- In one of the most dramatic moments of his State of the
Union address, President George W. Bush asserted that Iran, Iraq and North
Korea jointly constitute "an axis of evil" that threatens world
peace. Simply by uttering this phrase -- so suggestive of the "Axis
powers" (Germany, Italy and Japan) of World War II -- seemed to put
the United States on a higher level of war preparation. And, while
insisting
that the United States is not on the verge of invasion, senior Pentagon
officials suggested that they were gearing up for a possible military
engagement
with these countries.
-
- Given that any such encounter would be far more costly
and dangerous than the current war in Afghanistan, Americans need to ask:
How real is this threat? Do we really face an "axis of
evil"?
-
- Consider first the concept of an "axis." The
term suggests an alliance or confederation of states that pose a
significant
danger precisely because of their common alignment -- a menace greater
than the sum of the parts.
-
- There is no doubt that the leaders of Iran, Iraq and
North Korea -- as with leaders from many other nations -- share a certain
fear of and hostility toward the United States. But there is absolutely
no indication that the three states in question have conspired together
to fight the United States or to cooperate militarily. Indeed, President
Bush reportedly was obliged to eliminate language from his speech
suggesting
such ties because U.S. intelligence agencies were unable to find any proof
of a connection.
-
- If anything, the three states are more divided than they
are united. Iran and Iraq, in particular, have a long history of mutual
hostility. Between 1980 and 1988 they fought a bloody war with one another,
attacking each other's cities with ballistic missiles and poisoning each
other's troops with chemical weapons. They remain bitter enemies today.
Iran even has armed anti-government forces inside Iraq. The very idea of
an "axis" between these two states is preposterous.
-
- North Korea is no ally to Iran or Iraq. So far as is
known, North Korea's only contact with the two has been as a purveyor of
ballistic missile components. This is troubling, to be sure, but most
American
experts believe that the North Koreans' principal motive here is the
pursuit
of hard cash (it has no other exports to sell) rather than political
solidarity.
Besides, Pyongyang is believed to have sold more missile technology to
our ally Pakistan than to either Iran or Iraq.
-
- What about the threat the three pose as individual
actors,
outside of any alliance?
-
- Here, Bush can make a stronger case. All three have been
known to pursue the manufacture of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles,
and all three possess chemical weapons. This threat requires U.S.
attention.
However, there is considerable debate in Washington as to the magnitude
of the threat and the best way to counter it.
-
- Iraq was once the furthest along of the three in its
development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), pursuing nuclear,
chemical
and biological munitions and ballistic missile delivery systems. But the
1991 Persian Gulf conflict, along with post-conflict arms destruction by
the United Nations, eradicated all major Iraqi facilities for the
production
of these systems. All that remains, so far as can be surmised in the
absence
of U.N. inspections (which were suspended in 1998), are very small pilot
facilities for continuing research in these areas. Any effort by Iraq to
build anything larger -- that is, anything capable of producing WMD on
a large scale -- would be detected by U.S. satellites and surveillance
aircraft and then destroyed by bombs and missiles.
-
- So long as the United States continues its overflights
of Iraq, the threat posed by Iraqi WMD can be kept relatively small. And
the best way to eliminate this diminished threat, in the view of many
experts,
is to impose "smart sanctions" of the sort proposed by Secretary
of State Colin Powell to compel Iraq to allow the re-entry of U.N. weapons
inspectors.
-
- North Korea has the next largest WMD capability. It,
too, had sought nuclear weapons in the past, but its nuclear program was
dismantled in 1994 under an agreement with the United States -- an
agreement
that has been faithfully observed by the North Koreans, according to all
U.S. reports. Our biggest current worry is North Korea's ballistic missile
program, which had been making slow but steady progress in the
1990s.
-
- Under pressure from Russia and China, however, Pyongyang
agreed in 1999 to suspend flight testing of its long-range missiles --
a necessary prerequisite for their operational deployment -- so long as
the United States engaged in negotiations with North Korea on issues of
mutual concern. Continuing these negotiations is thus seen by many in
Washington
and by most U.S. allies (including South Korea) as the best way to contain
the North Korean missile threat.
-
- Iran has the least-developed WMD program. Economic
hardship
has forced the government to cut back on weapons spending, and its desire
for foreign trade and investment has spurred it to open its major nuclear
facilities to international inspection. This has not stopped Teheran from
pursuing nuclear weapons on a limited, clandestine basis, but most experts
believe that it will be many years (if ever) before Iran can acquire the
wherewithal to mass-produce nuclear arms.
-
- Fewer constraints stand in the way of Iran's ballistic
missile program, but here, too, a lack of funds slows its efforts. Iran
is also deeply divided between pro- and anti-reform forces. Many observers
(particularly in Europe) believe that the best way to diminish the Iranian
threat is to support President Mohammed Khatami and other reformers in
their drive to liberalize the country.
-
- What we really face are three very isolated countries
with significant problems and many constraints -- hardly an "axis
of evil." Certainly the three pose a threat of WMD proliferation --
as do other countries not mentioned by the president, such as India and
Pakistan -- and so the United States must take steps to diminish the
threat.
-
- But there are many ways to accomplish this without going
to war. In fact, merely by threatening to go to war, the president may
undermine current efforts to curb their WMD activities, such as unification
talks between North and South Korea and the U.S. drive to impose smart
sanctions on Iraq. The president's rousing words will hinder rather than
help American efforts to make the world a safer place.
-
- Michael Klare (mklare@hampshire.edu) is a professor of
peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass.,
and author of "Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws" (Hill and Wang,
1995).
-
- http://www.alternet.org
|