THE STATE of the Union address traditionally has been a national dialogue from the president to the nation. The president details what went right and wrong during the preceding year, and what his administration's future goals are. This past year, however, there was a slight twist thrown in. Among the typical address issues, President Bush pointed to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being an "axis of evil." This announcement has raised a great deal of ire among the accused countries, as well as with several allies of the United States. However, Bush and his administration continue to stand behind the statement. This line should not have been included in the State of the Union speech, and the issue should be dropped as quickly as possible as it is inflaming international relations between the United States and its allies.
Singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an axis of evil during the most important scheduled presidential event of the year was not a politically tactful move. It's no mystery that the United States considers these three countries to be a menace to international order. They are three countries that have been identified as sponsors of terrorism by the State Department. And there has been recent publicity regarding the frightening push by these nations for weapons of mass destruction.
Mentioning that these countries are an axis of evil accomplishes nothing positive. Our allies know at least as much as the American public does and they probably have come to similar conclusions, making Bush's statements sound very redundant. This phrase was not something essential that had to be mentioned in this year's State of the Union Address. In fact, the State of the Union Address was far from the best time to make such a statement. Instead of focusing on domestic issues as should be done, Bush diluted his overall message with this allegation. If Bush plans on raising threats against these nations, he could have mentioned it at a White House press conference, or at another event where declarations of foreign policy are more common.
Some might argue that this statement would have been condemned regardless of the setting in which it was said. However, Bush also should not have used his blunt wording. Although some celebrate a politician who doesn't hide his true messages behind rhetorical gibberish, in matters of foreign affairs, one must tread lightly.
For years, many countries have considered the United States to be a bully on the international scene. This speech just reinforces that negative attitude about our nation.
An amplification of that sense of resentment against the United States is the last thing that our leaders need at the moment. Although the Afghani Taliban has been defeated and the main base of al-Qaeda activity has been shattered, the war against terrorism is far from over. As recent periods of high alert have demonstrated, the United States and its interests around the world still are at a high degree of risk of further terrorist attacks.
|
As has also been shown by the global nature of terrorist activity, the war on terrorism cannot be won by the United States alone. It is of utmost importance for us to preserve our anti-terror coalition to be able to effectively maintain our national security. Since its inception, the coalition has been a fragile network, with several Middle Eastern members feeling pressure from popular discontent at home to drop out. Inflammatory rhetoric from a president who is particularly unpopular in many foreign countries threatens to weaken that coalition or even to break it up.
Even though it may turn out to have been an unwise idea, the inciting words still were uttered. The goal of the administration now should be to minimize the damage caused by the remarks, yet they continue to stand by those comments. As Secretary of State Colin Powell noted in a Feb. 17 CNN interview, "There's a bit of a stir in Europe, but it's a stir I think we'll be able to manage."
It is obvious from the criticism the remarks received that they did not go over well with European powers. An issue like this has the capability to linger and hinder the ability of the United States to maneuver on the international stage. Any dissent on this level must be quieted before our nation can effectively move forward with its agenda. Powell mentioned, "My European colleagues should be pounding on Iraq as quickly as they pound on us when the president makes a strong, principled speech." That may be so, and the United States may be correct in suggesting that they will pursue actions against the three countries they consider to be evil. But in the future, such oratory must be directed by a greater degree of political delicacy.
(Alex Rosemblat's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
