posted                      

quote:

---

Bush motives suspect in attack on `axis of evil'
Was meeting with Sharon a strategy session to prepare for action against so-called rogue states?
Harry Sterling


President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have two critically important things in common.

They both have a tendency to act unilaterally to achieve their objectives, including resorting to the use of military force against those perceived to be a danger to their nations. They also seem quite prepared to exploit the current U.S.-led coalition against international terrorism to advance their own narrow political agendas.

And countries like Canada run the risk of being drawn into such stratagems, particularly Bush's recently declared threats directed at Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the so-called "axis of evil" denounced by the U.S. leader.

Some regard last week's meeting in Washington between the Israeli prime minister and the American president as partially a strategy session preparing the groundwork for potential action against the three "rogue states" � particularly Iraq � that Bush claims support terrorism or are developing weapons of mass destruction for use against the U.S. and its allies.

Sharon undoubtedly is pleased by the turnabout in Bush's attitude toward Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat, the U.S. now blaming Arafat for not stopping terrorism in the Israeli occupied territories while implicitly condoning Sharon's military offensive there.

But while there may be an increasing convergence of views (and actions) between America and Israel over Arafat and Saddam Hussein, Bush's escalation of threats against Iran and North Korea is not something the international community, including Canada, should blindly accept � because Bush's depiction of the threats posed by Tehran and Pyongyang seem to be based more on right-wing ideology than valid dangers to either the U.S. or other countries.

Iraq is a unique case. As long as Saddam remains in power there is little doubt Bush is determined to use any pretext to take action against him, including Iraq's refusal to accept the return of U.N. arms inspectors. The fact Saddam is seen in the Arab world as a leader who dared to stand up to the world's sole superpower � and survive � is something Bush clearly wants to rectify.

However, Bush has been warned by several Arab leaders, including Jordan's pro-U.S. King Abdullah, that attacking Iraq could destabilize the entire Middle East region. Nevertheless, he seems determined to ignore such concerns. This, despite a recent CIA report admitting there was no indication Iraq had supported terrorist movements over the past decade.

There is little doubt Iran has supported Islamic extremist groups, particularly Hezbollah. However, for Bush to target it now, when Iranian reformers around President Muhammad Khatami are engaged in a struggle with the country's hard-line mullahs to moderate Iranian policy, is not in the long-term interests of the international community. Several European leaders, including French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, say they prefer to broaden relations with Tehran, not ostracize it.

Any anti-Iranian initiative mounted by Bush would be quickly exploited by Iranian conservatives to the disadvantage of the pro-democracy reform movement.

And then there is North Korea. In the early 1990s, convinced North Korea was secretly building up plutonium stocks to develop nuclear weapons capability, Washington warned Pyongyang it would not stand idly by if it continued down that road. (The U.S. reportedly contemplated military action against North Korea's nuclear facilities.)

Eventually, in 1994, a deal was struck with Pyongyang to end its nuclear-reactor program in exchange for a consortium of South Korea, Japan, the European Union and the U.S. building two commercial reactors in the north � and Washington supplying North Korea's oil requirements until the reactors were completed.

In the late 1990s, Washington became concerned over Pyongyang's development of long-range missiles, especially after North Korea launched a missile in August, 1998, which landed near Japanese waters. Under pressure from Washington, the regime of Kim Jong Il agreed to suspend its missile development program in exchange for Washington lifting trade and other sanctions imposed following the Korean War.

Notwithstanding these developments, within days of assuming office, Bush claimed North Korea was a direct threat to U.S. national security and abruptly reversed course, despite earlier positive comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell about continuing a dialogue with Pyongyang. Bush's sudden chill toward North Korea comes at a time when about three dozen countries, including Canada, have established diplomatic relations with Pyongyang, with the direct encouragement of South Korean President Kim Dae Jung.

After his own election three years ago, the South Korean president took the risky step of extending feelers to the regime of Kim Jong Il via what he called his "sunshine policy." The two Koreas have subsequently increased trade and other contacts and are re-establishing road and rail links. That initiative has dramatically lessened tension on the peninsula, resulting in Kim Dae Jung winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

For Bush to ignore such positive developments raises serious questions regarding the motive for his bellicose rhetoric directed at North Korea, which could have serious ramifications for South Korea's own security. Some see such sabre-rattling as linked to Bush's pushing through his whopping defence budget of $380 billion (U.S.), including funding for his controversial missile defence system, which numerous countries, including Russia, China and several European states oppose.

For understandable reasons, Canada and other nations have joined the U.S.-led coalition against international terrorism. However, they should not allow the fight against international terrorism to be used as a pretext to advance other dubious U.S. objectives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Sterling is an Ottawa-based commentator who is a former Canadian diplomat.

---