 |
By Geoffrey Hartman
It has been almost a year since President George W. Bush unveiled the "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union Address. In the year since, the "Axis of Evil" concept has become a lightning rod for criticism of Bush and
his foreign policy. To some, the labeling of the "Axis of Evil" embodies the arrogant attitude of American "imperialists." To others, the "Axis of Evil" clearly demonstrates Bush's lack of diplomatic nuance.
Some of this criticism has been deserved. Bush does have a tendency to eschew nuance in favor of black and white divisions. He also has a tendency toward moral judgments that, whether correct or not, seems presumptuous and arrogant to some.
If one looks beyond the rhetorical excess, however, it becomes apparent the "Axis of Evil" was a groundbreaking and somewhat prescient concept. It was both a recognition of the threats most likely to confront the United States in the near future and a vow to meet them head on. It was a complete departure, both in tone and scope, from the aimless foreign policy of the Clinton years.
The "Axis of Evil" sheds some light on what the Bush foreign policy team feels are the most pressing threats to U.S. security. Coming so soon after 9/11, one would think terrorism and terrorist-supporting states would be the primary focus of the "Axis of Evil." This is not the case, however, as only one of the "Axis of Evil" states, Iran, is considered a top-level supporter of terrorism.
The common thread between the "Axis of Evil" states is not terrorism; it's the development of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. It is hardly a coincidence that the three states that are listed as members of the "Axis of Evil" are the three states actively developing nuclear weapons.
The makeup of the "Axis of Evil" implies that the Bush administration views nuclear proliferation, not terrorism, as the No. 1 threat to the United States and its interests. Many may disagree with this view, but I for one think it is spot on.
The simmering crisis in North Korea provides a textbook example of the danger presented by nuclear proliferation. The current crisis evolved after the North Koreans admitted to and threatened to expand a secret nuclear program they had continued in violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States. It is thought that the North Koreans already possess one or two nuclear devices.
This nuclear program has transformed an otherwise irrelevant and backwards nation into a flashpoint for a potential conflict in East Asia. If the North Koreans produce more nuclear weapons, it may compel other East Asian states, most notably Japan, to go nuclear in response.
This could lead to a nuclear arms race in East Asia, which is the last thing anyone wants. As we all learned in "WarGames," there are no winners in global thermonuclear war.
As if the threat of nuclear war weren't bad enough, there are other negative consequences to the North Korean nuclear program. For starters, the nuclear program is helping to prop up the dictatorial regime of Kim Jong Il, quite possibly the most repressive regime on earth.
The nuclear program props up the North Korean regime by providing a perfect vehicle for blackmail of the United States and other nations, upon whose aid North Korea is increasingly reliant. In 1994, the United States
agreed to give the North Koreans fuel oil and two nuclear power plants in exchange for the ending of the nuclear weapons program. The North Koreans violated that agreement and are now trying to extort even more from the United States.
If the United States doesn't give in to blackmail, the North Koreans can still profit by selling nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles on the black market. The North Koreans have shown no compunctions about selling weapons technology in the past, which brings up the blood-chilling prospect of Islamic fundamentalists armed with North Korean nuclear weapons.
It's pretty obvious a North Korean nuclear weapons program is a nightmare. So what can the United States do about it? The sad fact of the matter is the options available to the United States are limited.
Diplomatic results already have proven to be hard to achieve and ephemeral at best. Military action is almost completely out of the question, as no one wants to see a North Korean nuke go off in Tokyo or Seoul. To top it all off, Kim Jong Il is a nutjob; the United States can't push him too hard, as no one knows what he'll do if backed into a corner. All in all, the situation is a complete mess.
In North Korea, nuclear weapons allow an insane despot to exert influence that would be far beyond his power otherwise. Nuclear weapons also shield him from foreign intervention and help prop up his regime. In hindsight, it would have been better for all parties involved if North Korea had never come close to having nuclear capabilities. With its focus on nonproliferation, the "Axis of Evil" is a welcome attempt to stop such regimes.
North Korea provides a perfect example of why the nuclear weapons programs of states such as Iraq and Iran should be stopped now, while we still have the ability to do something about them. Once these states get nukes, it will be too late to stop them, as North Korea shows. Does anyone really want to see Saddam Hussein or the Ayatollahs of Iran protected and strengthened by nuclear weapons?
Many people have said in the past few weeks that the United States should ignore Iraq and concentrate on North Korea because North Korea is the bigger threat. I disagree. North Korea may indeed be the bigger threat, but there is little potential for success there. At best, the United States can return things to the status quo and push resolution of that situation off to a later date.
In contrast, the United States has a chance in Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, whether through effective U.N. inspections, or military action, before it achieves success. This opportunity won't exist forever and to squander it now would be a huge mistake.
It is in all of our interests to stop nuclear proliferation in its tracks. North Korea's present must not become Iraq's future.
The Daily Nebraskan
January 16, 2003
A Year Later, "Axis of Evil" Still a Hot Topic
|
|
|
