The phrase masks the racial basis of international relations within an older discourse on the balance of power and resistance to world domination. The "axis of evil" is intended to mislead the average American by drawing a false analogy to Nazi Germany (e.g., the "axis") and the Soviet Union (the "evil" empire), while conjuring the image of an organized global conspiracy against the US. Americans are being rallied to take up arms ("once more unto the breach") against the return of the same old foe in a new disguise. [The problem for the speechwriters is of course that Bush is no Reagan and Reagan was no more than a celluloid illusion compared to Churchill.]
The token inclusion of North Korea in the "axis" must be read as a (very poor) attempt to bow toward the political sensitivities of domestic (i.e., Democrats) and international (i.e., Europeans) moderates. In effect, the aim must have been to convince moderates that Bush is not carrying out a reactionary war against one religion/race/region. This utterly pathetic attempt to co-opt moderate sentiments exposes the witlessness of Bush's speechwriters who appear to have little understanding for those who think differently from the right wing. The point however, is that the administration is not acting "absolutist" or moving into "unilateralist overdrive", the administration is trying to assimilate moderates; the problem is that administration does not know how to do this without sounding shrill, paranoid, and alarmist.
The inclusion of North Korea also reveals a strange kind of multicultural racism. The Bush administration is disguising its racist posture toward Middle Eastern countries by including an East Asian state. In the US, East Asian nations occupy a position in racial hierarchy somewhere above South Asians but distinctly below Europeans. The aim of this equal opportunity terrorist bashing was to convince Americans that there is no racial component to US foreign policy. The problem of course is that the insistent attempt to avoid the appearance of racism in foreign policy only reifies the racist component of Bush's foreign policy.
What I find interesting is the way in which the tradition of blunt racism in US foreign policy (e.g., "Yellow Peril/Horde" propaganda) has masked itself. One thing is for sure, if the Bush administration were "simplistic" in its foreign policy, there would be little reason to include an East Asian country in the "axis". If Bush were simplistic, he would just go for the jugular and claim outright that the clash of civilizations has begun. I think it is much more disturbing to see the extent to which this administration is willing to go to hide its racism than to label this administration as simplistic.
Best,
Vikash Yadav Philadelphia, PA