Many believe that President George W. Bush's assertive policy since his famous "Axis of Evil" speech is paying off. Is it really? Recent events seem to point to it giving fruit to diplomatic talks and unexpected actions. The unthinkable is happening. After the fall of Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein, leaders of the "Axis of Evil" suddenly discovered they ought to change their position. Libya announced willingness to disarm, and Iran did an about face, allowing nuclear inspections. The other Axis member North Korea has also shown signs of reconsidering its belligerent position. Moreover, the India-Pakistan conflict seems to be reaching final peace negotiations. Yet the seemingly most controversial arena, the Arab-Israeli conflict, seems to continually increase its level of violence rather than following a "Roadmap" to peace. Will Bush's assertive policy prove after all to be the key to putting order in this chaotic world?
It took a year to see the effect of Bush's 2002 pre-emptive strike doctrine. The objective was to send a clear warning to those who might use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that they were going to be vulnerable to a first strike from the U.S. Well, apparently, the warning seems to have fallen on the right ears.
Undoubtedly, the preemptive case in Iraq resulted in a military victory but not a smooth transition. However, the diplomatic effects have worldwide unraveled since then, especially after the capture of Saddam Hussein. Does this mean the U.S. will use the same preemptive policy with the "Axis of Evil? We shall see.
Most likely, now the U.S. will follow a diplomatic approach. The "Axis of Evil" leaders already know that Bush is no joking matter, so despite negative propaganda that he is a fool, mainly in the Arab world, they take his word seriously. If those leaders want to play smart, then it is possible for the U.S. to change the current diplomatic policy for a preemptive policy. However, the other key factors for Libya and Iran's change, was also in part from efforts of several European nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Nevertheless, all of these tactical moves are part of the big chess game. It is the "awareness war" where everybody knows their respective moves and their counterpart's moves. It is a matter of knowing how to play the political game in the international arena. Let us consider the reactions of various leaderships to Bush' policy.
Libya
Libya, a state sponsoring terrorism, suddenly announced its willingness to stop its nuclear weapons program. Why? Simply, because despite still being listed as a terrorist state by the U.S. State Department and one of the highest human right abusers, Libya's leader does not want to suffer the same destiny as Saddam Hussein. A preemptive war in Libya would be disastrous for Muammar Gaddafi. The political move was clever. By moving that piece, Libya aims to convince the U.S. to lift economic sanctions on his country and leave him in power.
For the U.S., Libya's movement was critical because they could provide information about illicit nuclear suppliers such as Pakistan and North Korea. Moreover, Libya could contribute to identifying al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. In a nutshell, it makes sense. Yet, this is an illusionary stance because Libya did not renounce its support for terrorism, despite its supposed cooperation since 1998 on combating global terrorism.
Pakistan
The issue with Pakistan is complicated. On one hand, Pakistan has been a key U.S. ally in the war against terrorism. Yet, is no secret that most of the population and a majority of political leaders support al-Qaeda and see the U.S. as the enemy. Moreover, some of the army ranks are still sympathetic to Muslim fundamentalists. Let us not forget the two failed assassination attempts recently made on Pakistan's president General Pervez Musharraf for supporting the U.S. Furthermore, Pakistan and India still have their own conflict to solve. The presence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan is still a reality.
North Korea
In the case of North Korea, another member of the "Axis of Evil," the U.S. wisely adopted a diplomatic solution, not a military one, regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, this time using a multilateral diplomatic policy with other partners to solve the problem. The six-party talks, including North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the U.S., is the best way to go - for now. Adopting a unilateral position will just create a backlash and increase the anti-American sentiment serving as a fuel for anti-U.S. groups under the umbrella of different peace groups.
Supposedly, North Korea has at least one or two nuclear weapons that could obliterate the South Korean capital Seoul, causing damages to more than 37,000 U.S. troops stationed there. Thus, North Korea, apparently following Libya's example, offers a conciliatory position to dismantle its nuclear program. Why? For the same reasons that persuaded Gaddafi: economic aid and a guarantee against being attacked. In other words, that simple conciliatory declaration guarantees its leader to remain in power. The pros and cons are critical. However, the stronger benefit for the U.S. and world stability is for North Korea to dismantle. Only after disarmament will U.S. allies in Asia be safe and able to halt the sales of missiles to other rogue countries.
Iran
Iran, the other member of "Axis of Evil" has promised to allow U.N. inspections. Nevertheless, promises are one thing, actions another. Iran favors the U.N. but has rebuffed U.S. talks. Again, this can change in the coming months. The point is that like in the case of Libya, Iran has not renounced to support terrorism.
Despite Libya and Iran not renouncing to support terrorism, it shows that at least they are willing to dismantle nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, it will make the world safer, contrary to Bush's critics, that his aggressive policy has made the world a more dangerous place. The challenge for the Bush administration is that Libya and Iran stop supporting terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, etc. especially in Judea and Samaria.
Arab-Israeli Conflict
In more than one case, some political leaders have questioned the U.S. commitment. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, does it make sense that the State Department talks with the "official leaders" of the "unofficial peace plan," the Geneva Accords when the U.S. have declared to still stand by the Roadmap? Is there a common position between the State Department, the Defense Department and the President?
A clear response might be found during a White House briefing (Dec. 12, 2003), when Pres. Bush was asked about this unambiguous position. Bush made it clear that U.S. Secretary Powell might speak with different people, but that his position was clear about the Arab-Israeli conflict: A two-state vision living side by side peacefully.
In other words, the Roadmap is still on and it is not a complement of the unofficial Geneva Accords. Although Americans are divided with the Bush position, since before his administration no other American president ever accepted the division of Israel or even worse, of their historical capital Jerusalem.
Although some politicians and analysts compares Bush with former Ronald Reagan, the difference is that President Reagan never asked for a two-state vision to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. He stood firm for the unity of Israel. An Arab-Palestinian State with terrorist groups inside its border will not be a solution. It will be the creation of a legal terrorist state living alongside Israel.
A vivid example is the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which sponsors terrorism and shelters the military group known as the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, responsible for many of the homicidal terrorist bombings. This is in addition to groups such as Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, groups which apparently have a green light with the PA to conquer their objective: To destroy the State of Israel.
Conclusion
The pre-emptive war in Iraq had its positive sides but had other effects as well. On the down side, it did not solve differences within the United Nations even among allies, and there is an increase of terrorist acts within Iraq. Another indirect effect is that Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel appear to have asserted their own right of preemption. However, one good thing is that India and Pakistan, both holding nuclear weapons, are finally willing to negotiate for peace. Whether they will honor that commitment remains to be seen, but a start on the Kashmir issue is surely good news.
Will Bush's assertive policy accomplish what Reagan's Star Wars policy did with its military buildup? Reagan's strong call for the destruction of the "Evil Empire" resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Will Bush's concept of destroying the "Axis of Evil" result in the collapse of the triangle? If it does, there will be no doubt that, like it or not, President Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest political leaders and effective U.S. presidents. Whether Bush's assertive policy will be the "miracle policy" to bring the world back to order and finally solve the Arab-Israeli conflict is a matter of time. So far, however, Bush's assertive policy seems to be reaping rewards.
It took a year to see the effect of Bush's 2002 pre-emptive strike doctrine. The objective was to send a clear warning to those who might use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons that they were going to be vulnerable to a first strike from the U.S. Well, apparently, the warning seems to have fallen on the right ears.
Undoubtedly, the preemptive case in Iraq resulted in a military victory but not a smooth transition. However, the diplomatic effects have worldwide unraveled since then, especially after the capture of Saddam Hussein. Does this mean the U.S. will use the same preemptive policy with the "Axis of Evil? We shall see.
Most likely, now the U.S. will follow a diplomatic approach. The "Axis of Evil" leaders already know that Bush is no joking matter, so despite negative propaganda that he is a fool, mainly in the Arab world, they take his word seriously. If those leaders want to play smart, then it is possible for the U.S. to change the current diplomatic policy for a preemptive policy. However, the other key factors for Libya and Iran's change, was also in part from efforts of several European nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Nevertheless, all of these tactical moves are part of the big chess game. It is the "awareness war" where everybody knows their respective moves and their counterpart's moves. It is a matter of knowing how to play the political game in the international arena. Let us consider the reactions of various leaderships to Bush' policy.
Libya
Libya, a state sponsoring terrorism, suddenly announced its willingness to stop its nuclear weapons program. Why? Simply, because despite still being listed as a terrorist state by the U.S. State Department and one of the highest human right abusers, Libya's leader does not want to suffer the same destiny as Saddam Hussein. A preemptive war in Libya would be disastrous for Muammar Gaddafi. The political move was clever. By moving that piece, Libya aims to convince the U.S. to lift economic sanctions on his country and leave him in power.
For the U.S., Libya's movement was critical because they could provide information about illicit nuclear suppliers such as Pakistan and North Korea. Moreover, Libya could contribute to identifying al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. In a nutshell, it makes sense. Yet, this is an illusionary stance because Libya did not renounce its support for terrorism, despite its supposed cooperation since 1998 on combating global terrorism.
Pakistan
The issue with Pakistan is complicated. On one hand, Pakistan has been a key U.S. ally in the war against terrorism. Yet, is no secret that most of the population and a majority of political leaders support al-Qaeda and see the U.S. as the enemy. Moreover, some of the army ranks are still sympathetic to Muslim fundamentalists. Let us not forget the two failed assassination attempts recently made on Pakistan's president General Pervez Musharraf for supporting the U.S. Furthermore, Pakistan and India still have their own conflict to solve. The presence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan is still a reality.
North Korea
In the case of North Korea, another member of the "Axis of Evil," the U.S. wisely adopted a diplomatic solution, not a military one, regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, this time using a multilateral diplomatic policy with other partners to solve the problem. The six-party talks, including North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the U.S., is the best way to go - for now. Adopting a unilateral position will just create a backlash and increase the anti-American sentiment serving as a fuel for anti-U.S. groups under the umbrella of different peace groups.
Supposedly, North Korea has at least one or two nuclear weapons that could obliterate the South Korean capital Seoul, causing damages to more than 37,000 U.S. troops stationed there. Thus, North Korea, apparently following Libya's example, offers a conciliatory position to dismantle its nuclear program. Why? For the same reasons that persuaded Gaddafi: economic aid and a guarantee against being attacked. In other words, that simple conciliatory declaration guarantees its leader to remain in power. The pros and cons are critical. However, the stronger benefit for the U.S. and world stability is for North Korea to dismantle. Only after disarmament will U.S. allies in Asia be safe and able to halt the sales of missiles to other rogue countries.
Iran
Iran, the other member of "Axis of Evil" has promised to allow U.N. inspections. Nevertheless, promises are one thing, actions another. Iran favors the U.N. but has rebuffed U.S. talks. Again, this can change in the coming months. The point is that like in the case of Libya, Iran has not renounced to support terrorism.
Despite Libya and Iran not renouncing to support terrorism, it shows that at least they are willing to dismantle nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, it will make the world safer, contrary to Bush's critics, that his aggressive policy has made the world a more dangerous place. The challenge for the Bush administration is that Libya and Iran stop supporting terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, etc. especially in Judea and Samaria.
Arab-Israeli Conflict
In more than one case, some political leaders have questioned the U.S. commitment. In the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict, does it make sense that the State Department talks with the "official leaders" of the "unofficial peace plan," the Geneva Accords when the U.S. have declared to still stand by the Roadmap? Is there a common position between the State Department, the Defense Department and the President?
A clear response might be found during a White House briefing (Dec. 12, 2003), when Pres. Bush was asked about this unambiguous position. Bush made it clear that U.S. Secretary Powell might speak with different people, but that his position was clear about the Arab-Israeli conflict: A two-state vision living side by side peacefully.
In other words, the Roadmap is still on and it is not a complement of the unofficial Geneva Accords. Although Americans are divided with the Bush position, since before his administration no other American president ever accepted the division of Israel or even worse, of their historical capital Jerusalem.
Although some politicians and analysts compares Bush with former Ronald Reagan, the difference is that President Reagan never asked for a two-state vision to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. He stood firm for the unity of Israel. An Arab-Palestinian State with terrorist groups inside its border will not be a solution. It will be the creation of a legal terrorist state living alongside Israel.
A vivid example is the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which sponsors terrorism and shelters the military group known as the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, responsible for many of the homicidal terrorist bombings. This is in addition to groups such as Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, groups which apparently have a green light with the PA to conquer their objective: To destroy the State of Israel.
Conclusion
The pre-emptive war in Iraq had its positive sides but had other effects as well. On the down side, it did not solve differences within the United Nations even among allies, and there is an increase of terrorist acts within Iraq. Another indirect effect is that Russia, India, Pakistan and Israel appear to have asserted their own right of preemption. However, one good thing is that India and Pakistan, both holding nuclear weapons, are finally willing to negotiate for peace. Whether they will honor that commitment remains to be seen, but a start on the Kashmir issue is surely good news.
Will Bush's assertive policy accomplish what Reagan's Star Wars policy did with its military buildup? Reagan's strong call for the destruction of the "Evil Empire" resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Will Bush's concept of destroying the "Axis of Evil" result in the collapse of the triangle? If it does, there will be no doubt that, like it or not, President Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest political leaders and effective U.S. presidents. Whether Bush's assertive policy will be the "miracle policy" to bring the world back to order and finally solve the Arab-Israeli conflict is a matter of time. So far, however, Bush's assertive policy seems to be reaping rewards.