Europe added to Axis of Evil

Powell 'dismissed much of the European criticism as intellectual "churning" and said the transatlantic relationship was fundamentally strong.'

He's certainly got a point that if you exclude thinking about American policy, you also exclude criticism of American policy. Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot would have agreed. In fact they would have got those intellectuals squatting over milk churns on a state farm, where they couldn't hurt the war effort.

"The president came up with a clever way of capturing them all," Powell continued, "and guess what - the North Koreans now want to talk to us. The Iraqis are trying to pretend that they're behaving better."

Bush's Axis of Evil speech was essentially a statement that if the US administration doesn't like your country, it will bomb you and replace the leadership with one more acceptable to Washington. As a result of this 'wave a big stick' policy, the Iraquis are 'trying to pretend that they're behaving better'. Well, that does sound like a successful policy that nobody in Europe should criticize!

intellectual "churning"

Makes good butter...instead of guns. ;-)

Unfortunately it's only the intellectuals who are making butter in Bush's America. The gun-makers and weapons contractors have got the biggest defence increases ever to play with.

Speaking of embuttered intellectuals, did anybody see Dan Rather's outspoken comments about how the US media now has no teeth, and how the Afghan War has been the most controlled and spun war in US history? Rather blames the 'atmosphere of unprecendented patriotism' in the country since 9/11.

Powell's comments are directed against Euro politicians and the media. There must be a feeling in Washington that if they can control the US media, they should be able to control the European media too.

that what you foreigners get for not crawling up the yanks ass like us ozzies do...when will you learn?

Actually I think it's interesting to note a very recent, very marked change in the US media's attitude to Bush. Dan Rather's comments (and he's hardly a firebrand radical) come in the same week we saw very positive coverage of Carter's 'carrot-not-stick' visit to Cuba just when Bush was adding Cuba to the Axis of Evil, and the latest stories about whether the White House knew something about the 9/11 attacks and did nothing are clear body blows to Shrub.

Bin Laden essentially handed Bush a huge photo op with his terror attacks, and gave him carte blanche for all sorts of right-agenda stuff the Rebulicans could only dream of before September -- the Patriot Bill, huge weapons budgets, wars on countries they'd long been unable to touch. But that 'victim charisma' now appears to be wearing off.

Interesting also that Tony Blair, in his recent Jeremy Paxman interviews, has blamed the failure of UK growth to meet the costs of things like health and transport on the 9/11 attacks. In other words, Blair's commitment of Britain to the Afghan War is now coming home to roost in the UK in the form of actual tax hikes, expenditure cuts, and shrinking economy. The same war, of course, gave the US economy a record 5% growth in the first quarter of 2002, largely because of government spending on defense. A nice example of how being loyal to the US means a different thing to a European country than it means to the US itself.

Unfortunately it's only the intellectuals who are making butter in Bush's America.

Don't recall the situation being much different over the past twenty years before it...unless the defense contractors have always been run by, say, ChomskyCo, a diversified company. Though the point about recent manipulations is clear...

I can't believe Powell would respond to criticism. This is appalling behavior.

The recent NATO agreement with Moscow is worth noting. It gives Russia a strong say in future policy, and if not an outright veto then something quite close to one. When Washington finally decides on outright war with Iraq it will be far more interested in keeping Moscow on board than Berlin, Paris, London etc. William Pfaff was moved to question whether NATO has a future.

Meanwhile many an American would appear to regard France as not far behind N.Korea/Iraq/Iran in the 'axis of evil' stakes, and Europe is widely regarded amongst conservative circles as reverting to barbaric anti- Semitic type (not helped by conflicting views on Israel/Palestine)

Washington can dismiss rising concern about US unilateralism on this side of the Atlantic. For all its economic strengths, Europe is militarily and politically weak. It can barely decide on militarily co-operation and has little desire to divert resources into increasing military spending. During the cold war political elites in Western Europe were more than happy to franchise out serious geo- politics to Washington. Times are changing.

of course our whole government are fuckheads, but momus could you please quote me exactly where in that article it states that colin powell added europe to the axis of evil?

let me just say that 'axis of evil' is on some bullshit and im often embarassed to be living in this boneheaded country, it just seems you're taking too many liberties in the name of being clevah?

Ron, I'm taking liberties in the name of exploding a ludicrous rhetorical trope. Europe is not yet on the wrong side of Bush's Manichean line. Cuba, Libya and Syria were the last three countries added to the 'Axis of Evil', on May 6th.

I wish it were as simple as a boneheaded piece of rhetoric. In fact, its strength lies in the implicit threat 'You are bad, we will invade you.'

I preferred Powell's previous Rumsfeldesque responses to such criticisms: at some point he dismissed various European op-ed bashings as "a bunch of folks just getting the vapors and whatnot," which sums of the administration's apparent attitude a lot more colorfully and concisely. If you're going to ignore international criticism in practice (for better or worse) you might as well just say it outright.

This just in: birth control for minors joins Axis. Won't help Europe's reputation, but Iran and Iraq are on-side for this one. Oh, Libya too. That's nice. "Kudos" to them.

what was the name of Nixon's Madman Strategy (poss = the "madman strategy"), where he presented himself eg to the Russkis as JUST ABOUT BONKERS ENOUGH TO USE THE BOMB WHETHER IT WAS JUSTIFIED OR NOT, YOU KNOW, SO WATCH IT!! Isn't this more of the same?

As an American, I am tempted to write letters to European heads of state imploring them to try do what they can to restrain my government.

The funny thing is that the US itself qualifies as an 'Axis of Evil' state under all the criteria of its own definition. To qualify as an 'Axis of Evil' state you must be:

1. Actively attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear and biological capabilities.

2. Sponsoring 'terror' (ie aggression against other states).

3. A 'rogue state', ie willing to act alone without the full approval of the 'international community'.

Point 1. Check for US. They have the nukes already, and the anthrax released in the US recently is almost certain to have been manufactured in US labs and disseminated by US citizens.

Point 2. Check for US. They cause explosions all over the world, although not without first terrorising their targets with warnings that they would like to see a regime change (current victim of such terrorisation: Fidel Castro).

Point 3. Check for US, which, particularly since 2000, has failed to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, the small arms treaty, the chemical and biological weapons limitation treaty, failed to pay any attention to the resolutions of the United Nations, and ripped up the ballistic missile pact that has kept peace with Russia for the last 30 years. Sure, they fly around the world 'consulting with partners' (as Bush is about to do in Europe), but have they ever changed a single policy as a result? They're not asking, they're telling. Their stance is 'you're either with us or you're against us'.

I am not anti-American. I love the American people. I would just like to see a regime change in Baghdad, er, sorry, Washington DC.

The extent of ill-feeling has been illustrated in the US by a number of harshly worded attacks on Europe in the press, including accusations of anti-semitism. Mr Powell said the rise of anti- European sentiments was partly explained by anti-Americanism in Europe.

And what is the other part made of? There is the basic problem: Powell sticks his toungue out, and blames Europe for having to be the "bully". Apparently, he's forgotten what Mama's always said, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I would just like to see a regime change in Baghdad, er, sorry, Washington DC.

DC politicians hiding in underground bunkers? Been done, and not well;> Most of the wars we've been involved with started because we thought we could make policy decisions faster, using a larger gun. That's all this current "war on terrorism" is: the more firepower we use, the terrorists will suddenly see the error of their ways, throw down their guns in fear and surrender to the mighty.

Pity is that we are only reinforcing the "evil" label our government has: too conceited to compromise (aptly shown by your point #3). No matter how 'weak' the Europeans look compared to us, we still need their help.

Where exactly? Any non-American involvement in the 'war on terrorism' has been strictly nominal, a nod toward diplomacy rather than logistical neccesity. NATO's role has been reduced to training exercises, and the extreme weakness of Europe's military establishment was fairly well established with Bosnia. The current conventional wisdom is that Europe thinks America is full of arrogant hegemonists and America thinks Europe is full of spineless anti- Semites; substitute "communist" for "anti-Semite" and you have the conventional wisdom 20, 40 years ago. The difference now is that America's reliance on Europe has been sharply reduced.

Momus - do you really believe that the only reason Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Cuba are included in the 'axis of evil' is their failure to adequately obsequious to America?

can someone explain to me what the hell cuba and north korea have got to do with this, because otherwise i cannot help but agree with momus about the level of obsequiesness. i was also under the impression that iran had been gradually edging back into the diplomatic world?