The first major rift between the United States and its European allies over the War on Terror followed George W. Bush's State of the Union address, in which he described Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." The speech has alarmed leaders throughout Asia as well as Europe while opening the president up to much criticism at home. Mid-February saw the president visiting Japan, South Korea and China, all critical of the speech. South Koreans in particular were angry, thousands demonstrating in the streets, concerned that improving relations with their northern neighbor might be set back irreparably. "EU officials warned of a rift opening up between Europe and the U.S. wider than at any time for half a century," wrote The Guardian newspaper Feb. 9. Chris Patten, the EU commissioner for international relations, told The Guardian, "It is time European governments spoke up and stopped Washington before it goes into 'unilateralist overdrive.'" At the same time, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin warned the United States not to give in to "the strong temptation of unilateralism." He criticized the "axis of evil" speech as "unhelpful," saying that he found it hard to believe "that's a thought-through policy." Closer to home, analysts could not understand why the president singled out these three nations as being the most evil. There are plenty of others who also give their support to terrorists. At the same time, the speech may result in the three nations drawing closer together, particularly neighbors Iran and Iraq, traditional enemies who fought a long and bitter war in the 1980s. Iran's reformist government, until the speech struggling to build ties with the West, may now yield more to the religious leaders who came to power with Ayatollah Khomeini in an anti-American revolution that overthrew the shah of Iran 23 years ago. It is clear that the word "axis" was the wrong word to use. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (1968 Edition) defines an "axis" as, "an alliance of two or more nations to coordinate their foreign and military policies." Further, it gives as an example the Axis powers in World War II: "Germany, Italy and Japan, often with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania." There is no alliance between Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Inevitably, Mr. Bush's use of the term "axis" will only lead to accusations that his administration does not know what it's doing if his advisers and speech writers know so little about fairly recent history. It should also be pointed out that, while many see the speech as a continuation of the War on Terror that has dominated America's foreign policy since Sept. 11, the three countries threatened had no known direct link with the al Qaeda network. Ironically, two key U.S. allies did—notably Saudi Arabia, from whence came most of the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11, and Pakistan, which openly supported the Taliban. Many, perhaps even most, citizens of both countries openly express support for Osama bin Laden, who is now rumored to be moving back and forth between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Saudi government continues to give financial support to Islamic schools around the world, providing imams (religious teachers) from the extreme Wahhabi sect, and even backing schools that train young people to be suicide bombers. Contrasting political systems American presidents start their terms of office with both a great advantage and a big disadvantage in relations with the rest of the world. The advantage is that the United States remains the world's greatest military power, which means that nations in the Western world are inclined to look to the U.S. president for leadership. This usually offsets the great disadvantage—a lack of experience in national and international affairs. Americans have always been proud of the claim that "anybody can become president." This has largely been true, although in recent times, only those with great amounts of money behind them can possibly run for office. But most of the men who have made it to the White House in recent decades were new to Washington. They had little or no experience in national or international politics. This is in stark contrast to European and Asian leaders who have had to work their way up through government until achieving the highest political office in their native lands, along the way earning the respect and support of their colleagues. At the same time, European and Asian countries have stronger central governments, which means the executive has greater power within the nation than does the president of the United States. The U.S. president's role as "leader of the free world" is owed to America's military domination and the willingness of other leaders to defer to him. The Western alliance has endured for over 50 years because it has been in the interests of all members to keep it going. It has already lasted longer than any other international alliance in history. It will only continue as long as members want it to do so. The contrast between these different political systems means that foreign leaders will often look down upon an American president until he proves himself. Most presidents are largely ignorant of the rest of the world when they assume office. If they do not have good advisers around them, they can easily make mistakes. The "axis of evil" speech seems to have been one such example. Obviously, something went wrong. There isn't any alliance—no axis—between the three nations mentioned, nor is there likely to be. Additionally, these nations and their citizens were not involved in the events of Sept. 11 when peoples from other countries clearly were. It is also true that other, more evil nations were not mentioned. But the biggest concern among America's allies will be that the United States is about to go it alone in attacking these countries, risking a widening conflict that could easily be detrimental to European and Asian nations. The harsh reality is that America's commitment to the War on Terror is increasingly in conflict with European and Asian interests. Supportive of the United States during the immediate weeks and months after Sept. 11, U.S. allies clearly feel that it's time to move on. America has indeed "become troublesome to all the kingdoms of the earth" (Deuteronomy 28:25), one of the consequences of turning away from God. The War on Terror started out as a clear case of good vs. evil. Now it has become complicated by conflicting national and regional self-interests. After Sept. 11 America became the first NATO country to invoke Clause 5, an action that inevitably led to a change in perceptions of the alliance on each side of the Atlantic. Clause 5 of the NATO charter was originally designed in the late 1940s to enable any nation under attack by a non-NATO partner (expected to be the Soviet Union) to call on other nations for military help. The intent was to protect small European nations from the Soviet Union. No country ever had to ask for help until the United States requested aid following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This was totally unexpected. Complicating matters even more, the enemy is not a nation, but rather a terrorist movement whose anti-Americanism is often linked to America's support of Israel. Here there is clearly a difference of opinion—while most Americans support Israel, many Europeans are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The European Union is a big financial backer of the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Yasser Arafat. As time goes on and memories of Sept. 11 fade, everything seems to be getting more complicated. Television news coverage isn't helping either. The French described President Bush's speech as "simplistic." Sadly, some television news programs in the United States are oversimplifying the complexities of the international situation, at the same time stirring up national sentiment to put pressure on President Bush to do something about the "axis of evil." Asian allies are also feeling threatened. Following the gruesome murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl and reports that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, there has been much criticism of the Islamic nation's failures in these two areas. There seems to be little realization of the extremely difficult situation Pakistan's president is in—few people in his country support his allegiance with the United States. If he is pushed too far, his government could fall, leaving the United States devoid of a key ally bordering Afghanistan. It is becoming apparent that the longer the War on Terror continues, the more likelihood there is of a serious rift between the allies. Conflicting national and regional interests will diverge. If the United States is not more careful in its diplomacy, this could result in America's increased isolation from the rest of the world. WNP