Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
President George W. Bush's State of the Union remarks labeling Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an axis of evil quickly circled the globe and re-ignited fears of a more aggressive brand of U.S. unilateralism.
The current period of intense violence in the region has resulted in a serious unraveling of the Arab-Israeli peace process and suggest the near impossibility of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation. Two defining moments have led to this conclusion: first, the Oslo agreement that raised high hopes for peace and then the failure of Camp David II that shattered them.
Prime Minister Sharon's analogy of George W. Bush's current policies to the abandonment of Czechoslovakia in 1938 is warped and ill-advised. But, the prime minister had a point. There exists a much more apt analogy which- not surprisingly- does go back to 1938-39. It is not Chamberlain and the Nazis, but the British and the publication of the pro-Arab 1939 White Paper on Palestine.
It is important to have partners in the war on terrorism, Carnegie's Robert Kagan writes, but a unilateral determination to act invariably precedes a policy of effective multilateralism.
Can the United States win a war on terrorism while winking at some terrorists and cozying up to nations that support them? Can the United States effectively fight terrorism and reward terrorism at the same time? You shouldn't have to ponder those questions very long. The certain answer is no.