Bush 0-for-3 with the ÒAxis of EvilÓ
With the testing of a nuclear device in North Korea, the
foreign policy of the Bush Administration whose major aim was to prevent the
spread of weapons of mass destruction has descended into complete failure. In
his 2002 axis-of-evil speech the president identified three countries as
Òevil:Ó Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Never mind that these countries had
nothing in common, except that Bush and his team disliked them. True Iraq was a
dirty dictatorship; but it was a secular country that had made war on Iran,
with our encouragement and support, for nearly a decade. Iran was a theocracy
with an elected president that had at one time been friendly to the United
States. After we overthrew their elected president, Mohammad
Mossadegh,
during the Eisenhower administration, it had come to view America as the Great
Satan. Iraq had attacked it in the 1980s, so Iran was hostile to that member of
the axis of evil. North Korea was and is a communist dictatorship with no
connection to either of the other Òevildoers.Ó
The readers of antiwar.com know well that BushÕs Iraq policy has produced a disaster from which
we cannot extricate ourselves except at huge cost to the Iraqis, to countries
surrounding Iraq, and, at a minimum, to the reputation of the United States.
Increasingly even Republicans are recognizing that Òstaying the course,Ó as
Bush puts it, is not a viable option and that a new policy is desperately
needed. It seems likely that, before the next Presidential election in 2008,
political pressure will be so great that most if not all of our troops will be
out of that country.
Our policy towards Iran has had the effect of pushing that
country towards building nuclear weapons. The people of Iran resist being
lectured to by anyone, especially the ÒGreat Satan.Ó Our unwillingness to sit
down and talk directly with the representatives of that country can only be
characterized as stupid and shortsighted. Jim Baker, a former Chief
of Staff to President Reagan, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of State
for Bush I, said recently ÒItÕs not appeasement to talk to your enemies.Ó The
current Bush administration has refused to participate in talks with that state
until they agree to suspend nuclear enrichment. From the Iranian point of view,
agreeing to suspend enrichment means giving away its only bargaining chip.
Actually the Iranians have international law on their side. According to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, (NPT) countries have the right to
build nuclear facilities and to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants. Thus
the Iranian public, even those who dislike the current leaders, supports the
effort to develop the technology and the facilities for nuclear power. Threats
to sanction their country only build support for the government and its
projected course of action. Moreover, many Iranians believe that the Bush
administration would like to engineer a regime change and might invade as they
did in Iraq. Thus a nuclear bomb would be a deterrent against attack by either
the United States or Israel. They note that the U.S. is not threatening to
attack North Korea, which claims to have nuclear bombs, while the U.S.
administration has made it clear that they are not taking military power off
the table as far as Iran is concerned. As a consequence, our foreign policy has
created an impasse. The Iranians continue their efforts to build nuclear
weapons while we sputter and sputter with empty threats.
The administrationÕs North Korean policy has led to a third grave
crisis. The North Koreans have tested a nuclear weapon, albeit a small one,
thus demonstrating to the world that they have joined the nuclear club. When
the administration took office in 2001, they inherited an ongoing relationship
with Pyongyang; but their general policy was to
disown and ignore everything that the Clinton White House had done. One of
their first steps was to undermine the Agreed Framework that the Clinton
Administration had negotiated with North Korea. Bush not only included that
country in the axis of evil but was quoted as saying that ÒI loathe Kim Jong-il
É IÕve got a visceral reaction to this guy, because heÕs starving his
children.Ó
Under the 1994 Agreed
Framework, North Korea had agreed to freeze and dismantle its plutonium weapons
program and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect
its nuclear facilities. In return, it was to receive international aid: two
light water nuclear reactors and fuel oil to supply its power plants until the
reactors were built. The U.S. promised to move towards full recognition and
normal political and economic relations; it would also give formal assurances
that the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons against NK. The U.S. never lived up
to its bargain to establish normal relations nor did it promise not to use such
bombs. Moreover, the Japanese and South Koreans were slow in building the light
water reactors.
The White House has been
claiming that the Agreed Framework was a failure.Actually it worked well. The
IAEA inspected North KoreaÕs nuclear facilities regularly and the plutonium was
kept under lock and key. Near the end of the Clinton Administration, Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright visited the ÒDear LeaderÓ in Pyongyang and there
was talk of a visit by President Clinton.
Despite these promising
steps, in October of 2002, the administration claimed that the North Koreans
were cheating and had a covert program to enrich uranium. Although the
administration claimed that the Koreans had admitted to it initially, the
charge that they were enriching uranium has never been proved. Even if NK were
attempting to enrich uranium, such as step would not have violated the
Framework Agreement or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As a consequence
of the U.S. claim, the president halted oil shipments, which had been part of
the 1994 agreement. Shortly thereafter, Pyongyang reactivated its nuclear
facility and announced that it was withdrawing from the NPT.
Since then, Kim Jong-ilÕs
government has been pushing for one-on-one talks with the United States. Bush
has refused, insisting on six-party talks (U.S., Russia, China, South Korea,
Japan, and North Korea). In June of 2003, NK announced its intention to acquire
nuclear weapons to offset the Òhostile policyÓ of the United States. After the
U.S. imposed strict and effective financial sanctions on NK, ostensibly because
it was alleged to be counterfeiting dollars, Pyongyang refused to attend any
six-party talks. The government, however, has offered to abandon its nuclear
program in exchange for international aid and a non-aggression pledge from the
U.S.
The Bush administrationÕs
foreign policy is based on punishing those states whose policies we find
objectionable. The White House resists anything that looks as if it might
reward Òbad behavior.Ó This approach results in raising the ire of those
countries subject to our punishments. In the case of North Korea, it has pushed
that country into defying the world. Further sanctions are likely to result not
in better behavior but in more obstreperous actions. The only way to move
towards a non-nuclear Korean peninsula is to talk to Pyongyang, one-on-one.
Hiding behind the requirement of the six-country talks will not result in
peace.
Consider the results of the
Bush administrationÕs foreign policy. In six years, they have inducted one of
the axis of evil nations into the nuclear arms club; they have pushed a second
into following the same path; and they have created chaos, civil war, and a
quagmire in the third. Perhaps this is what Condi Rice meant when she was
talking about Òmushroom clouds,Ó only she said it in the context of the one
non-nuclear oriented state, Iraq.