China, Russia, North Korea and Iran are described in Washington as the new “Axis of Evil”
Growing cooperation between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea worries officials in Washington, who describe this partnership as a new “axis of evil.” The alarms went off with the confirmation of the presence of North Korean troops in Ukraine to support Russian troops. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned about the growing partnership between China, Russia, […]
Growing cooperation between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea worries officials in Washington, who describe this partnership as a new “axis of evil.” The alarms went off with the confirmation of the presence of North Korean troops in Ukraine to support Russian troops.
U.S. officials are increasingly concerned about the growing partnership between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, a bloc that some in Washington refer to as a new “axis of evil.”
Those concerns got a big boost Wednesday with confirmation by U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin during a trip to Rome that North Korean troops are now present in Russiapresumably preparing to participate in Moscow's war against Ukraine.
Just a few days earlier, Russia participated in naval exercises organized by Iran.
China, North Korea and Iran have supported Russia's war machine in different ways during its war against Ukraine. Iran has provided missiles and drones. North Korea has sent artillery shells. And China has provided dual-use technology and industrial products, including semiconductors and motors for drones.
“We've seen the rise of the Axis of Evil in the late 1930s, in 1938, 1939. We saw what the world did at that particular time to come together,” said Republican Congressman Rob Wittman, vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee. of the House of Representatives during an online debate last month hosted by the Center for a New American Security.
“We find ourselves at that same crossroads today, where we have nations that do not believe in the same things that we believe in, they do not believe in the rule of law, they do not believe in the protection of the rights and dignity of human beings ”he added.
In 2002, former US President George W. Bush used the term “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address to describe countries that support terrorism, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. More recently, it is being applied in Washington to describe China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken describes these four countries as revisionist powers. He assured that a fierce competition is being waged to define a new era in international affairs and that some countries are determined to change the basic principles of the international system.
“While these countries are not an axis and the administration (of President Joe Biden) has been clear that it is not seeking a bloc confrontation, the decisions these revisionist powers are making mean we must act decisively to avoid that outcome. “Blinken wrote in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs.
Wittman uses the term “Axis of Evil” and said that the countries involved are more capable of destabilizing the world than Nazi Germany and its allies in 1939, especially because they cooperate and share technology at all levels.
“So, when you look at the drones that have been deployed in Ukraine, you find Chinese printed circuit boards, Chinese systems on board those drones,” Wittman told the Voice of America.
“It is also seen that the weapons that are being fired into Ukraine from Russian artillery pieces are being manufactured in North Korea. “It is seen that the drones that are being used by the Russians in the battle space there are being manufactured by Iran,” he indicated.
He also said that the new partnership is learning from the Ukraine war at a level that keeps pace with the times, acquiring capabilities that cannot be achieved in normal testing and development processes in a peaceful environment.
“The biggest difference in the 2024 Axis of Evil is that at least three of the four countries are in expansionist mode,” Merrill Matthews, a scholar-in-residence at the Institute for Policy Innovation, wrote earlier this year. “They want a lot more territory and power. And they are coordinating their efforts to benefit the objectives of each country. “It is a very dangerous development.”
Matthews told the VOA that this group is working to create a largely self-sufficient economic zone—out of necessity and desire—that is not dependent on Western economies for survival.
Christopher S. Chivvis, senior fellow and director of the American State Art Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the VOA that China is key to the strength of the four-way relationship.
“If China were not part of these four, it would seem that three countries are very isolated from the world and cooperate with each other. We would have much less to worry about. “It's China's involvement in this group that really has the potential to make it very problematic for the United States,” he said.
Chivvis added that the four countries can use a crisis in one region to launch a war, coordinate actions or create chaos in another.
For example, Chivvis puts forward a more extreme version of this scenario in his recent report: If China attempted a military operation against Taiwan, Russia could try to take advantage of the pressure on American resources with an even more aggressive military campaign in Ukraine or even an incursion on NATO territory.
Similarly, a major escalation with Iran in the Middle East involving more US naval and air forces could also embolden China to adopt a more aggressive strategy with Taiwan.
“It would be difficult for these four countries to sign a formal treaty that commits them to doing those kinds of things, but you can see them emerging spontaneously or organically out of a crisis situation,” Chivvis said.
And a crisis in one region can spread to another part of the world.
“If you look at, for example, the Arab Gulf states, they are critical energy suppliers to both China and Taiwan,” said Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“If you look at Iran, Iran has the capabilities that we have seen through actors like the Houthis to disrupt international waterways. Therefore, to think that a conflict over Taiwan will be limited to the Indo-Pacific is, I think, at this stage, simply naive and ignorant.”
Blinken describes the relationship between the four countries as “largely transactional,” adding that their cooperation “involves tradeoffs and risks that each may find more distasteful over time.”
“However, all four revisionists share an abiding commitment to the overall goal of challenging the United States and the international system,” Blinken wrote. “That will continue to drive their cooperation, especially as the United States and other countries oppose their revisionism.”
(VOA journalist Adrianna Zhang contributed to this report)