Remember Dr. Evil from the movie Austin Powers: "I didn't go through four years of evil medical school to have some kid call me mister!" That was funny. Remember Mr. Bush from the State of the Union Address:"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." That was scary.
The evil states, understood to be North Korea, Iraq and Iran, reacted rather badly to Mr. Bush's speech. A large rally was held in Tehran, where the notorious (and banal) "Death to America" chant was revived for the first time in years.
South Korea, which has been under an uneasy ceasefire with North Korea since 1953, was not amused either. One lawmaker there quipped that Mr. Bush was an "evil incarnate who wants to make the division of Korea permanent by branding North Korea part of the 'axis of evil.'"
So what is the big deal? North Korea is the most friendless state anywhere and Iraq is not exactly rolling in popularity either. Who cares if we call them names?
The problem is not with what Mr. Bush was saying - both states are indeed threats to US security - but how he said it. Mr. Bush has again demonstrated a complete lack of diplomatic tact. Although tough talk may please voters at home, it has serious consequences abroad. There are three problems.
Problem One:
The US currently has huge public relations trouble. Our image is not of a just and benign superpower, but of a selfish hegemon. Regardless of what the reality is, this is the perception. Power lets you get away with doing what you want, whenever you want, and policies that may seem minor here may have pivotal consequences abroad.
For instance, the 'axis of evil' remark strengthened the hand of extremists in Iran. This comes at a time when Iranian president Khatami was inching closer to liberalization of Iranian society. Iran, like China, is undergoing a quiet revolution, and mishandling diplomacy during this crucial time could torpedo hope for better relations in the future.
Even after the 'axis of evil' speech, Mr. Khatami stressed the importance of d?©tente with the West. That is quite a generous step after someone calls you evil. This is not to say that Iran does not threaten US security-it does. However, instead of working with Iranian moderates, who are gaining political acceptance, the US has categorically rebuked the entire nation.
Problem Two:
Symbols matter in international relations. Words between states have the uncanny tendency to become self-fulfilling prophesies. Mr. Bush's coldness to North Korea will push that nation back into isolation rather than helping it engage the South.
The EP-3 spy plane debacle with China is another example of the importance of symbolism. It had a major affect on Chinese feelings toward the US and threatened the stability of the leadership, as they had no way to retaliate to this obvious insult. The US claimed, correctly, that it did not violate international law. Besides, everybody knows we spy on China all the time, not just with planes but satellites as well. That is not the point. The point is the symbolism - the US being able to do whatever it wants to China. That is not good for Jiang Zemin's self-esteem. And what is not good for Jiang's self-esteem is not good for the stability of China. And what is not good for the stability of China is not good for the US.
Problem Three:
The US is sliding further into dangerous unilateralism. Even our closest allies - Britain and Canada - expressed grave reservations about attacking Iraq, the pet project of some members of the Bush administration. The US has failed to sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an improvement on the Biological Weapons Treaty, the Anti-Landmines Treaty, the International Criminal Court Treaty, and the International Treaty on the Rights of the Child. The only other country that has not entered this last one is Somalia. And recently, the US announced intent to abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, against the wishes of every one of our allies.
This says to the world, "Your priorities are not important to us. We are only concerned with national interest and will never enter an agreement unless it is clearly to our direct advantage. We know best how to manage politics, diplomacy, the environment and the military - stay out of our affairs." All the while, the US intervenes actively in the internal affairs of other countries.
To his credit, Mr. Bush skillfully handled the military campaign against the Taliban, keeping a diverse coalition together in common cause. Many saw this as a signal that the US had been shocked out of its isolationism. Sadly, that appears not to be the case.
On some issues, unilateralism is the way to go. For instance, both Bush presidents were more effective in reducing our nuclear arsenal than Mr. Clinton because they were willing to do it outside the confines of a formal treaty. However, there are fewer and fewer issues that can be handled this way.
So what if we alienate everyone else - we are the world's only superpower, ha, ha, ha! Well, military and economic might does not mean security. Security is far more a function of skillful diplomacy than brute force. Talking like there is an axis of evil will inspire balancing behavior. Mr. Bush's strategy is to isolate Iraq and North Korea until they collapse. This is unrealistic; both leaders, like Fidel Castro, have outlasted a whole string of US presidents.
The best strategy is to engage the moderates, in conjunction with our allies. The US should encourage other countries to take a more aggressive role in international diplomacy so it does not always appear that we are out on a limb. Although it is unlikely there will be much change in Mr. Bush's willingness to go it alone, at least he could refrain from actively making things worse.
