SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: CHENEY'S VISIT TO REGION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ABU DHABI 000778 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; INR/B; RRU-NEA IIP/G/NEA-SA WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC SECDEF FOR OASD/PA USCINCCENT FOR POLAD LONDON FOR ERELI E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OIIP KMDR TC SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEDIA REACTION: CHENEY'S VISIT TO REGION ¶1. SUMMARY: Vice President Cheney's visit to the UAE enjoyed widespread coverage in both the Arabic and English language press. This included several pages of photos covering bilateral meetings. Editorials and opinion pieces were generally skeptical of Vice President Cheney's visit to the region and speculated on his objectives. Some saw his visit as a sign of desperation, on the part of the Administration, to find a solution in Iraq. Others saw his visit as a prelude to an attack on Iran. End Summary. ¶2. Unsigned editorial under the headline "Trips of desperation", in Sharjah-based Arabic daily "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000) 05/10: "Dick Cheney arrived in Baghdad as part of a surprise visit hoping to cause a breakthrough to relieve the pressure that the U.S. administration is being put under. How he will break the deadlock seems to be a source of confusion and frustration. He acts like a war extremist who wants to run away from the irreplaceable solution, which is a programmed withdrawal of his troops from Iraq, and instead advocates the further use of force and pressures the Iraqis and those who have anything to do with Iraq." Cheney thinks that with a magician's brush he can alleviate the American predicament, so that he can say to the American people that the U.S. administration is making progress in achieving stability. In order to accomplish this, he calls on Iraqis to redouble their efforts to achieve national reconciliation. The concept that the achievement of stability lies in the abolition of the Deputies' summer vacations proves that Cheney does not know how to reach his objectives. There is a contradiction in what he asks for. National reconciliation implies that all parties agree on a unified program. Perhaps the most important part of this program is to restore the sovereignty and independence which the occupation kicked out. The goals of national reconciliation are totally incompatible with Cheney's objectives." "Cheney wants to legalize the occupation by striking deals with Iraqi forces. He seeks to establish laws enabling U.S. oil companies, to which he is an essential representative, to monopolize Iraqi energy sources. He also wants to make the various facets of the Iraqi economy exclusive to American companies to implicitly keep the occupation in Iraq. Such issues violate the essence of sovereignty and can not be accepted by any Iraqi entity. Real agreement between the Iraqi parties will not be in the interest of the occupation. Even if there was an agreement between the individuals that serve the interests of the occupation, it will not guarantee the desired results, as it would not affect the behavior of the various Iraqi parties." "It would be ridiculous to imagine that holidays affect the achievement of an agreement. Parties will remain stalled in negotiations if the agreement does not meet their basic needs, or quickly agree, if their goals are met. Perhaps Cheney is in a predicament after he emphasized that the military alone is not enough and that political and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Maybe the man, who has chosen military might as the final rule in settling crises, has become capable of seeing wisdom in a political breakthrough. However, such wisdom comes too late. Following his killing of the Iraqi people and the destruction of their nation, Cheney has no room for any wisdom but to give in to the demands of all the peoples of the world: it is high time to schedule the withdrawal from Iraq." ¶3. Unsigned editorial under the headline "An opportunity for further understanding" in Abu Dhabi-based Arabic language daily "Akhbar Al-Arab" (circulation 25,000) on 5/10: "Many regional capitals understood, following the Sharm Al-Sheikh meeting, that the U.S. administration had begun to take a more pragmatic and flexible approach with Damascus; to work to separate it from Tehran and bring it closer to the general position of other Arabs. The capitals were happy with this change, however, Washington rushed to erase this position towards Damascus when Cheney hasted to the region to build an isolating wall between the nations of the region and Syria. This is to reiterate that U.S. policy vis-`-vis Syria remains unchanged and will never change and that what happened in Sharm Al-Sheikh was no more than political ABU DHABI 00000778 002 OF 003 maneuvering that should not be interpreted as a change in position. Cheney began his tour in Iraq to reassure the government of Nouri Al-Malki and his aides that Washington remains committed to staying in Iraq, to support the new security plans, and remain tough with the enemies of Iraq and the U.S.; especially Syria and Iran. Iraqi officials will be more open to isolating Syria, but cannot digest isolating Iran, due to the security, financial, political and sectarian ties that make dealing with Iran an extremely sensitive issue. This explains Washington pressure on Malki to place Iran in the same category as other rogue states and enemies." "Cheney's visit carries numerous messages to numerous parties, the most important of which is that what happens inside the U.S., between the White House and the Congress, does not affect the plans in place for Iraq, Syria and Iran. Cheney believes that such an approach pleases the region, in fact, the nations of the region desire traditional stability, governed by balanced relations that sponsor strategic, multilateral and bilateral relations among nations. They think that the nations of the region are in a much better position to realize their own interests and the best way to achieve them. The Sharm Al-Sheikh meeting was welcomed by the nations of the region as an attempt to solve all pending tensions and crises through peaceful diplomatic means, especially the Iraqi issue. Cheney's visit to the region presents a good opportunity to reach a joint understanding on the multiple political, security, and humanitarian issues that are related to Iraq." ¶4. Op-ed by Saad Mehio under the headline "Unusual man on an unusual tour (Part 2)" in Sharjah-based Arabic language daily "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000) on 5/11: "Dick Cheney is not a normal political figure nor a normal Vice President. Therefore, his Middle Eastern tour will not be normal. The man is often referred to in Washington as the real authority at the White House. This is true in every aspect and not only in foreign policy. His authority comes from the president's absolute confidence in the wide network of alliances that he manages with the neoconservatives and fundamentalist Christians. However, Cheney will be remembered by records of history for the principle of pre-emptive war. He is the godfather of this principle and the invasion of Iraq represents only its fist phase. Cheney was behind what was known as the "coup" at the White House in 2002, when he poured cold water on the American parties involved in a hot debate over Iraq, including James Baker, Colin Powell and other generals who opposed military action against Iraq simply because it did not represent any threat to the U.S. He declared that the threat existed: Iraq soon could acquire nuclear weapons and may give them to terrorist groups. Cheney asserts that the principle of pre-emptive wars will remain the main axe of American foreign policy in the post 9/11 era. He believes that the principles of deterrence and containment, which prevailed during the cold war, are not enough and that the U.S. can pursue the principle of pre-emptive war due to its technological and military supremacy. Bush and Cheney's supporters believe that such principles will lead to further American involvement in world affairs; starting with the Middle East. Following what happened in Iraq, does Cheney remain committed to his pre-emptive wars?" ¶5. Op-ed by Saad Mehio under the headline "Unusual man on an unusual tour (Part 2)" in Sharjah-based Arabic language daily "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000) on 5/12: "We are making progress, but we have a long way to go. I think everyone believes that we have some security problems and security threats in Iraq". Is it possible that American Vice President Cheney describes the fiercest and bloodiest war in the 21st century as a 'security problem'? For a moment this sounds astonishing, but after a while all wonders quickly vanish when we realize that Cheney actually views the war in Iraq in this way. Why? Because he considers it, despite its violence and the high cost to American and Iraqi victims, as only a temporary footnote in an integrated scenario for how the new world order and world security should be. What is this scenario? It is of course the pre-emptive war that we talked about yesterday. It is the one which the Vice President came to the Middle East to supervise the implementation of. It is true that Cheney is the man of pre-emptive wars, but those who believe that the Democrats, despite the fuss they make on the war in Iraq, reject this Republican principle are wrong. All they want is to ABU DHABI 00000778 003 OF 003 implement it in a more cautious way and with fewer American losses. The war in Afghanistan was in fact a successful example of this war... Cheney's visit to the region comes in the midst of a loud noise between the Republicans and Democrats over Iraq, but most likely this will only be a summer cloud, because no one in Washington wants a real withdrawal from Iraq and no one wants to remove the principle of "pre-emptive war" from the agenda of America's strategic interests in the world. It is therefore, a mistake to consider Cheney's current visit to the region as a Republican counter offensive against the Democrats' attack on the Middle East that was initiated by the visit of the Speaker of the House. Cheney's visit has a local agenda, but the architect of Bush's principles has more objectives. These objectives are directly related to the coming phase of the pre-emptive wars." ¶6. Op-ed by Dr. Esam Noman headlined "Bush between destructive August and violent September" in Sharjah-based Arabic language daily "Al-Khaleej" (circulation 90,000) on 5/12: "The likely timing of the strike against Iran is next August, after which the Bush Administration will have completed its intensive campaign to induce Iran to reconsider its current policy on the issue of uranium enrichment and other contentious issues with America and Europe. One of the important American highlights is to dispatch Dick Cheney on an Arab tour. During this tour the American Vice-President will seek to persuade Iraq's neighboring countries to support the American security plan and to convince the Iraqi Sunni leaders to end the "rebellion" and join the political process. He will also work to mobilize support in the region for efforts towards stopping Iran's nuclear enrichment program, along with threatening tones towards issuing a third resolution by the UN Security Council to punish Iran in the event of its refusal to halt its uranium enrichment." QUINN