Dick Cheney gets backed into a corner and, when given a choice, makes the logical and diplomatic response. Too bad it undermined the long held position of the Australian government and lent support to the opponent of Cheney's host and ally. That he so cavalierly damages Howard's policy speaks volumes about the value of loyalty to Cheney.
Two quotes:
When asked about potential damage to the alliance between Australian and the US if Australia was to pull out of Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney said:
"I don't see any prospect of damage to the alliance. I think this alliance has been solid. We do from time to time, as all governments do in democracies, have differences of opinion on various and sundry issues, but I think the alliance is rock solid."In response to accusations that Mr Cheney's answer contradicted the position held by senior Cabinent Ministers and the Prime Minster himself, Mr Howard replied that:
"Mr Cheney was doing the diplomatic thing by staying out of the Australian political debate. But he made it very clear during the time that he was in Australia that America both appreciates our presence in Iraq and wants us to maintain our current commitments."Allow me to get the two obvious and snarky jokes out of the way. Firstly, Dick Cheney was being diplomatic? Oh no, the pod people have reached the White House! Secondly, marvel at John Howard tacitly acknowledging that when foreign nations comment on internal political issues of other nations, it is undiplomatic. Oh sure, the question was on a topic that Mr Cheney is involved in, his nation is involved in and is cogent to his job; but Mr Howard tells us that Mr Cheney had grace and style and kept his nose out. I have my doubts keeping out of Australian domestic politics was foremost in Cheney's mind. I have my doubts the Australia-US alliance was foremost in Cheney's mind. He was probably wishing the reporter who asked the question was a lawyer on a duck hunting trip with him, because the question pushed Cheney into what is an uncomfortable corner for the Bush Administration. The Australian contingent in Iraq is militarily insignificant; they are not really doing much there except guard duty and training. Logistically they're not really taking much pressure off the US either, with a contribution of about one percent of the US force; the US could probably find that many troops for a long-term deployment if it had to. What Australia bought to the table was political support; here was another of America's long-term allies joining in and making it a coalition. Australia isn't like Poland and Spain who have been neutral or even on the Other Side in the last fifty years. Australia isn't like even Italy who have been allies for years by being a founding member of NATO. Australia has been a faithful ally for years and even joined with the US in That Other War that sparks controversy when compared to Iraq. Australia gave what the Taiwanese get from the diplomatic recognition of countries like the Solomon Islands - moral support. The British gave the same sort of support. They made a significant military contribution, and I'm sure that was appreciated by the US, but the moral support was just as significant as the military support. Orders of magnitude more so that the same moral support that Australia lent because the UK rightly or wrongly throws more weight around the international stage that Australia - I suppose that comes from having nuclear weapons and being for around close to a millennium as a - more or less - continuous political entity. When the Tony Blair made his pullout announcement shortly before Cheney's trip, it must have made hearts in the White House sink just a little bit. Not really because the moral support will go; that the UK parliament had been debating the pullout so openly for so long had long since washed away the moral and political support the US garnered from British troops on the ground, never mind the same pullout being called for by a majority of US citizens. It is because it was always going to be difficult to maintain that the alliance between the US and the UK wasn't going to be damaged. Hence the statements from the White House that it was good news, boded well for the situation in Iraq that the UK was pulling troops out, statements that are ludicrous on the face of it and made more so every time multiple Iraqis are killed by car bombs. So when Cheney was asked that question, he had a choice to make about who was more important to the US. Someone was going to be embarrassed if he said something. If he was being diplomatic he would have pretended not to hear the question - a tactic that wouldn't work in a press room as opposed to walking past a press pack on the way from or to a vehicle - or he could have dodged the question. Cheney has practically made a Vice Presidential career out of not dodging questions, hence the long path of controversial and shading-the-truth responses that litter the path from Number One Observatory Circle to Undisclosed Locations Alpha, Beta and Gamma. Dick Cheney is like a Colonel Jessep that doesn't deride our truth handling abilities and doesn't need to be tricked into saying what he really thinks. So what does he say? Does he stick to the White House line and say there would be no damage and thus not cause a diplomatic stink between the US and the UK, or does he agree with John Howard and say, yes it will damage the alliance. One would cause personal embarrass John Howard and - surely - fatally undermine the policy of staying in to make sure the big kid still likes us. The other would - and I don't think I am at all over-stating it - cause an international diplomatic incident. No brainer, isn't it. Dick Cheney was being diplomatic; he was diplomatically not damaging the UK-US relationship and he left John Howard flapping in the wind. From a man who is otherwise so loathe to engage in real politic that he spurns the idea of negotiating with Iran, Syria and North Korea so much that his boss needs to wait till he is out of the country before announcing an agreement with North Korea, he sure does seem to be making some cold, hard political evaluations. And to think he came out here to shore up Australian support for the surge, or as I like to refer to it, the unconscionable prevention of 20,000 US troops returning home after already completing their tour of duty. John Howard must privately be pissed off.
Comments