U.S. officials are increasingly concerned about the emerging partnership between China, Russia, Iran and North Korea – a bloc touted by some in Washington as a new “axis of evil.”
Those concerns were significantly heightened Wednesday with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s confirmation during a trip to Rome that North Korean troops are now present in Russia, likely preparing to participate in Moscow’s war against Ukraine.
A few days earlier, Russia participated in naval exercises organized by Iran.
China, North Korea and Iran have all supported the Russian war machine in different ways during its war against Ukraine. Iran supplied missiles and drones. North Korea sent artillery shells. And China has provided dual-use industrial technologies and products, including semiconductors and drone engines.
“We saw the emergence of the Axis of Evil in the late 1930s, 1938 and 1939. We saw what the world did at that time to come together,” said Republican Rep. Rob Wittman, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. during an online discussion hosted last month by the Center for a New American Security.
“We find ourselves today at a crossroads, where we have nations that do not believe in the same things that we believe in, that do not believe in the rule of law, that do not believe in the protection of rights and of the dignity of human beings. »
In 2002, former U.S. President George W. Bush used the term “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address to describe countries supporting terrorism, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. More recently, it has been applied in Washington to describe China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken calls these four countries revisionist powers. He wrote that a fierce competition to define a new era in international affairs is underway and that a few countries are determined to change the fundamental principles of the international system.
“While these countries are not an axis and the administration has made clear that it is not seeking bloc confrontation, the choices these revisionist powers are making mean we must act decisively to prevent this outcome.” Blinken wrote in the November/December issue of the publication Foreign Affairs.
Wittman uses the term “Axis of Evil” and argues that the countries involved are more capable of destabilizing the world than Nazi Germany and its allies were in 1939, especially as they cooperate and share technology to all levels.
“So when you look at the drones that have been retired in Ukraine, you find Chinese circuit boards there, Chinese systems on board those drones,” Wittman told VOA.
“You also see that the weapons being fired into Ukraine from Russian artillery pieces are made in North Korea. You see, the drones the Russians use in the battle space are made by Iran. »
He also said the new partnership was learning from the war in Ukraine at a pace that adapts to the times, acquiring capabilities that cannot be achieved through normal testing and development processes in a peaceful environment. .
“The biggest difference in Axis of Evil 2024 is that at least three of the four countries are in expansionary mode. » wrote Merrill Matthewsresident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation earlier this year. “They want a lot more land and power. And they coordinate their efforts for the benefit of each country’s objectives. This is a very dangerous development.
Matthews told VOA that this group was working to create a largely self-sufficient economic zone – both out of necessity and desire – that would not depend on Western economies for survival.
Christopher S. Chivvis, senior fellow and director of the American Statecraft program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told VOA that China is key to the strength of the four-way relationship.
“If China were not one of these four countries, it would seem like three countries that are very isolated from the world cooperating with each other. We would have a lot less worries. It’s China’s participation in this group that really risks making the situation very problematic for the United States,” he said.
Chivvis added that the four countries can use a crisis in one region to start a war, coordinate their actions or create chaos in another.
For example, Chivvis presents a more extreme version of this scenario in his recent report If China attempted a military operation against Taiwan, Russia could seek to take advantage of the strain on U.S. resources with an even more aggressive military campaign in Ukraine or even an incursion into NATO territory.
Likewise, a major escalation with Iran in the Middle East, which would attract more U.S. naval and air forces, could also encourage China to take a more aggressive approach toward Taiwan.
“It would be difficult for these four countries to sign a formal treaty that would commit them to doing this sort of thing, but you can see it emerging spontaneously or organically from 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’ve seen through proxies like the Houthis to disrupt international waterways. So to think that a conflict over Taiwan will be limited to the Indo-Pacific is, in my opinion, at this point, simply naive and ignorant. »
Blinken describes the relationship between the four countries as “largely transactional,” adding that their cooperation “involves compromises and risks that each may find increasingly unpalatable over time.”
“And yet all four revisionists share an abiding commitment to the overarching goal of challenging the United States and the international system,” Blinken wrote. “This will continue to boost their cooperation, especially as the United States and other countries oppose their revisionism. »
Adrianna Zhang contributed to this report.
