The Axis
March 10th, 2003 | by Tony Steidler-Dennison |Is The Axis of Evil proving to be one of the great diplomatic blunders of all time? Let’s look at the chronology and the facts.
At the time of George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, America had just accomplished its first objective in the War on Terrorism. Afghanistan had been relieved of the rule of the Taliban. We had seemingly accomplished in a few short months what the Soviet Union could not accomplish in more than a decade. Iraq had shown no aggression toward its neighbors or the world community in more than ten years. Iran was slowly moving toward re-establishing diplomatic relations with the Western world. North Korea’s nuclear program was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then, all three were explicitly named in the State of the Union Address:
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. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.
In October, at roughly the same time the US military buildup began in the Middle East, North Korea revealed that it did, indeed, have a nuclear weapons program. It locked out inspectors, reactivated a plant capable of producing enriched uranium, and began missile testing.
Though intelligence reports have said as early as December 2001 that the North Koreans could launch a nuclear payload across the Pacific Ocean, it’s only now, since North Korea abandoned its voluntary moratorium on flight tests of its long-range missiles and relaunched its nuclear weapons program, that officials are wondering to what extent North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is willing to go to gain political leverage.
The U.S. government has reported since 2001 that if successful, a North Korean three-stage rocket could reach a distance of 9,300 miles — far enough to hit all of North America — with several hundred pounds of weapons payload on it.
Today, this on CNN.:
Citing unnamed diplomatic sources, Time says U.N. weapons inspectors have discovered that Iran’s uranium-enrichment facility is “extremely advanced,” to the point that it violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Enriched uranium could be used to produce nuclear weapons.
Caught up in a groundswell of political support, George Bush told the world in his 2002 State of the Union Address that three specific countries constituted an Axis of Evil. He discounted the value of diplomacy and told the world that if our allies did not act, America would.
Faced with the military buildup in preparation for a war in Iraq, North Korea and Iran have now both begun rattling the nuclear sabre. North Korea already has nuclear capabilities, and Iran seems very close.
Since these countries were named in the Axis, they’ve watched a massive buildup of troops in the Middle East. In fact, the buildup has been significant enough, and the US attitude arrogant enough, that both North Korea and Iran clearly see no choice but to pull the ultimate trump card in order to protect their interests.
Clearly, no one can support the regimes in these countries. But the utter absence of diplomacy on the part of the Bush administration has left these countries feeling as if they’ve been pushed into a corner from which they can only escape on the threat of nuclear war.
Diplomacy also serves as the final bulwark against the sacrifice of life, both foreign and American. To skip past diplomatic channels, even with the worst of countries, is to skip directly to that sacrifice of life.
We name them in an Axis of Evil, then begin building a massive force against the first in that triumvirate. We shun diplomatic channels, publicly bullying those who hold a different view than our own. Then we wonder why small despots hold a finger over the nuclear trigger in the face of American military might.
Despicable tyrants? Yes. And clearly unnerved by the utter lack of diplomacy on the part of the Bush administration. The Axis of Evil is moving to defend itself.
7 Responses to “The Axis”
By Ian Christie on Mar 11, 2003 | Reply
Sounds like the opening to Mad Max: The Road Warrior.
http://geocities.com/scifiscripts3/scripts/madmax2.txt
By Chris on Mar 11, 2003 | Reply
How many years of diplomacy should we go through as the countries prepare ever more to increase their WMD? Iraq will never listen to diplomacy…they don’t care. Saddam doesn’t care. North Korea could be reached through diplomacy yet I cant help but feel that their reach for nuclear weapons now is just a giant cry for attention. THey don’t want a war with the world, they don’t need that. They’re acting up to get us to recognize them and meet them. NK we can use diplomacy on, hell we could just throw food at them and it’d probably work. Iraq is a different story. Anyways, war is just the last stage of diplomacy. Frankly, I’m sick of seeing Iraq spit on it all anyways.
By Dean in Des Moines on Mar 11, 2003 | Reply
You have stated the facts well and presented a clear timeline of events. However I disagree with your conclusions. The idea that they are beginning this because of the State of the Union address is without merit. Indeed, to even be speaking such they must have started years ago. It seems more likely that President Bush revealed to the world what N. Korea and Iran were hiding. Now that they’ve been called, they are laying out their cards. Your idea that the United States Military has scared them into action is intriguing, but unfounded.
By Ron Sinclair on Mar 15, 2003 | Reply
The last election’s choice of presidents-elect wasn’t choice pickings but I opted for Bush. The only real reason I voted for Dubbya was because he’d promised to send the troops home from the Bosnia region and I was heartbroken when I heard that he wasn’t going to do it (funny, after being elected and sworn in, he’d change his stance).
Anyways, the longer he stays in presidency, the more I’m finding faults against him and his policies. I admit, I’m a bit biased since my wife is in the Army as a regular service member. I don’t want and like war…I’ve been in the thick of world conflict before and its not nice at all.
I agree that the Iraq and NK issues need to be dealt with and that they are indeed serious issues.
In regards to Iraq and diplomacy…the need for diplomacy with them ended a LONG time ago, IMO. It’s been how long since the Gulf conflict? Over 10 yrs, and its still a sore festering spot that needs to be tended to…not just with the U.S. but many countries worldwide. How many time do you have to smack Saddam’s hand before he getting the right message? Obviously too many times, as he hasn’t got the message yet. Stronger means are necessary now.
NK is now reported to have nuclear capability. What do we do? We treat them as any other country who is a new member of the arms race, IMO, though NK bears watching. The fact that the country is communist shouldn’t have bearing as a country’s actions should show more than a country’s structure. NK’s world involvement is more overt, but no less dangerous…they’ve terrorist ties. Yet, we have more of a focus on Saddam than what could be a far more dangerous country. Why? Some say its the oil. I dunno. I think Bush Jr. thinks he has a legacy he inherited from his father that he wants to be intimately involved in (to emulate his father and his role in the war with Iraq years ago). He wants to beat up the world bully that his father beat upon when he was president.
I have no understanding why the U.S. always seems to think they have a ‘world police’ role. Ever since the first Gulf conflict, we’ve been involved with events that should have no bearing on our status as a country, yet we are continually sticking our nose in places where it doesn’t belong. I hate to say it but this may be why we now have our terrorist problems.
Though we have our own domestic problems, we always tend to focus on other countries’ domestics, though our own backyard needs tending. Our focus as a world power is TOO focused on the outside, IMO. A new president won’t fix this problem, as I see the problem has been ongoing through THREE presidents. Perhaps the citizens need to stress a need to avoid conflict unless absolutely necessary. Conflict with Iraq may be necessary due to the long duration of time we’ve been dealing with them but this far-reaching policy toward terrorism is a bit much for me to grasp…too ambitious of a project. NK can have their nukes, IMO…they are flotsam, a small country with little effect on the world or asian region.
So, IMO, Iraq, yes, the other issues, no.
By joseph castleschouldt on Mar 15, 2003 | Reply
“2 : to engage (a person) for duty in the armed forces
1 : to enroll oneself in the armed forces
2 : to participate heartily (as in a cause, drive, or crusade)”
“1 a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops c often capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare”
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Do not join an organization without understanding its purpose for existence.
By Ron Sinclair on Mar 16, 2003 | Reply
Joseph,
What are you referring to? You lost me.
Are you trying to say I “join[ed] an organization without understanding its purpose for existence”? If so, you’re misunderstood. I enlisted and continued to reenlist, fully understanding what I was doing.
If you’re referring to Tony, I’m betting he felt the same (Tony DOES have military experience, no?).
By joseph castleschouldt on Mar 16, 2003 | Reply
Ron,
I was referring to the individuals that join the military for the benefits and become incensed and refuse to serve when called to duty.
Those people are still with us but not in the numbers of Desert Storm.
On another point, one nuke set off in the wrong spot can spell the end of the world. AMD was our peace in the fifties and sixties but it doesn’t work with psychopathic leaders of small nations.
We have to watch where we put our feet are we may step in it.