Washington, Apr 16, 2002 - In his most recent State of the Union address, the President singled out North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as constituting an “axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world.” By “seeking weapons of mass destruction,” he told the nation, “these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.”

There is considerable question whether this characterization is fully accurate. Many intelligence reports belie the President’s claim that Iran “aggressively pursues” nuclear weapons. And in recent years North Korea has grown increasingly willing to cooperate with the world community.

But let’s leave this debate aside momentarily, and assume the President chose to publicly, and unilaterally, vilify these three countries for one major reason: to put their leaders on notice that the United States will not tolerate any efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Certainly, it is not unreasonable for a President to issue a strong warning to potentially wayward regimes. But the Administration failed to anticipate at least two ancillary effects of the President’s comments. First, it has derailed efforts to negotiate the termination of North Korea’s missile program. And second, it has undermined efforts by President Khatami and other pro-reform Iranians to moderate the policies of Islamic fundamentalists.

The speech’s effect on relations with North Korea is perhaps most alarming. In the waning days of the Clinton administration, the U.S. had been on the verge of signing an agreement to normalize relations and provide substantial economic aid to North Korea in return for a permanent end to its missile development and proliferation programs. The current Administration initially declined to take up these talks, but eventually changed course and has made tepid overtures toward the Kim Jong Il government.

Since the State of the Union address in January, however, North Korea has dismissed U.S. requests for broad negotiations. Pyongyang has even threatened to abandon a long-standing agreement with the U.S. under which it is receiving assistance to construct light-water nuclear reactors in exchange for ending its nuclear program.

Similarly, the President’s comments have made it difficult for President Khatami and other Iranian moderates to publicly push for the Ayatollah to temper his virulently anti-Western stance. The State of the Union address spawned a wave of anti-American protests in Iran, in which both moderates and fundamentalists participated.

No one doubts this Administration sincerely wants to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction and enhance national security. But to date, the President’s “axis of evil” speech has seemed to have exactly the opposite effect.

CIA officials long ago coined a term for this phenomenon: blowback.

International affairs expert Chalmers Johnson explores this idea in his book “Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.” The term “blowback,” he writes, “refers to the unintended consequences of policies….In a sense, blowback is simply another way of saying that a nation reaps what it sows.”

Whether it’s the U.S.-led embargo of Iraq that has led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and solidified Saddam Hussein’s hold on power, or the CIA sponsorship of anti-Soviet fundamentalists in Afghanistan that lead to the rise of the Taliban, or the U.S. backing of right-wing military insurgencies in Latin America that led to civil war and the killing of civilians, history is replete with instances where American policy has had disastrous consequences for both Americans and others, according to Johnson.

This, I believe, is the most insidious consequence of American unilateralism and adventurism: it has unintended consequences that undermine the very policy goals we seek to promote in the first place, and thus makes the world – and America – less stable, less secure, and less peaceful.

The President’s “axis of evil” comments have already had significant impact, and only time will reveal their full implication. But these are mere words. The world’s geopolitical trash bin is littered with treaties and agreements unilaterally discarded by the United States under this Administration, and certainly the implications of these actions will be far more extensive than a provocative State of the Union address.

What will be the consequence of the United States withdrawal from the ABM Treaty? Might China augment its nuclear capabilities, forcing India and Pakistan to follow suit in a South Asian arms race? Might the rush to develop anti-ballistic missile technologies leave Americans vulnerable to attack via a suitcase bomb, or other crude alternative?

What will be the consequence of the Administration’s plan to cast aside its responsibilities under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty and develop bunker-buster nukes? Without these treaty restraints, might other nuclear nations and potential nuclear nations be emboldened to resume or begin testing? If the U.S. demonstrates its willingness to use nuclear weapons, will other nations assume the same posture?

What about the Administration’s refusal to negotiate in good faith towards an enforcement mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention? The propriety interests of American pharmaceuticals may be safe, but will Americans be safe if other countries are able to develop bioweapons programs without fear of discovery?

Will the burgeoning small arms trade that the Administration has refused to help control continue to play a part in the death of civilians and Americans at the hands of terrorists? Will land mines, which the U.S. has refused to renounce, one day maim American servicemen? Will an American POW one day be mistreated because our government has refused to fully grant the Guantanamo Bay prisoners their Geneva Convention rights?

Chalmers Johnson writes: “Even an empire cannot control the long-term effects of its policies. That is the essence of blowback.” Today, the United States stands unmatched as a global military and economic superpower. This hegemony brings both opportunity and peril. American policies and actions can have disastrous results for millions of people or it can uplift them.

For America’s impact to be a positive one, this Administration and future administrations must be more than simply instruments of U.S. corporations. Rather than kowtowing to defense contractors, pharmaceuticals, and the gun lobby, the U.S. must have in mind the interests of the American people and the billions of other ordinary people who inhabit our world. Similarly, we must seek consultation from the world community in developing American policy and involve the world community in its implementation. Crafting policy based upon our own narrowly-focused, short-term interests invariably yields a world less stable and less secure. This is the sort of world that breeds terrorism.

I hope we can explore some of these themes in our discussion today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.