handling of Iraq, the administration has tried to resolve the North Korean and Iranian nuclear breakouts with diplomacy. But progress has been slow, in part because the United States has been reluctant to hold bilateral talks with either country except within the context of broader talks with other nations.
Former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) faulted the administration for focusing on Iraq first, when greater threats loomed in North Korea and Iran. "We started with Iraq in the 'axis of evil' side, when we thought they did not yet have nuclear weapons, and that sent the signal to others that they better get them quick," he said. "I think we started on the wrong end of that."
The administration launched a full-court press yesterday at the Security Council, proposing elements of a tough resolution that would call for imposing an arms embargo and a series of legally binding U.N. financial and trade sanctions. The United States also called for international inspections of all trade in and out of North Korea to enforce the sanctions.
Focus on China’s reaction
U.S. officials yesterday were focusing especially closely on the reaction of China, long North Korea's main benefactor. The Chinese government publicly denounced the test in unusually strong language, and a senior U.S. official said the private comments of Chinese officials were equally strong. While China has been reluctant to pressure North Korea, fearing a collapse of the government and mass refugees on its border, "the question is whether a chaotic North Korea is worse than a nuclear North Korea," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivities.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appears likely to make a trip to the region soon to further build support for a tough response by China, Japan and South Korea. Several experts predicted that although China's leadership is angry enough to support some sanctions, it always will stop short of putting enough pressure on Pyongyang to force its collapse. "Full-up sanctions I don't see happening," said former White House Asia expert Michael J. Green, now at CSIS.
James B. Steinberg, President Bill Clinton's deputy national security adviser and now dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, said the North Korea test will raise a larger question that echoes Ronald Reagan's most famous 1980 campaign line -- "With respect to the axis of evil," Steinberg said, "are you better off today than you were four years ago? . . . It's clear that the answer is we're worse off with respect to the nuclear proliferation problem in both North Korea and Iran than four to six years ago, and I would argue we're worse off in our overall security because of the situation in Iraq."
Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report.
Originally Posted by DukeofSerbia: "Axis of Evil" - ahh.
Iraq under Sadam was secular state (Arabic nationalism)
Iran is shia state with theocracy elements.
In N. Korea neostalinistic marxist hell on Earth.
What they have/had common? Nothing!
United by evil. Evil Mullahs, Evil Dictators, Evil ambition for global expansion of power. Kuwait wasn't too happy about being invaded. Israel isn't too happy about the Hizbullah. And imagine the free people of South Korea crushed and starving to death under a united communist Korean dictatorship.
Axis of evil. Evil intent.
Now let's hear the liberals rant about how America is evil. Yay. Fun.
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma: United by evil. Evil Mullahs, Evil Dictators, Evil ambition for global expansion of power. Axis of evil. Evil intent.
Do you actually think Bush the Stupider and his henchmen are not evil? They're religious nutcases, they spit on the US Constitution and they are planning global domination for the Neocon faith. Axis of Evil?
Originally Posted by yesdachi: You think he and his are evil vs. Sadam/Ahmadinejad/Kim?
Moral relativist, impossible to argue with these people. Same folks can make the arguments comparing Mother Teresa with Adolf Hitler. Best to let the mentally disturbed rant and rave and sit back and giggle.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave: Moral relativist, impossible to argue with these people. Same folks can make the arguments comparing Mother Teresa with Adolf Hitler. Best to let the mentally disturbed rant and rave and sit back and giggle.
You are right, but without asking the question I would never get to see what kind of nonsense responses I get.
The whole idea of an "axis of evil" is a ridiculous one. It is nothing more than rhetorical nonsense. Iraq is not evil, the ba'athist regime was, the same goes for Saudi Arabia, not evil people, but an evil regime, though strangely enough not part of the axis.
Gordon G. Chang* author of 'Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World' has argued that the key to N. Korea is China and the way of getting to China is through S. Korea.
N. Korea like the rest of the peninsula is resource poor. Due to the isolation of the government they are extremely dependant on China for basic resources without which the country could not function. The other major contributor is S. Korea who through their "Sunshine Policy" has been putting various kinds of aid into the North for the past several years in the hopes of drawing the two closer together. Chang argues that China will not put pressure on Pyongyang as long as S. Korea continues sending aid. This is because any support China gives can always be justified in the context of one among others doing the same. Chang's idea is China is more amenable to change in foreign policy matters when/if its actions appear isolated. Washington should therefore pressure Seoul to take a hard line with N. Korea. This would then leave China as the sole national supporter and create an atmosphere where the ire of the world could create the necessary rhetorical pressure on China to bring Pyongyang to heel. The issue is especially important as Tehran receives key aid for N. Korea with its own program and will be watching the world's reaction.
* This is an example of some commentary from Chang regarding N. Korea: Will North Korea Test a Bomb?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
August 19, 2006
Will North Korea Test a Bomb?
ABC News, citing “suspicious vehicle movement” and the unloading of cable reels at an underground facility in northeastern North Korea, reported on Thursday that Pyongyang may be preparing to test a nuclear device. Speculation that the North would detonate a bomb began soon after the failure of its new long-range Taepodong-2, which was launched on July 4 (U.S. time) along with shorter-range missiles. Many analysts believe that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il needs to regain prestige lost after the Taepodong-2 blew up early in its flight. Since 2003 Kim has staged events that appeared to presage a nuclear test. So will the isolated nation actually go ahead this time and detonate a weapon?
As we know, there are virtually no coincidences when it comes to North Korea. There are three developments that have so far not been linked to a possible nuclear test. First, events in Lebanon are returning to normal, which means Kim can grab the world’s attention again. Moreover, he probably believes the relations between United States, his main adversary, and China, his principal ally, were strained by Washington’s support for Israel in its struggle against Hezbollah.
Second, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has just riled China and South Korea with a visit on August 15, the 61st anniversary of the end of the Second World War, to the Yasukuni shrine. Kim, therefore, probably feels he can split Asia while anti-Japanese sentiment is at a high point. The Japanese were instrumental in getting the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning Pyongyang for the July missile tests. Perhaps Kim thinks he should act while Tokyo, another adversary, is more isolated than usual.
Finally, North Korea needs aid due to the recent floods. Pyongyang has indicated that several hundred have died. It is perhaps significant that Good Friends, a Seoul-based aid agency that has good ties with the North, stated this week that approximately 54,700 North Koreans died or were missing and that 2.5 million people were displaced. The Good Friends report is probably exaggerated. It could be part of Pyongyang’s effort to obtain additional assistance. This week the North has accepted aid from both the South Korean government and the U.N.’s World Food Program, donors that it had spurned after the July missile tests. A nuclear test probably will not occur until Pyongyang has obtained the aid it needs to get through the winter.
A nuclear test appears to be just a matter of time. And the next few months look to be the perfect opportunity for Kim to act up. To borrow an old Soviet term he undoubtedly knows well, the “correlation of forces” is now looking good for him.
Sorry, Lemur, I usually enjoy your posts, but you are the almost innocent victim of my ire this time ..... HITLER WAS NOT A VEGETARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry.... but that urban myth really bugs me.
Okay folks, step back, nothing else to see, get back to your thread and back on topic.
Originally Posted by : From Snopes
Hitler's diet was primarily vegetarian throughout the latter part of his life; however, he didn't adopt a vegetarian diet for moral reasons, but because he suffered from gastric problems.
It’s amazing what a little stress will do to you.
Gurgle Gurgle… Phart! Oooo my bowels just got blitzkrieged.
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma: United by evil. Evil Mullahs, Evil Dictators, Evil ambition for global expansion of power. Kuwait wasn't too happy about being invaded. Israel isn't too happy about the Hizbullah. And imagine the free people of South Korea crushed and starving to death under a united communist Korean dictatorship.
Axis of evil. Evil intent.
All three country never was ally. How Iran and Iraq under Sadam were "Axis of evil" when they were in war?!
Leave it to Americans to use a four-color superhero comic (or equally simplistic Dungeons & Dragons) term like "evil" in serious discussion anyway. The world doesn't work on black-and-white terms like that.
'Sides, Iran is the way it is now to a large part because the US was once happily installing yet another lapdog autocrat there who eventually managed to completely alienate the populace. Iraq wasn't too much different. What goes around comes around.
North Korea has for quite a while been rather preoccupied not falling apart due to gross domestic mismanagement, and the ruling elite living it large surrounded by abject poverty in the best Third World tyranny tradition. Trying to conquer the South cannot have been on their agenda for decades now; the red thread of their foreign policy has chiefly consisted of A) securing the necessary supplies to avoid collapse from the outside by means fair or foul and B) not getting splattered by anyone with an interest in seeing them gone, chiefly the US (I've read Kim and folks took it rather badly when the new Bush adminstration promptly called quits the negotiations that were going on under Cinton; don't expect those guys to be able to relate to the bipolar American politics at all, they went into high paranoia instead).
Originally Posted by Watchman: Leave it to Americans to use a four-color superhero comic (or equally simplistic Dungeons & Dragons) term like "evil" in serious discussion anyway. The world doesn't work on black-and-white terms like that.
Yes the Americans are the only ones to have ever used the word “evil”.
Originally Posted by yesdachi: Yes the Americans are the only ones to have ever used the word “evil”.
Never said that, although they *do* seem to be about the only "Westerners" to use it when discussing the real world these days.
And, of course, "the Evil" is always Someone Else. In a way it is reassuring to see some things never change.
Originally Posted by Idaho: The 'axis of evil' is the kind of nonsense you get when you elect a intellectual lightweight as a president - and look where it has got you.
Tub-thumping rhetoric that dumbs down the complexities of the real world for the debatable benefit of the lowest common denominator is what it is, IMHO.
The bad thing is, it works on the domestic audience to an unhealthy degree.
Originally Posted by Watchman: Never said that, although they *do* seem to be about the only "Westerners" to use it when discussing the real world these days.
There is no relevance to your statement if you can replace “Americans” with any other country. If it was something only Americans would do (call football soccer, drink cold tea, etc.) it would work, you could have just made a general statement like only a fool would use “evil” in a serious discussion. But your statement implies that only Americans are simplistic enough to use “evil” in a serious discussion and that is not the case.
But you are correct IMO that America is one of the few western countries using the word, I seems like the rest of the west is suffering from a political correctness affliction.
I don’t really have issue with the word evil being a descriptor. The masses are simple and the media is only going to shorten the headline anyway why not cut to the meat and call our enemies, that roughly fit the definition, evil. How often do we really take anything that is said to its literal meaning?
Originally Posted by yesdachi: There is no relevance to your statement if you can replace “Americans” with any other country. If it was something only Americans would do (call football soccer, drink cold tea, etc.) it would work, you could have just made a general statement like only a fool would use “evil” in a serious discussion. But your statement implies that only Americans are simplistic enough to use “evil” in a serious discussion and that is not the case.
But you are correct IMO that America is one of the few western countries using the word, I seems like the rest of the west is suffering from a political correctness affliction.
I don’t really have issue with the word evil being a descriptor. The masses are simple and the media is only going to shorten the headline anyway why not cut to the meat and call our enemies, that roughly fit the definition, evil. How often do we really take anything that is said to its literal meaning?
Have you read Blair's interview on Newsnight, before the invasion? Blair has been cornered by Paxman on a number of other occasions too, asking if he agrees with the description of good and evil as presented by Bush. Each time he squirmed, knowing that if he espoused this black and white picture, the British people would consider him insane and unfit for office.
Originally Posted by macsen rufus: Sorry, Lemur, I usually enjoy your posts, but you are the almost innocent victim of my ire this time ..... HITLER WAS NOT A VEGETARIAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry.... but that urban myth really bugs me.
Okay folks, step back, nothing else to see, get back to your thread and back on topic.
Hitler was a vegetarian. The evidence, and direct quotes from Table Talk and other sources make this clear. Many of those who met him made it clear that he was a vegetarian. It is likely that he occasionally ate meat, which would make him a 'typical' vegetarian rather than a 'strict' vegetarian. Most vegetarian fall of the wagon, but they remain vegetarians.
"At the time when I ate meat, I used to sweat a lot. I used to drink four pots of beer and six bottles of water during a meeting. … When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water was enough."
- Adolf Hitler. January 22, 1942. Section 117, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
Hitler also loved his dog. That does not mean that people who love their dogs are homicidal maniacs! I don't agree with vegetarianism as a philosophy, but Hitler dietary choices have nothing to do with it.
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma: I was never proved right so fast. "Evil" America. Yay.
Which post says this exactly? AFAICS, people were talking about how stupid your president is, not how evil your country is. Or are you equating your president with your country, and see an insult to one as an insult to the other?
I read it. We invade one member of the "axis" because....well, because. And now the other two members are stepping up nuclear testing and being very in-your-face about it. What a better time to proliferate (and rub it in) than when the country who labeled you a member of the axis is now engaged in long term ground warfare with one of the other members? It's a perfect time, especially considereing that none of those members were allied or obligated to help one another vs the US, and one of them in fact in regular conflict with said member.
That particular comment in the state of the union was ill-thought and pointless in my opinion, considering that an "axis" is such context generally refers to allies/collaberators.
I think a good question is whether or not this would be happening (re:iran and nk nukes) if the speech did not contain the reference? I think it would still be happening.
I was also wondering if someone could tell me whether or not Saddam started selling oil in the IFF program in Euros instead of American Dollars before or after this axis speech. It's my understanding NK and Iran made the Euro switch soon after saddam. Which came first, the switch or the speech?