Don't Paint Everything Your Favorite Color

It is not OK for the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Although it might fall into the hazy, non-specific, polemic definition of terrorism this administration has contrived, it goes against every logical rule of successful international relations, reeks of name calling akin to red-baiting, and is a tool for the administration to split the world into an over simplistic categorization of good and evil.

(1) It is not right to label it terrorist because you don't negotiate with terrorists. We should negotiate with Iran, if not now then later. By putting this label on you're effectively ruling out anything except war. Hello!!!! Not smart.

(2) Calling the Corps terrorist reminds me of when, during the Cold War, any country that didn't comply with whatever the US wanted was immediately labeled communist. Unfairly. Even countries like India, who maintained a mostly neutral position, were labeled communist. Explain to me how that helps anything. It's a crybaby immature tactic of throwing a tantrum whenever the US is faced with a stubborn country (stubborn meaning not buying us a snickers when we really, really want a snickers). The 21st century version of this has so-far been using the terms "axis of evil" and "rogue states," but in the Rove-sculpted administration, you know that labels need to be as strong as the problem. So we see them cutting right to the point and calling Iran terrorist. Bam.

(3) That's the issue, a quick split. Too simple. You can't just divide the world between good and evil. The problem, as it was in the Cold War, is that the GOOD we're talking about is not some kind of universal good, it's a good that really means whatever is best for the US. It's not TRUTH or JUSTICE, it's whatever is best for the US. So we label Iran evil because they pose a threat to the US and to US allies. We label Iran evil because we disagree with its philosophies and actions. Now, I don't meant to exonerate Iran. Its leader is a power hungry holocaust denier who has never had a problem making scary threats to blow up Israel and half the world. But if we are to deal with these kinds of states with these kinds of leaders it would be more constructive for the US to try and understand what Iran wants exactly. What would they see as GOOD? Instead of simply splitting the world into pro-Arab and anti-Arab, defining that distinction in terms of the EVIL (pro-Arab) and the GOOD (anti-Arab), why not deal with them with respect. Why not respect some of the things they want and figure out a way to fix it.

Is this so naive? Is this completely loony? I don't think so. I think that the cultural differences between the West and the world has always played a part in the stress and animosity. I think that in the 21 century humans should be able to accept other people's cultures and go forward from there.

Unfortunately, this arbitrary labeling is our action. We, like the white missionaries finding a culture and immediately labeling it evil and savage and going all out to change it for the GOOD, have once again screwed any chance for peace in the name of selfishness and narrow mindedness.

Ultraviolence. (Even Apocalypse is Misleading)

Think back to a much simpler time in this world—no, not your childhood, that is a bit too far. Think back to a time before we were bogged down in Iraq. I know it is hard, but I’m sure we all remember it at least faintly.

In 2002, during his third State of the Union Address, George W. Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea the “Axis of Evil”. President Bush must have thought he was being pretty witty, playing on past terms to tug at the hearts and minds of his compatriots. The old adage that history should never repeat itself should have been heeded by President Bush, though. Even if hindsight it 20/20, I firmly believe that Iraq should have never been invaded for a second time. North Korea should have been the focus from day one.

There are myriad reasons that President Bush should have ignored Iraq (at least right away, anyway). Saddam had already been checked in the early ‘90s once (remember?) and was left with a fraction of the power that he previously had. We wasted effort going into Iraq to attack a man and a country that had essentially become the Middle Eastern equivalent of Cuba. Saddam made a lot of threats and talked really big, but he had no means of doing anything beyond his own borders—though Israel felt threatened by Iraq’s SCUD missiles, we have yet to see them in action. Saddam would have used them if he had them (or if they worked) to try and repel the American advances in Iraq in 2003. He didn't.

North Korea, though, is in a geographic position that should make President Bush quake ever second of his life. Not only can North Korea’s troops push into South Korea within hours on foot, but they can also bombard Japan, who is arguably our second biggest ally on the planet (and who is left without a standing army as a result of an addendum to their constitution done after World War II).

President Bush should have jumped when he heard that the North Koreans were working on a nuclear programme. Yes, a nuclear warhead placed on a missile powerful enough to drop it on Seoul, Tokyo, Honolulu or Los Angeles in the hands of a despot is scary in itself, but think about what that idea forces countries in the region to think: that a nuclear holocaust is constantly imminent. What are these countries going to do other than to try and arm themselves? India and Pakistan, who are constantly bickering over land rights, have both armed in the wake of hearing about North Korea working on their own nuclear programme. China is undoubtedly doing the same. Sure, we have Iran working on one in the Middle East, but the proximity of all of these countries in East Asia who have or are working on nuclear warheads is frightening. What was President Bush’s response? Let’s go to war in Iraq, boys…oh, and let’s try and build a missile shield over the entire Pacific and tell South Korea and Japan that it will work when it is needed, even though it has never completed a successful test once!

By going after North Korea, Iran would have also been frightened enough to want to come to the table. What did seeing bombs over Baghdad make Tehran do? Work even harder on their nuclear program. Iraq was never going to be an example because Saddam Hussein was in a different stage of his rule than the regimes in North Korea and Iran were. Again, Saddam Hussein was an old man who was clearly in his lame duck years—much like Fidel Castro. North Korea and Iran are teenagers, pushing the boundaries and rocking the boat. Seeing the “old man” go down is only going to make the teenagers fight even harder to show the changing of the guard has indeed taken place.

I am not saying that we should have attacked North Korea, but we should have placed our diplomatic attention there before we focused on Iraq. It is very encouraging to hear that the US and North Korea are talking privately in Berlin, but this should have been done before Iraq, and if it was, I believe that the Iranian problem would already have been solved.