President Bush, in his recent State of the Union speech, labeled Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an “axis of evil” in the modern world. As he was saying those words, it took my breath away. Such a strong remark by an American President directed at countries we are not at war with certainly raises eyebrows.
The press was duly excited, but in the first day after, the White House played down the remarks in briefings, and almost acted as if Bush didn’t mean it. Since then however, there has been a different tune. For a White House that doesn’t leak much, there have been a series of (deliberate?) leaks that have so much as said that Saddam Hussein is history. Colin Powell himself has stated that America’s policy is to create a “regime change” in Iraq. So where does the “axis of evil” rhetoric come from, and what does it really mean for American policy? Are we going to war with all three countries in the near future?
The term “axis” has a very specific historical resonance. The alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II was sealed by a treaty that created a “Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis” of fascist powers. This Axis was opposed by the “Allies” as the alliance of Britain, America, Russia, and China was known. To refer to three countries today as an “axis” is to rhetorically associate them with the classic enemies of World War II.
The use of “evil” as a descriptive term in American foreign policy also has a specific history. In 1982, President Reagan gave a famous speech in which he referred to the Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire”, a remark that earned him the scorn of most of America’s liberal establishment. In contrast, history has treated his remarks kindly, as in the end, it was an evil empire that crumbled of its own weight.
Bush’s speechwriter conflated the two terms axis and evil in a clever manner that has a definite resonance with his audience. But the object of this phrase turns out not to be much of an axis, and perhaps not quite so evil. The World War II axis was a real military alliance, although between Japan and the European powers there was not much in the way of direct assistance. However, Hitler’s decision to declare war on the US two days after Pearl Harbor was due to his desire partly to honor his commitment to Japan. On the other hand, Iran and Iraq have fought each other, and except for the sale of some missile technology by North Korea, there is no real alliance between the three countries. It is hard to see how they make some sort of a coherent “axis”.
The relative “evilness” of these three states is also in dispute. North Korea’s main crime is that it is incredibly bizarre and sealed off from the rest of the world, but it hasn’t actually done much harm lately. Except for trying to overrun South Korea 50 years ago, they have mostly stayed to themselves. The main concerns with North Korea deal with its willingness to sell missile technology to various bad guys, and the fact that they have tried to develop a nuclear weapon. The country itself is bankrupt, decrepit, and starving, and hardly poses much of a risk to the rest of the world.
Iran is a puzzling case for American policymakers. On one side is the hard-line conservative faction that never misses an opportunity to tweak America s nose. They were probably behind the arms shipment to the Palestinians that was loaded in Iran and intercepted on its way to Gaza. On the other side is an elected government that is rather liberal in its outlook, and is viewed as reformist though impotent. Iran is recognized as complex by the American establishment, and therefore there is no strong case for invading or attacking the country.
Iraq however has been a serious problem for America for 10 years. It remains in violation of UN Resolutions related to the Gulf War, and these could be the legal basis for an American attack without going back to the UN for another Security Council Resolution. Saddam continues to try to build nuclear and chemical weapons along with biological weapon systems. Defectors have described his various subterfuges over the years. His brutal suppression of his own people is among the harshest of any country on the planet. He has skillfully turned the UN sanction regime into a propaganda tool against America, as he has convinced the Arab world that Iraq’s suffering is not really his fault. Bush has concluded that his unremitting hostility to America, coupled with his aggressive nature displayed over the years, makes him enemy number one.
This I think is the real meaning of Bush’s remarks. They were entirely directed at Iraq, and Iran and North Korea were added on to provide a sense that this was not a personal vendetta by Bush against Saddam. Throwing in Iran and North Korea allowed Bush to show that he is interested in all the problems facing America, and not to tip his hand too clearly that he intends to go after Saddam in particular.
But the leaks from the White House made clear that Bush has opted to overthrow Saddam. The other two nations were simply let off with a warning, while Saddam is in deep trouble. Saddam will try to wiggle out of this by agreeing to let UN weapon inspectors back in next month, but Bush will put impossible conditions on that to force Saddam’s hand. It will take several months to assemble a military force capable of reaching Baghdad. The reality is that Iraq’s military is rusted from 10 years of embargo and neglect, and the soldiers have no desire to die for Saddam. The Iraqi military will collapse when faced by a real American invasion, and I would not be shocked if the street scenes in Baghdad make the liberation of Kabul pale in comparison.