Bush backers left wondering where 'axis of evil' went

[Kassad]

Michael Gawenda
February 15, 2007

THERE were no celebrations in Washington when it was announced North Korea had agreed to begin dismantling its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy products which it desperately needs.

For a start, the deal was called into question when North Korea's State News Agency said suspension of the nuclear program was only temporary and made no mention of the part of the deal involving a permanent halt and the dismantling of any nuclear weapons.

Then there was the fact that for many supporters of the Bush Administration, the deal is a huge backdown from the hardline position it took three years ago when President George Bush included North Korea in his "axis of evil" and made it clear that what the US was aiming for was regime change.

John Bolton, the former Bush-appointed US ambassador to the United Nations who failed to get Senate confirmation to continue in the post, said the deal was a victory for North Korea and represented a reward for bad behaviour. It would send a message to Iran that it too could flaunt international demands that it abandon its nuclear program and get away with it, he said.

Mr Bolton's criticisms reflected the view of many conservatives who believe the Administration has caved in on North Korea and accepted a deal much like the agreement reached by the Clinton administration in 1994, which Pyongyang did not honour.

Mr Bolton, once very close to the Administration, was clearly upset when he told reporters the deal made him the "saddest man in Washington", which is not surprising given that he fervently believes the only solution to the North Korean threat is regime change.

That was, and probably still is, the view of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who has had nothing to say about the deal just days before he starts a trip to Japan and Australia during which it is bound to be a major topic for discussion.

Democrats welcomed the pact, but pointed out that the sort of deal the Bush Administration was now calling a breakthrough was available in 2002 but was rejected because, then, regime change remained the only acceptable outcome.

As Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden put it: "North Korea's program is much more dangerous to us now than it was in 2002."

The agreement shows how much the Administration has been forced to retreat from the "axis of evil" rhetoric that implied regime change in Iraq, Iran and North Korea was the goal of US policy.

Bruce Klinger, of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the deal "reflects America's abandonment of several previously intractable negotiating positions".

What's more, there are doubts it will hold. The deal will be implemented over a number of years and, given Pyongyang's track record on sticking to deals, this is no time for sighs of relief. But the big difference between the 1994 pact and this one is that the draft for this one came from China, the only country with the influence over Pyongyang needed for there to be a serious chance North Korea will stick to the deal.

So no one is celebrating in Washington, not even those who say the agreement is as good as is possible. For some Bush supporters, not reaching a deal would have been better than reaching this one.

This is an article from an Australian source: The Age - News, Business News, Melbourne Australia News and Media

I wonder how our Allies feel that we're backing down on our stance against the axis of evil nations. I guess diplomacy is not dead, after all. I'd much rather see a non-nuclear North Korea, than one selling nukes on the black market. I'm glad the President has changed his hard line attitude.

[Ray]

Hardly a victory for North Korea.

It is a victory for the Bush administration that they stuck dogmatically to their stand and in the end North Korea was forced to give up its dream of having a nuclear arsenal.

Now that North Korea has capitulated, it will make it real difficult for Iran to have backers to support her stand of not allowing international nuclear monitors! Damned difficult for Iran to have the holier than thou stand!

A great diplomatic coup for the US!

Let's be clear, 'regime change' is no causus belli. It is inacceptable in the politically and diplomatic scene in a mixed world. It cannot be a permanent policy of statecraft because then whoever is powerful will start changing regimes at their own whims and fancies and the world will become totally a chaotic place.

The world is not a tribal playground. It is a civilised place where civilised people live with civilised rules of statecraft.

[Bluesman]

If that's true, then the uncivilized must be dealt with, sometimes by force.

If you accept the completely false premise that anybody that uses violence in in the wrong (effectively making the policeman and the criminal morally equivalent), then 'regime change' becomes impossible, and rogue regimes are granted a de facto legitimacy.

Well, I'm not willing to concede that North Korea is just another nation-state; they're NOT. And when a nation with the moral standing and capability decides that enough is enough, then I believe it's the correct thing to do to attempt 'regime change'. It need not be through force of arms, but if human suffering is lessened AND OUR OWN ENLIGHTENED NATIONAL INTEREST is ultimately served by it...crank up the Buffs, untie the battle groups from the peir and lace up the combat boots, because this ain't a court of law we're talkin' about, here. The Game of Nations is played for higher stakes than 'fair play', and the fiction that North Korea is just as legitimate a government as Canada is FALSE.

'Regime change' is NOT a cassus belli; it's a war aim. A cassus belli would be the behavior of one nation being dangerous to another. North Korea qualifies.

[Ray]

Bluesman,

If some other country was more powerful than the US and in their National Interest it did a regime change in the US because it felt that the US was in the wrong, then you would not say what you are saying!

Be reasonable.

I understand you anger and your patriotism, but then we have to temper things with reason and everything cannot be picture perfect as per our desire. To use an US Army term - one must have tolerance to ambiguity!

[bonehead]

I am curious if North Korea would have gone back to the bargaining table if their experiment had gone boom instead of poof. Still, it remains to be seen if they live up to their end of the bargain so we should not turn a blind eye too soon.

On another note, I heard part of the interveiw with the Iranian leader. "...It is spring time in Tehran.......We are saddenned by ANY deaths no matter what country they came from, etc, etc,......" Sounds to me like a bully who is cornered and is going to have the crap beat out of him. He is also trying to show himself as the compassionate/enlightened leader who is the voice of reason amidst the M.E. problems.(ie drum up international support incase the U.S. moves in) Now that North Korea has blinked, the spotlight is brighter on Iran.
The goings on of the world are far more interesting than any recycled crap that comes out of hollywood these days.

[InfiniteDreams]

Let's be clear, 'regime change' is no causus belli. It is inacceptable in the politically and diplomatic scene in a mixed world. It cannot be a permanent policy of statecraft because then whoever is powerful will start changing regimes at their own whims and fancies and the world will become totally a chaotic place.

Ray,

Sir I disagree with you based on what's at stake and with introduction of the atomic age. Regime change or nuclear proliferation...pick one. I disagree that when faced with such a choice it's not a justifiable means to an end. It is perhaps the lesser of two evils of that I won't argue.

I'm of the opinion that nuclear proliferation must be stopped by ANY means. If the international community turns a blind eye to nuclear proliferation mandkind is doomed. The world is hella lucky to have survived the cold war. Had things gone bad nobody would be here posting on WAB.

The world cannot have umpteen countries out there with a nuclear deterrent.
Reason has it's limits.

The world is not a tribal playground. It is a civilised place where civilised people live with civilised rules of statecraft.

I think history begs to differ.

[Bluesman]

Bluesman,

If some other country was more powerful than the US and in their National Interest it did a regime change in the US because it felt that the US was in the wrong, then you would not say what you are saying!

Be reasonable.

I understand you anger and your patriotism, but then we have to temper things with reason and everything cannot be picture perfect as per our desire. To use an US Army term - one must have tolerance to ambiguity!

That is because your concept of the US is much, much different than mine.

I believe we're RIGHT. We're BETTER. That's not chauvanism, it's CORRECT. We're the least imperial 'empire' the world has ever seen. If the Soviet Union had prevailed, you'd not see the benevolence displayed by the United States. If Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had prevailed, the wouldn't have been a Marshall Plan in reverse, but the resources would've flowed exactly as they did in the real outcome: FROM the US, INTO the Axis Powers.

So I'm not saying Might Makes Right. I'm saying Right Makes Might, and the US is MIGHTY in exact proportion to its decency. Hyperpower? Dam' right, we are, and you can thank God for THAT. You may be grateful to whatever made us that way, because if we were ANY other Power, you'd be a dam' sight more nervous than you are when you go to bed at night. As it is, when a US warship is outside your territorial waters, you're SAFER than when it isn't. Any other Power that has EVER enjoyed anything like a hegemony (and nobody has EVER enjoyed a supriority so absolutely overpowering as the US does, RIGHT NOW) would be deemed a threat. But the US guarantees the growing commerce and peace all over the world, to all but the rogues and regimes that SHOULD NOT sleep peacefully, such is the nature of those regimes.

If the US were to be conquered by a fascist, expansionist Power, it would be a tragedy for all mankind. Because what the US represents to the world was expressed perfectly by Abraham Lincoln, one of our most revered political figures, and for the very good reason that he saw our role clearly. What he understood about American exceptionalism is that we are Planet Earth's 'last best hope'. We ARE a shining city upon a hill. We ARE different from the other nations of the world, and it is NOT a matter of indifference to decent people whether America or some other, lesser, lower and more base power is pre-eminent in the world.

If we ARE ever attacked and destroyed by a Power that had the capability but not the right and bounden duty to do so, it would be a calamity for all Mankind, and the Earth would descend into a new Dark Age.

BUT...for the US to FAIL to destroy a rogue regime that brings danger and misery to the world would mean that we are NOT what we should be: an example of leadership, a symbol of willing and altruistic sacrifice for a greater good. In other words we would deserve to be treated exactly as what we will have become: just another self-serving, safety-seeking, adolescent and immature nation, of no greater worth or moral weight than every other nation. And then, ironically, you'd be right.

[Parihaka]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If we have to have a big guy on the block, and history and human nature tell me that we do, at this time and place I vote America.
The idea that the likes of Kim Jong Ill, Mugabe, the Mad Mullahs etc should somehow be afforded the same respect as Democratic countries or that those thugs and their regimes shouldn't have their ass kicked at the first available opportunity is absurd. It's not a question of nationality, or following some sort of 'civilised behaviour' or 'diplomatic code of ethics', it's simply a question of standards. If I see someone beating up someone else on the street I'll step in and stop it: I expect my country, and all right-minded countries to do the same on the international stage.

[Stan187]

Pari, that's exactly why the whole state sovereignty card is overplayed. It makes nations equal in the face of international law. Which is a farce, because to say that Australia, New Zealand, USA, India could be afforded the same respect as Pakistan, Iran and Sudan, not even mentioned de facto non-states like Somalia and the like, is rediculous.

Democracies are held to double standards on the international stage that are inconceivable for a logical mind. If I get the same recognition being a bully and an a**hole as I would being a nice guy and helping others, what the hell is my incentive to be a nice guy?

[Grim]

I can only assume that what I see here is the Bush administration laying the ground work for a coalition to deal with North Korea when they violate the terms of the new agreement. (now thats a sobering thought, USA, Russia, China as allies in a war!) The Democrats are just trying to muddy the waters again, this was not possible in 2002. Six party talks did not start till 2003.

[gunnut]

This is only a diplomatic victory for the US, and mostly for Bush as he stuck to his guns and insisted on the 6-party talk. But of course the mainstream media won't bother to report this little tidbit of fact.

The terms of this agreement is similar to the one brokered during the Clinton years. Kim Jong Il pretty much violated that one when he felt like it.

THERE were no celebrations in Washington when it was announced North Korea had agreed to begin dismantling its nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy products which it desperately needs.

Correction: there was no celebration in the mainstream media.

There was plenty of celebration on conservative talk show radio.

[TheChosenOne]

That is because your concept of the US is much, much different than mine.

I believe we're RIGHT. We're BETTER. That's not chauvanism, it's CORRECT. We're the least imperial 'empire' the world has ever seen. If the Soviet Union had prevailed, you'd not see the benevolence displayed by the United States. If Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had prevailed, the wouldn't have been a Marshall Plan in reverse, but the resources would've flowed exactly as they did in the real outcome: FROM the US, INTO the Axis Powers.

So I'm not saying Might Makes Right. I'm saying Right Makes Might, and the US is MIGHTY in exact proportion to its decency. Hyperpower? Dam' right, we are, and you can thank God for THAT. You may be grateful to whatever made us that way, because if we were ANY other Power, you'd be a dam' sight more nervous than you are when you go to bed at night. As it is, when a US warship is outside your territorial waters, you're SAFER than when it isn't. Any other Power that has EVER enjoyed anything like a hegemony (and nobody has EVER enjoyed a supriority so absolutely overpowering as the US does, RIGHT NOW) would be deemed a threat. But the US guarantees the growing commerce and peace all over the world, to all but the rogues and regimes that SHOULD NOT sleep peacefully, such is the nature of those regimes.

If the US were to be conquered by a fascist, expansionist Power, it would be a tragedy for all mankind. Because what the US represents to the world was expressed perfectly by Abraham Lincoln, one of our most revered political figures, and for the very good reason that he saw our role clearly. What he understood about American exceptionalism is that we are Planet Earth's 'last best hope'. We ARE a shining city upon a hill. We ARE different from the other nations of the world, and it is NOT a matter of indifference to decent people whether America or some other, lesser, lower and more base power is pre-eminent in the world.

If we ARE ever attacked and destroyed by a Power that had the capability but not the right and bounden duty to do so, it would be a calamity for all Mankind, and the Earth would descend into a new Dark Age.

BUT...for the US to FAIL to destroy a rogue regime that brings danger and misery to the world would mean that we are NOT what we should be: an example of leadership, a symbol of willing and altruistic sacrifice for a greater good. In other words we would deserve to be treated exactly as what we will have become: just another self-serving, safety-seeking, adolescent and immature nation, of no greater worth or moral weight than every other nation. And then, ironically, you'd be right.

Bluesman for world leader! I just wish more people would see this......but that requires education. That's why Bluesman, I'll gladly be your man to push the education issue when you're elected. And kill terrorists on the side.....

Ray is correct that it will put a tougher spot light on Iran.

Is it just me or does North Korea gain a fresh bargininng table everytime a new president and government is installed in the US? With both the Bush and Clinton adminstrations, both 8 years in office, have only had limited success after years of pressure. North Korea then abides for a year or two and then after a new election, they go right back to developing again.

[Stan187]

Is it just me or does North Korea gain a fresh bargininng table everytime a new president and government is installed in the US? With both the Bush and Clinton adminstrations, both 8 years in office, have only had limited success after years of pressure. North Korea then abides for a year or two and then after a new election, they go right back to developing again.

Interesting way of looking at it.

[Ray]

Bluesman,

Your post reminds me of the dialogue of the Colonel during the Court Martial in the film "A Few Good Men"!

So, Code Red is correct for every soldier, sailor, marine and airman of the US!

And you agree with that.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Axis of Evil has become the Three Stooges.