In 1982, before the House of Commons, Ronald Reagan addressed Parliament with words that became known as "The Evil Empire Speech." His words, a sharp attack on a Soviet Union devoid of all morality were decried as hasty, rash, and irresponsible by many of the liberal academic "intelligentsia," and supposed elite of both the United States and its allies abroad. To those living within the Soviet Union, how different it was. To them, Reagan's words delivered a message of hope. When the Soviets published Reagan's words in order to denounce him within the USSR, it had the effect of rejuvenating dissidents within, who had watched as America ceded away its moral duty by engaging in the ever more practical and smart (once again, according to the "elite") notion of d?©tente. As it turned out, Reagan was right and they were wrong. The Soviet Union was gone within a decade.
Last week, President Bush made a similar statement, obviously drawing upon Reagan's poignant words by labeling Iraq, Iran and North Korea an "axis of evil." Once again, as with Reagan, the supposed elite both at home and abroad have denounced the phrase as simplistic and indicative of a lightweight. And, once again, the same group of people has failed to recognize both the moral as well as the practical message behind the words. Bush's statement went to the people of Iran, who are suffering under a repressive regime that many of them would like to see changed. (There is already a large groundswell of anti-government sentiment that, if nurtured, may help to bring down the Iranian government). It also set the basis for US intervention in Iraq, where it is sorely needed and long overdue. Both for moral and practical reasons, Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to remain in power for much longer, and Bush's words clearly pave the way for US action (as did Colin Powell's a few days later).
Yet, many members of the intelligentsia, the academic elite, and established liberals have resoundingly criticized Bush's words. These are, in many cases, the same people who criticize the US for, among other things, acting unilaterally in a fashion that is not good for the world. Chris Patten, the EU commissioner in charge of Europe's international relations (a position which is laughable for its impotency), who now wishes to snuggle with the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes of Iran and North Korea, found it "hard to believe that's a thought-through policy" and found it "unhelpful." Unhelpful for Chris Patten, perhaps, but not so for the millions of people starving in North Korea or languishing under Tehran's oppressive regime.
Mr. Patten's greatest complaint, however, (and, once again the same complaint of many of America's elite), is that America cannot "go it alone" in the world. Yet, that may be what America should and must do, given the problems we face. Unilateralism is not a dirty word, despite what liberals and EU diplomats might say. Had France acted unilaterally in 1934, or the United States in 1936, or a lone gunman in 1938, the world might have been spared 50 million dead and an Eastern Europe held dominant by the Soviet Union for 45 years.
It is not only the right of the United States to act in its own defense by seeking out and eliminating terrorists, it is our moral duty to do so. The members of al Queda and other networks receive their support, in large part, from countries with repressive, dictatorial regimes that seek to dominate both their populations and the nations around them through force. In North Korea this includes starving millions to death while pursuing weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons on his own people and routinely tortures them in the most sadistic manner possible. (One favorite punishment includes taking a female member of the family of the "guilty" party, filming her being raped, and sending the video back to the family).
Given that nearly every European government, as well as many on the American left continue to want to deal with such regimes, it makes it necessary for this administration to act alone. Twenty years ago the same people were saying that we had to bargain with the Soviet Union, and they were proved wrong. Forty-five years before that the same people were saying we had to bargain with Nazi Germany and that we could have "peace in our time." They were wrong.
The regimes which control the countries that form the axis of evil are incapable of reform. Their very composition assures corruption and oppression. Dealing with these countries so that we may profit in the short term would be a moral failure and a strategic error, as helping them to grow stronger can only increase the threat to American security. Just as we could not bargain with Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, so too we must stand firmly and resolutely against Hussein, Khatami, and Kim Jung Il. The world may not go with us and the elite may cry on the sidelines, but in the end we will have made the right choice over the easy and expedient wrong.
