http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,665266,00.html

Educating Mr Cheney

Home truths from abroad

Leader
Monday March 11, 2002
The Guardian

Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, does not get out much. This is not so much a function of his recurring heart problems, more a precaution arising from the September 11 attacks. In fact, since the Bush administration launched its "war against terrorism", Mr Cheney has eschewed foreign travel and kept well away from the limelight, staying either at his Washington residence or at various undisclosed and much-derided "secure locations". As George Bush quipped at the annual Gridiron white-tie dinner at the weekend, "a year ago Dick was running the country ... today, he lives out of a little suitcase".

This is not to say Mr Cheney has lost influence at the White House since September 11. Quite the opposite. His hardline conservative ideas are now more in fashion than ever, as the US, ostensibly battling threats to its security, repeatedly extends and tests the limits of its power. As a former defence secretary, Mr Cheney enthusiastically backs the current big increases in Pentagon budgets. As a former oilman, he has no time for treaties such as Kyoto that inhibit free market capitalism. On the other hand, if US steelworkers are suffering, he sees no contradiction in protective tariffs. As one of the triumvirate that led America's first Gulf war, he has clear views about the prospect of a second to finish off Saddam Hussein. Mr Cheney belongs to that branch of Republicanism that fervently asserts that Bill Clinton, by too often talking instead of acting, betrayed America's interests. These Republicans believe that a US government should always put the US first. If the rest of the world does not agree, then tough. Mr Cheney represents the cutting edge of Bush era unilateralism. He is the power behind that throne. He is hawkish, he is influential and now, as of today, he is over here.

As good friends are duty-bound to do, Tony Blair should use his meeting with Mr Cheney to tell the vice-president three things he probably does not want to hear. It is a message that has clearly not penetrated whatever bunker he has been inhabiting. He badly needs to get it. First, the appalling, escalating violence by both parties to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, to a significant extent, a direct result of Bush administration policy. By turning its back, for reasons of vanity as much as anything, on Mr Clinton's Camp David and Taba mediation, and by refusing to accept its responsibilities as Israel's key diplomatic, financial and military ally, the US government fatally encouraged hardliners in Ariel Sharon's cabinet and Palestinian extremists within Hamas and Islamic Jihad - and demoralised the peace camps on both sides. One result, in the occupied territories, is the deliberate, brick-by-brick dismantling of the symbols, infrastructure and leadership of the Palestinian Authority, the inadequate but only foundation of the independent Palestinian state to which Washington, like most other countries, is committed. Another result is the brutalisation of Israeli politics, the undermining of the country's democratic credentials and the utter distortion of Zionist dreams of freedom and acceptance. On both sides, the result is a daily, inhuman slaughter which knows no bounds, the latest enormity being the random, routine butchery of each other's children. This has to stop. But somehow, tragically, it never does. It just gets worse.

Despite its primary concern to advance its own interests, the Bush administration's Middle East policy has in fact proved woefully counterproductive. Mr Bush finally, tacitly, acknowledged that last week by deciding to send his special envoy, Anthony Zinni, back to the region. This time, General Zinni must have the power to tell, not merely ask, Mr Sharon to return to dialogue. If he does so, it is probable that the EU and the newly engaged Saudis, for their part, can bring Yasser Arafat back to the negotiating table, too. Belatedly, the Bush administration must use its unmatched resources as a force for good, as Mr Blair might say. Mr Cheney needs to hear this.

Second, Mr Cheney should be told that, when it comes to the linked issue of Iraq, "consultation" means exactly that. It does not mean giving orders or taking British support for renewed military action for granted. Mr Cheney must grasp that British understanding and support for the Afghan campaign does not give the US carte blanche to broaden its anti-terrorist activities to include the American right's every pet bogeyman and evil axis "rogue state". Nor does it mean that the British people, or other Europeans, are convinced by facile propaganda masquerading as hard evidence of rebuilt Iraqi menaces. It is vital, meanwhile, that Gen Zinni's latest mission does not turn out to be a mere sop to Arab opinion, in return for Arab backing over Iraq, and instead marks the beginning of a genuine, determined push for peace.

Third, given that the closeted Mr Cheney likely has very little idea, or first-hand experience, of perceptions of the Bush administration abroad, Britain and the 11 other countries on his itinerary should use this rare opportunity to tell him frankly that on a whole range of fronts and issues, from trade to aid to the environment to arms control to international justice and civil rights, the US government is offending its allies and making unnecessary enemies at every turn. Its anger and grief over September 11 notwithstanding, it needs to listen more and think harder. For as matters stand, there is a very real and deeply regrettable danger that Washington's vaunted global coalition could transmute by degrees into an anti-Washington alliance.

Today, six months after the al-Qaida attacks, Mr Bush is due to set out his strategy for pursuing the "war against terrorism". He is expected to step up the pressure on Iraq and re-emphasise the worldwide threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (even as the US itself is developing new sub-strategic nukes and a more threatening nuclear "posture"). Yet to succeed in anything but the very short term, as Afghanistan shows, the US simply cannot go it alone. In the end, superior power is not everything; the US's best interests are best served by cooperation and collaboration, not coercion, fear and brute conquest. The sheltered Mr Cheney badly needs to hear this. So too does Mr Bush. Good, true friends of the American people will not shy away from delivering these home truths from abroad.