Radio France Internationale – Interview
RFI: What is the significance of a peace conference right now?
Grant Smith, IRmep: Let’s look at it from a strategic vista. At the very same time Bush administration is reinitiating a dormant process that has been of no interest for their entire term in office, they are also announcing direct negotiations for semi-permanent US military forces to be stationed in Iraq.
In Annapolis, one interested party that was not invited won’t fail to notice that the “negotiations” are taking place in a military installation, specifically, that of the US Navy. The Navy has been proposed as the “tip of the spear” in any bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and to maintain the movement of petroleum tankers.
RFI: So is this serious, or not?
Grant Smith, IRmep: The Bush administration’s overt alliance and coordination with the Israelis is so encompassing that this, along with other important factors, negates this as a likely forum for truly productive negotiations, painful compromises, or the US emergence as some kind of a neutral arbitrator. At real negotiations, you invite all parties with legitimate interests and effective veto powers over that which is to be negotiated. In this case, elevating Mahmoud Abbas and leaving out Hamas, which has real representation among Palestinians, means it is not an inclusive enough negotiation. Iran, which also has influence and interests in the outcome was not invited.
The Bush administration is triangulating a positive counterbalance to two initiatives that are already extremely unpopular in the US: continuing the military occupation of Iraq and finding pretexts for hitting Iran. If you don’t see this negotiation as their chance to score some public relations wins to provide cover for their more favored but unpopular projects, then you’re missing the whole point.