HOME / international papers: What the foreign papers are saying.

Unequal Axis

By June ThomasPosted Monday, Feb. 11, 2002, at 11:29 AM ET

More than a week after President Bush first used the term "axis of evil" in the State of the Union message, papers around the world continue to disparage the concept. Spain's El Mundo railed, "The Western alliance forged after Sept. 11 has begun to crack. The origin of the breach isn't in Europe, whose solidarity with the United States and willingness to combat terrorism remain strong, but with the foreign policy of the American government, determined to unilaterally pursue its private battle against evil without worrying too much about the cost for international peace." Ha'aretz of Israel said the axis of evil is "only an American-Israeli concept. Russia has condemned the slogan, Europe is continuing its 'constructive dialogue' with Iran, and the Arab states have come out in defense of the Islamic state." The op-ed concluded:

RSS

Iran is an important country, particularly in regard to the concrete and potential threat it represents. Its inclusion in the "axis of evil" does not remove the threat; at most, it thickens the ranks between the liberals and the fanatics, and brings the line closer to opportunistic countries such as Russia or some Arab states.

Several papers agreed that threatening Iran will hurt Tehran's reform movement. An Asia Times op-ed declared, "President Bush's myopic strategy is unwittingly aiding Iran's clerical establishment at the expense of pro-democracy forces led by President Mohammad Khatami." The Financial Times echoed, "The hardening US attitude towards Tehran appears to have played into the hands of Iranian conservatives bent on undermining reformist President Mohammad Khatami's attempts to open up to the west." (As the Economist observed this week, since the elections two years ago, "Iran's domestic power struggle … is gradually starting to erode revolutionary principles." The Economist suggested that hard-line "mischief-makers" who oppose President Khatami's reforms may be responsible for rumors that Iran helped al-Qaida escapees and for the Karine A incident, where Israel intercepted an arms-laden vessel, apparently on its way from Iran to Palestinian extremists.) An op-ed in Lebanon's Daily Star sketched out a scenario in which all but Tehran's reformers win by demonizing Iran:

Ironically, the Israelis, the Americans and the Syrians all have a stake in playing up the Iranian threat, even if it is revealed to be a hoax. The Israelis get to isolate a potential nuclear foe. The US does the same, while also pressuring a disturbing rival in Afghanistan. And Syria gets to cash in on being the one party in Lebanon able to reduce the danger Iran poses through its arming of Hizbullah.

Heather Mallick, a columnist in Toronto's Globe and Mail concluded that Bush's "Total Bastards list" was "compiled for spite and convenience," and in that same spirit she drew up her own axis of evil. It included Britain, for not returning the Elgin Marbles to Greece; Saudi Arabia, a "hateful place, land o' lopped-off limbs and a bunch of spoon-fed sheiks playing Romanov while the oil rapidly drains away with a final gurgle"; and Canadian Tire, because the "snow shovel you sold me last year slipped out of my hand as I was clearing the driveway and hit me in the face."

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

June Thomas is Slate's foreign editor. You can e-mail her at or follow her on Twitter.

COMMENTS

Notes From The Fray Editor:

The Fray liked the Heather Mallick quotation (although the post called "Time to call a spade a spade" turned out, sadly, not to be about the snow shovel), and Yukon said she "sounds like a Fray alumna"—a compliment. Anthony F. Ryba started an interesting thread on Iran here,

Reader Comments From The Fray:

If the President had simply said something like: "The three regimes that we presently perceive as presenting the greatest threat to American national security are as follows," there would have been no massive outcry. And that's really all that the President meant. There's no indication that American policy toward the "Axis" will be anything other than the measured, (generally) rational steps that the United States has taken in the past.

Granted: the "Axis of Evil" was a silly (and more than slightly insulting) rhetorical device. Granted: it makes our leadership look manipulative and childish when it most needs to look righteous and sane. But it is not… a serious statement of policy! It means nothing, and when foreign powers treat it as if it meant something, they display the very lack of maturity that they profess to condemn

--Thrasymachus

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

Towards the end of the last admin, N Korea was coming out of its shell of paranoia, only to be insulted by the present admin. They probably added the U.S. to the Axis of Bad Manners. At the same time, the reform movement was taking hold in Iran. There was a news piece at the time from a cafe in Teheran where young people were being interviewed as they passed by. Normal, hopeful, engaged in life. No longer the crazy eyed mob of 20 years ago. Did the last admin understand that both nations needed to be watched and were capable of great menace? Yes it did. But it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it. Using a dime novel moniker like "Axis of Evil" is the style of this Bush admin. And it's counterproductive.

It's a silly phrase (God only knows why the author's wife was so giddy about telling everyone about her husband's achievement)... It helps the so called Axis countries... And it hurts the U.S. by further isolating us.

--Joan

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

(2/12)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES