While both commentators and voters seem relatively uninterested in this year's presidential race, observers in the non-English language media see signs of an important difference between the candidates, especially with the naming of Dick Cheney. These contrasts are particularly clear when the issue is oil. PNS editor Franz Schurmann, professor emeritus of history and sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, is author of numerous books on China and monitors the Chinese-language news media for New California Media (www.NCMonline.com).

Political observers writing in the Chinese and Arabic language media have pounced on Bush's choice of Dick Cheney as a defining clue to the likely nature of a George W. Bush Administration.

While their American colleagues complain that the campaign is too predictable, these commentators have spotted a major distinction between the potential Bush and Gore administrations.

It all comes down to one word -- oil.

One top political analyst for the Chinese-language daily, the "World Journal," said that Bush's choice indicates he is already thinking of his administration, not the election itself. Both being Texans, Cheney does not bring any of the attributes usually sought in a vice presidential candidate.

Meng Hsuan sees Cheney as an "enlightened prince" -- someone held above the crowd. If the two are elected, he argues, critics will lash out fiercely against Bush but are much less likely to do so against Cheney.

Republicans are already promising a sharp difference in moral character between a Bush administration and the current one. But character will be a less important difference between the two administrations because of oil.

Bush's father made himself a Texan by working in that state's giant oil industry. He appointed a Texas oil man, James Baker III, as secretary of state. And his secretary of defense walked out the door after more than 20 years of government service straight into a position as head a major oil industry firm.

Generals Powell and Schwartzkopf --- key speakers at the convention -- played major roles in the spectacular victory of the Gulf War. Secretaries Baker and Cheney played key roles in the subsequent Arab-Israeli peace process that led to the pivotal Madrid and Oslo agreements. (Baker is out of the limelight because former president Bush holds him responsible for his defeat in 1992.)

The relationship with the Saudis was even more central. Saudi Arabia played a crucial role during the Gulf War and later in both the broader Middle Eastern and the Israeli-Palestinian peace processes.

Most important, during the Bush presidency, Saudi Arabia allowed American troops to be stationed in the eastern oil-rich regions of the kingdom. That aroused the fury of Islamic fundamentalists, notably Osama Bin Laden.

However, whereas Bush had close relationships with the Saudis, Clinton kept them at arm's length. The Clinton approach to the peace process was centered on returning the Labor party into power rather than working with the Saudis on a peace process that involved many countries in the Mideast.

Meanwhile Clinton nurtured ties with the Palestinians and Iranians. The culmination of Clinton's effort came with the two-week-long Camp David II talks. Reluctant to accept failure Clinton is still pressuring Barak and Arafat hard to reach an agreement in September.

Shortly before those talks began, Saudi Arabia demonstrated real power on a scale no other Arab country could reach. King Fahd and Prince Abdullah unilaterally opened wide the taps of Saudi oil production. Within hours global oil prices fell.

Iran, a second-rank oil power, protested but could do nothing. The Clinton White House, on the other hand, was relieved because it meant the miraculous bull market would continue.

Saudi oil reserves are so immense that the kingdom literally holds the global economy hostage. By now it is apparent that global oil prices largely determine the movement of inflation rates and currency values.

On two earlier occasions, the Saudi kingdom showed its oil power. During the Yom Kippur war, in mid-October of 1973, it dramatically cut production driving up inflation rates and creating the great recession of 1974-75. It did the same in 1980 when revolutionary Islamic ripple-out effects were fast spreading out from Iran. Once again inflation rates soared.

There are good grounds to believe that in late 1973 Nixon first started thinking about resigning. And it is widely known that Jimmy Carter lost his re-election bid because of soaring inflation and the Iranian hostage crisis.

This year the Saudis must be pleased that both parties' candidates have oil connections. As an editorial in the Saudi-financed As-Sharq Al-Ausat put it "both Bush and Cheney got their formation and fortunes through the oil industry and Al Gore is connected to it through family wealth."

Cheney, until August 16, remains chairman CEO of the Halliburton Company, which styles itself "the world's largest provider of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries."

If oil really is what keeps the global bull market going, then Saudi power plays a central role. With the naming of Dick Cheney, George W. Bush has made a key decision that shows how his administration will move in this arena.

The best response the Democrats could offer is to present both a credible agreement between Israel and the Palestinians but also between Israel and Syria. That's a tall order to be achieved well before November 7.