Financial Times Editorial - Revisiting Bush's 'axis of evil' speech
Financial Times Editorial - Revisiting Bush's 'axis of evil' speech
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: July 8 2006 03:00 | Last updated: July 8 2006 03:00
By opting to test its nuclear-capable missiles on America's independence day, North Korea sent a calculated message of defiance. The fact that Kim Jong-il's July 4 fireworks sputtered out almost as quickly as they were launched in no way detracts from the reckless symbolism of his act.
For once, no one can accuse Washington of ill thought out unilateralism. In the wake of the failed tests President George W. Bush correctly emphasised the need for the six-party group - particularly South Korea and China - to respond with effective unity to Pyongyang's latest pyrotechnics. It is to be hoped Washington gets better results than it has so far in persuading China, South Korea and Russia to show much greater resolve towards North Korea.
But Mr Kim's continuing antics also throw America's broader "axis of evil" strategy into sharper relief. It is four-and-a-half years since Mr Bush conflated the war on terror with the threat of weapons of mass destruction and elevated Iraq, Iran and North Korea into a special category of global pariahs. The record so far is not good. Far from having milked global sympathies from the September 11 2001 attacks to isolate the most dangerous rogue states, the US is today seen as more of a problem than a solution.
In Iraq, which in 2002 no longer possessed any WMD, the situation remains frighteningly precarious. The fact that 1,200 bodies landed up in Baghdad's morgues in June - the same month in which Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed - is testimony to how unmanageable that conflict threatens to become. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea are far closer to becoming nuclear states than when Mr Bush delivered that address.
Mr Bush should draw three clear lessons from this troubling interlude. First, talking to other countries - particularly those that hate you - is not a sign of weakness. Many of the Bush administration's leading figures cut their teeth as inveterate opponents of detente with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Instead of learning from Ronald Reagan, who used direct talks to exploit the USSR's weaknesses in the 1980s, they continue to portray anyone favouring dialogue as appeasers. In fact, as Mr Bush discovered with Muammer Gadaffi's Libya, the world's sole superpower concedes nothing by talking and has plenty to gain. The US restored relations with Libya because it agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. Tripoli's climb-down constitutes Mr Bush's only unmixed victory against rogue states so far.
Second, democracy cannot easily be implanted in foreign soils. As we have seen in Iraq and are worryingly close to observing in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are threatening a comeback, building democracy requires more patience and investment than Mr Bush has so far been prepared to offer. Military occupation rarely leads to democracy. But without a minimum level of stability it cannot hope to survive.
Finally, multilateralism often works. In late May, Mr Bush showed he had belatedly grasped this point by offering multiparty talks to Iran. Already there are signs that the mere offer of dialogue has sown divisions among Iran's mullahs. How much more could have been saved if Mr Bush had done this in 2003 when a better chance presented itself? Nevertheless, there were portions of Mr Bush's 2002 speech that did ring true: "The price of indifference would be catastrophic," he said. Mr Bush still has time to convince China, Russia and others of this basic insight.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Published: July 8 2006 03:00 | Last updated: July 8 2006 03:00
By opting to test its nuclear-capable missiles on America's independence day, North Korea sent a calculated message of defiance. The fact that Kim Jong-il's July 4 fireworks sputtered out almost as quickly as they were launched in no way detracts from the reckless symbolism of his act.
For once, no one can accuse Washington of ill thought out unilateralism. In the wake of the failed tests President George W. Bush correctly emphasised the need for the six-party group - particularly South Korea and China - to respond with effective unity to Pyongyang's latest pyrotechnics. It is to be hoped Washington gets better results than it has so far in persuading China, South Korea and Russia to show much greater resolve towards North Korea.
But Mr Kim's continuing antics also throw America's broader "axis of evil" strategy into sharper relief. It is four-and-a-half years since Mr Bush conflated the war on terror with the threat of weapons of mass destruction and elevated Iraq, Iran and North Korea into a special category of global pariahs. The record so far is not good. Far from having milked global sympathies from the September 11 2001 attacks to isolate the most dangerous rogue states, the US is today seen as more of a problem than a solution.
In Iraq, which in 2002 no longer possessed any WMD, the situation remains frighteningly precarious. The fact that 1,200 bodies landed up in Baghdad's morgues in June - the same month in which Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed - is testimony to how unmanageable that conflict threatens to become. Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea are far closer to becoming nuclear states than when Mr Bush delivered that address.
Mr Bush should draw three clear lessons from this troubling interlude. First, talking to other countries - particularly those that hate you - is not a sign of weakness. Many of the Bush administration's leading figures cut their teeth as inveterate opponents of detente with the Soviet Union in the 1970s. Instead of learning from Ronald Reagan, who used direct talks to exploit the USSR's weaknesses in the 1980s, they continue to portray anyone favouring dialogue as appeasers. In fact, as Mr Bush discovered with Muammer Gadaffi's Libya, the world's sole superpower concedes nothing by talking and has plenty to gain. The US restored relations with Libya because it agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. Tripoli's climb-down constitutes Mr Bush's only unmixed victory against rogue states so far.
Second, democracy cannot easily be implanted in foreign soils. As we have seen in Iraq and are worryingly close to observing in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are threatening a comeback, building democracy requires more patience and investment than Mr Bush has so far been prepared to offer. Military occupation rarely leads to democracy. But without a minimum level of stability it cannot hope to survive.
Finally, multilateralism often works. In late May, Mr Bush showed he had belatedly grasped this point by offering multiparty talks to Iran. Already there are signs that the mere offer of dialogue has sown divisions among Iran's mullahs. How much more could have been saved if Mr Bush had done this in 2003 when a better chance presented itself? Nevertheless, there were portions of Mr Bush's 2002 speech that did ring true: "The price of indifference would be catastrophic," he said. Mr Bush still has time to convince China, Russia and others of this basic insight.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home