Previous page | Contents | Next page
3.2  |  Development of UK strategy and options, January to April 2002 – “axis of evil” to Crawford
32.  On 11 February, Sir Christopher Meyer advised that President Bush’s reference to
an “axis of evil” was:
“… a warning to regimes which Bush sees as especially dangerous. It is not
simplistic; it increases expectations of military action against Iraq; and it has added
to transatlantic strains.”12
33.  Sir Christopher reported that it was “the latest version of the Bush doctrine” which
rotated “on an axis which links terrorist networks, states which harbour them, and rogue
states with WMD”. President Bush had set out the first version of the doctrine, which
comprised the elements in his speech to Congress on 20 September 2001. Rogue
states had been added because “intelligence and the anthrax scare have generated the
view that WMD in the hands of rogue states is the clear and present danger”.
34.  President Bush had been “criticised for enunciating the doctrine without thinking
through the policy implications”. In Sir Christopher’s view, that missed the point. The
purpose in naming three countries was “to intimidate them, to put them on notice that
they were marked regimes; to ‘change the terms of the debate’”. There was a “serious
analysis” behind the phrase:
“It cannot be emphasised too strongly that 11 September was a shattering blow,
creating a sense of threat and vulnerability never before experienced by Americans.”
35.  The consequences were:
“an outpouring of American gratitude to Britain, which more than others
appeared instantly to grasp the enormity of what had happened”;
“incomprehension and anger at those who seemed more concerned for the
rights of the Guantanamo detainees than for the need to extract information
which could forestall a further atrocity”; and
“a single-minded determination to do what it takes to defeat the nexus of
terrorism and rogue WMD, if necessary by pre-emptive action, with or without
allies”, which President Bush saw “as his life’s mission”.
36.  Sir Christopher did not believe that the speech presaged military action against Iran
or North Korea, but the phrase had “raised expectations about action against Iraq”. That
did “not involve any new policy considerations”. The UK had “known for a long time” that
President Bush was “looking for a way to get rid of Saddam”.
37.  Sir Christopher concluded:
“It has been tough sometimes working with the Americans since 11 September. It will
be tougher still in 2002 …
12  Telegram 196 Washington to FCO London, 11 February 2002, ‘US Foreign Policy: The Axis of Evil’.
393
Previous page | Contents | Next page