Axis of Evil

I still find the term "Axis of Evil" funny. I can't but help humming the Star Wars theme whenever it's mentioned.



Well, I could talk about Zimbabwe and the flagrant abuse of power that President Mugabe has committed. I could talk about the injustice of it (because when every single election observer there says that the election was "flawed at every stage" and when a crashed car was last week found to have a ballot box stuffed with papers voting for Mugabe's Zanu-PF party then it definitely falls under the category of unjust) and how something needs to be done to stop this happening. I'm not going to do that right now though. Partly because I'm inclined to believe that if the people of Zimbabwe want rid of their dictator then they need to do something about it themselves unless they wish to live a life being cowed and beaten. Mainly because I want to talk about Dubya's current favourite soundbite; The Axis of Evil.

Doubtless you have heard this phrase as it was spluttered forth a few weeks ago now. Let's not spend too much time worrying about the fact that the speechwriter seems to have picked the phrase according to how cool it sounded ("Yeah, Axis of Evil dude! If Dubya doesn't go for it maybe we can sell the idea to George Lucas for the 3rd Star Wars film..."). Instead, let us worry about what the implications may be for all of us if Dubya does what several newspapers (whom, to be honest, I suspect are scaremongering rather more than usual) are indicating and declares all out war (or low level conflict, or a policing operation, or whatever euphemism is flavour of the month at the moment) on all of the nations belonging to this Axis.

So then; which countries are lining up to join the axis? According to Dubya the 3 main offenders are Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. I'm going to look at Iraq last of all as that is something of a special case (i.e. Dubya pretty much got it right; I suppose 1 out of 3 is pretty decent...unless you're talking about declaring war and subsequent nuclear immolation in which case I'd prefer a little more accuracy). Firstly, a word about Iran. I admit to being biased as I have a soft spot for this country. President Khatami of Iran is making substantial inroads in bringing democracy and equality to this Persian nation (I do wish Dubya would stop calling them Arabs; another fine example of ignorance that is excrutiating at that level) despite the opposition of the hardline clergy who are doing their utmost to maintain the status quo (that being to support Islamic terror groups everywhere and to oppose anything said or done by the west and Israel). Khatami has done his utmost to relax the incredibly harsh Sharia law, endeavoured to improve the lot of the Iranian people (including women; a rarity in an Islamic nation) and has tried to make the government more representative of what Iranians want rather than the government telling people what they will get. He has been opposed at every turn by the clergy, who have subsequently found their support from the people plummeting. Khatami has said more than once that he has the people on his side and so the feeling was that he would get his way on a number of the reforms. After all, the last revolution was well within living memory; the clerics don't want to find themselves on the receiving end of another one.

And now, thanks to Dubya, a lot of that hard work has been undone. The clergy now say that this proves that they were right all along, and Khatami was foolish to try and open up Iran to negotiations with the West as they will always try to destroy Islamic culture and replace it with that of America. Many of the people of Iran (a nation where the people held candlelit vigils in memory of the victims of Sept. 11th) are understandably angry at being condemned by the US and so their support is swinging back to the clergy. Any hope of reforms that would increase the freedom of people in Iran has been dashed thanks to the land of the Brave and the Free. Supporters of Dubya's idiocy point to the fact that Iran and Khatami have made statements in support of Hamas, the Palestinian terror group responsible for so much of the bloodshed in Israel. And I agree, this is a bad thing. Would they perhaps like to look at some of the terror groups that the US has supported and in some cases continues to support? The Taliban once received US support, to say nothing of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, or Pinochet's murderous coup. The only thing that I can find to damn Iran for is the same thing that damns the US, the UK (we've supported lord knows how many rebels and terrorists when it suits our purpose), France (who are in the Rwanda massacres up to their necks) and so on. If someone can point out where the difference between them and us lies then I'm all ears. Happily, the EC has had an outbreak of sanity, and the visit of Khatami to various European countries this week demonstrates exactly what the view of Dubya's branding of Iran is.

Okay, that takes us on to North Korea. Here is a country that has been in the grip of a famine for years. Here is a country that cannot feed it's own people. Here is a country that is so xenophobic that the idea of it co-operating with anyone or thing that isn't North Korean is laughable (I believe the last time it did so was when some North Korean military types helped train Idi Amin's army). I'm not going to take issue with the fact that it is a dictatorship ran by a reclusive madman. But trying to identify it as a sponsor of terrorism is disingenuous as it A: Cannot afford to and B: Has a healthy fear and loathing of Islam due to the fact that it is a Communist nation that permits no religion other than the cult of leadership. Sticking the boot into North Korea is rather like sticking the boot into a paraplegic Mike Tyson; everyone knows he deserves it but as a threat they are completely ineffective. I will place one caveat on this paragraph; they are developing their own Nuclear Weapons (according to rumour) and this certainly needs to be closely observed. But by the UN, not the US. America has already managed to destroy the credibility of arms inspectors in Iraq when it emerged that they kept asking for the information found by the UN. This is despite the fact that the UN is supposed to be impartial. Is the world just supposed to accept America shanghai-ing the UN for it's own purposes and then believe that they are not pursuing their own agenda? If that's the case then fine, but drop the high-minded rhetoric about defending world peace and democracy; the stench of hypocrisy becomes overpowering after a while.

And finally, Iraq. A few things to get out of the way first of all; yes, I do believe that the sanctions on Iraq are failing as the Ba'ath party leadership is as secure as ever whilst the Iraqi people suffer (if nothing else, their plight should hopefully provide a warning to the people of Zimbabwe...). I also believe that weapons of mass destruction are being developed in Iraq, and that they are a threat to world peace. However, I also believe that the answer isn't nearly as simple as both Dubya's "Let's roll" approach, and Dubya himself.

Let's be honest here; the UK and US are still smarting about the Gulf War and it's failure to result in the end of Hussein's rule. We are annoyed that he is free to cast occasional barbs at the west with impunity. And most importantly of all, in this war against terror we are frustrated that there is no clear target to aim at. Afghanistan was not the target of the war as it has unfolded thus far; Al-Quaida and the Taliban were. The military is a conservative sort of organisation, and these rules of engagement have clearly sat rather uncomfortably with them. What better way to boost morale by finding a gen-u-wine country to go to war with? None of that awkward and complicated separating the civilians from the Taliban and Al Quaida (the last time America fought a war where those type of procedures were required was Vietnam), just good old fashioned "our army against their army". We all know where we stand with that.

That at least is one of the many criticisms from some elements of the political left. However justified it is (and I think it is) I would say that it is rather shortsighted. Are we simply supposed to sit back and wait until Iraq is in a position to deploy their weapons of mass destruction? Do they have to make the first move? I've got my grievances against Israel but I'm not entirely sure that sitting back and waiting for Iraq to reduce it to molten slag, or a bacterial wasteland, or a chemical hell is the best way to deal with a small-time dictator with big-time weapons. So isn't it right that we should strike now and do our utmost to remove Hussein from power before he authorises some atrocity?

Yes and no. If Dubya goes wading in, cack handed as usual, then he runs the very real risk of destabilising the Middle East. The governments of many of these countries are supporters of the US. The majority of people are not. Many would welcome the opportunity to replace their oppressive governments whom they regard as American puppets. A war against Iraq that the people do not agree with could provide that opportunity. What would start out as a conflict with defined targets could very quickly and very easily descend into anarchy. So whilst I agree something does need to be done about Iraq, it needs to be done differently to the way Dubya envisages. How? Well, I don't rightly know to be honest. But I do know that Dubya actually took the time to talk to his titular allies rather than ride roughshod over any objections they might have and do whatever he feels like, then he might find that there are other solutions.

Finally, a word about that fun brand of American and English patriot who, upon reading the above, will think nothing more than "Tough luck; we're in the right and so have the moral high ground. Therefore we should attack Iraq, and to hell with anyone who disagrees." These are same brand of people who compare anyone who disagrees with them to the people who believed that appeasing Hitler would avoid war. Well, I certainly don't like the idea of appeasement as those people, far from ensuring world peace, ensured that what could have been a localised conflict became a worldwide one. However, what I would say to them is that in behaving in the way they are, in hooting and hollering for conflict against Iraq, they are doing exactly the same thing as the appeasers once did; helping make sure that a small scale conflict becomes a bigger one.