|
Axis of evil’ that makes costly US missile shield sound plausible
ELEANOR CLIFT IN WASHINGTON
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=116122002
Foreign-policy analysts were taken aback by Mr Bush’s declaration that three countries, 'Iran, Iraq and North Korea' comprise an 'axis of evil' that pose a threat to the United States because they are actively acquiring nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
One radio commentator confessed that when Mr Bush first said 'Iran', he thought the president had misspoken and meant to say Iraq.
Administration officials have been debating the merits of what they call 'a regime change' in Iraq almost from the day Mr Bush first took office. The fact that his father, the former President Bush, left the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, in power after the Gulf war rankles many Americans and particularly conservative Republicans, who thought the first Bush administration was too cautious and timid. Finishing the job has become a rallying cry for hardliners both inside and outside the Bush administration.
Why Bush chose to include Iran and North Korea in his 'axis of evil' is puzzling. Iran is thought to be moving more towards modernisation and there have been some small steps of rapprochement with the Bush administration. Singling out Iran as an enemy state could make it harder for the more secular and progressive politicians in its government to stand up to the mullahs.
North Korea is a similar situation. The Clinton administration defused a potential collision with North Korea, and the US secretary of sate, Colin Powell, has been trying to continue on that same path. The inclusion of North Korea in Mr Bush’s 'axis' signals a policy defeat for Mr Powell, whose moderate instincts are often at odds with the more hawkish members of the inner circle, notably the vice president, Dick Cheney, and the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
The real question that nobody yet can answer is whether Mr Bush is truly intent on widening the war, or whether this is primarily a rhetorical exercise. A senior administration official cautioned reporters against thinking military action would be imminent. The Bush administration wants to increase pressure on Iraq to let in arms inspectors, and jockeying over that could take months. Keeping the heat on is part of its strategy.
Politically, raising the spectre of nuclear regimes bent on destroying the US makes it easier for the administration to win support in Congress for its missile defence shield.
'My budget includes the largest increase in defence spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high: whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay it,' Mr Bush said.
One of the key objections by critics to the costly shield is the lack of an identifiable enemy with intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the United States. If Mr Bush can persuade a majority of Americans that such a threat is likely in the near future, Congress would have a hard time turning down the president’s request for funding.
'Time is not on our side,' Mr Bush told Congress, suggesting there is an urgency that they would be ill advised to ignore. 'The price of indifference will be catastrophic.'
Mr Bush made no mention of Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, who the administration believes is still at large. Bin Laden was public enemy number one in the days and weeks immediately following the attacks of 11 September.
There was also no mention of campaign finance reform, which Mr Bush has opposed in the past, and which is finally coming to a vote in the House of Representatives.
The reform bill had been stalled. But embarrassment over the widespread contributions to members of Congress by Enron, the failed energy company, prompted legislators to take up the issue or be forced to explain to their constituents why they opposed cleaning up the system.
The passion that Mr Bush brought to the war on terrorism was notably lacking in his exposition on the economy and domestic needs.
He called for more domestic spending on select programmes, including a prescription drug programme for seniors and expanded volunteerism by Americans of all ages at home and abroad.
However, he left it up to Congress to figure out where to stem the tide of red ink. He predicted the budget deficit facing the country would be 'small and short-term as long as Congress restrains spending'.
|
|