MORE FROM DAVOS AND CHENEY
"No Nukes"... Part II from AlwaysOn

In his keynote address at the World Economic Forum, Vice President Dick Cheney stated that democratic countries have three fundamental responsibilities: "First, we must confront the ideologies of violence at the source by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Second, we must meet these dangers together…Third, when diplomacy fails we must be prepared to face our responsibilities and be willing to use force if necessary. Direct threats require decisive action."

The Vice President cited recent developments in Libya as an example of what can be accomplished by adhering to these three principles, stating that "Our diplomacy with Libya was successful only because our word was credible." After his speech, Cheney was peppered with questions from audience members, some of whom asked about other nations that are building weapons of mass destruction.

Question: Andrew Gowers, Financial Times, London. While the dangers have diminished clearly in Libya and other places, North Korea seems one place where the threat is at the present undiminished. Can you give us your assessment of the prospects for success in your goal to rid North Korea of nuclear weapons?

Cheney: Clearly, the jury is still out with respect to North Korea. We’ve worked very hard, particularly with the Chinese, also the Japanese and the South Koreans and the Russians. The Chinese have become central to that effort. We all agree that it is not in the interest of any of us for the Korean peninsula to become a repository of nuclear weapons. The effort needs to be made…to persuade the North Koreans that they have no choice—if they want to have normal commercial relationships with those of us involved in the enterprise—but to give up their aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons.

We’ve had two meetings in Beijing so far. I would expect there will be more as we continue to move forward. The key is having the Chinese and other nations engaged. Today can I predict the outcome? I can’t. We think we’re approaching this on a sensible basis. This is the right way to proceed, to try to resolve it diplomatically by making it clear to the North Koreans that they really have no option if they want to have any kind of normal relations with the rest of us. And they need those relations in terms of just feeding their people and maintaining some kind of viable economy in the north. They absolutely have to have the support of Japan, South Korea, China, Russia and the United States.

Question: Fred Kemp of the Wall Street Journal. You said the jury is still out on North Korea. I wonder if you can talk about the jury on Iran? Specifically, how would you judge the European efforts right now, the negotiations with Iran? One of the most controversial phrases in Europe was that of "the Axis of Evil." Is Iran still a member of that axis?

Cheney: Well, we were hopeful that the effort by our European friends—the Germans, the French, and the British have been most directly involved—working with the Iranians to try to get the Iranians to agree to a more intrusive inspection regime, which they have now done. We’ll have to see whether or not that produces the desired result. We believe that the Iranians have been actively and aggressively pursuing an effort to develop nuclear weapons. They deny that but there seems to be a good deal of evidence out there to indicate that in fact that’s exactly what they have been doing.

It’s in everybody’s interest, I believe—especially our European friends and allies—to see to it that the Iranians live up to the commitments that they have now made: truly intrusive inspections, a more robust inspection regime administered by the IAEA. And that they keep the commitments they’ve made to the British, German, and French foreign ministers. We’ll do everything we can to support that effort.

Question: Last night, Minister Shimon Peres proposed a four-point approach to creating peace between Palestine and Israel. The thoughts he shared with us were that the U.S. would guarantee the security of a border that those two nations would agree to. Second, that the EU would offer membership to both Israel and Palestine. Third, that both nations would join the Partnership for Peace. And fourth, that they would commit to fight terrorism. I wonder if you would comment on his proposals.

Cheney: I haven’t had an opportunity to look at them or study them in detail. The prospect of guaranteeing borders strikes me as sort of a traditional concept for traditional conflict. And we haven’t really had a traditional conflict. The problem of course has been in large part generated by terrorism—by suicide bombings and so forth. Somehow we’ve got to find a way to take down the structures of terror…if we’re going to get to the point where there can be sufficient trust on both sides to enter into negotiations to resolve the outstanding conflicts, to decide where the border goes, and establish permanent peace.

Shimon Peres is a man I’ve known a long time and I have a lot of respect for him. I’m sure he’s doing everything he can think of to try to move forward in a very, very difficult area. But at this stage, I wouldn’t want to put a stamp of approval on his proposals. We deal with the Prime Minister and the government in power in Israel; they speak for the Israelis. We’re always happy to listen to other ideas and notions, but ultimately, in terms of our interactions with Israel…clearly, the government of Mr. Sharon is the one that we pay most attention to at present.


In Part One, Vice President Cheney spoke about the national deficit and the need for U.N. reform. In Part Three, he fields questions about the foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay, and the role of the U.S. as the leading world power.