Friday, December 1, 2006
What was I saying about Chirac? OK, I take that back for a moment.
Chirac's comments come a day after U.S. National Security Adviser Steven Hadley said that there was no point in Israel holding negotiations with Syria as long as Damascus continues to support and facilitate terrorism.
U.S. President George W. Bush is under strong domestic pressure to talk to Syria and Iran in an effort to reduce sectarian violence and avert civil war in Iraq.
Speaking after a NATO summit in Latvia, Chirac said he was always in favour of dialogue in principle provided it led to results and was based on honesty and a commitment to carry out what was agreed.
"In the current state of affairs, this is not exactly the characteristic of the dialogue which some European countries have started with Syria. I deplore that," Chirac said.
"I understand that the American president's position is exactly the same as France's," Chirac said...
The only two prominent reasons I can readily think of to sit at table with Iran or Syria is 1) to gain information without giving anything valuable in return or 2) in order to convey what is tantamount to ultimatums in the hope of substantial concessions and without any prospects for bluffing.
However, CAVEAT EMPTOR! Persia is the land where chess originated and by most accounts Iran reflects a highly sophisticated group of Machiavellian negotiators who are proficient in getting what they want via labyrinthian ploys, or more directly and coercively, via the corps of Islamic Revolutionary Guards.
Given France's own ties to Lebanon, a bit of candor from Chiraq about the nature of the Syrian regime doesn't really impress me all that much. Chiraq is still a sleaze who played a pivotal role in trying to give Saddam nukes and voted against regime change while elements in France profited from oil-for-food.