SYRIAN- US RELATIONS

“It is difficult to imagine that a new president, no matter to which party he belongs, would decide at the outset of his Administration that he is going to fail. For in fact, the present Administration has failed in every one of the matters it has approached, from Korea to Iran, Syria, the war against terrorism, Iraq and Georgia, as well as in terms of America’s internal and economic situation. Is it possible for a person, even if he follows the same political line, to pursue the same policies, which would doom him to failure from the start. I believe that it is logical to say that whoever comes to power cannot follow the same path. The question here is to what extent they can distance themselves from this path. The difference between the Democratic and the Republican candidate is another issue. The principal issue is the military aspect of this Administration. Whoever comes to power and adopts the same stances will definitely fail. The USA is a powerful nation and it can cause destruction, but will it succeed in the end?”

 From His Excellency Monday Morning Interview, (September 30, 2008)

“We have always been talking about the necessity of the US sponsorship for Mideast Peace Process and as to find the guarantees considering its relation with Israel.”

 From His Excellency Statements at the Quartet Damascus Summit  (September 4, 2008)

“We do not care about change of power in the US; hence all the administrations leave as inheritance for consequent administrations a ball of fire. Even if an administration similar to the current one were to come to power in the US, it is doubtful, that such administration is to commit the same mistakes previously committed. If those who want to practice politics in a more correct manner were to win the elections, there would be very limited changes. Thus, we do not have to pin big hope to this effect.”

 From His Excellency Interview with the Russian Kommersant Daily  (August 20, 2008)

“The United States under President George W. Bush was not interested in bringing peace to the Middle East, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad said here Friday. “We look forward to good relations with the US as its role for the peace process in the Middle East is very important. Unfortunately, this US administration is not interested in peace. We will have to wait for the next one,”

From His Excellency Statements in India (June 19^th, 2008)

“The US says all the problems lie with Syria and so does the solution. When they say this, we feel we are a great country,”; “We are going to help in the peace initiatives. We can also help in Iraq. But it depends on the Americans whether they want to see real and viable solutions to these problems.”

From His Excellency Statements in India (June 19^th, 2008)

“Yes, because this is the image of this administration; everybody in the world still remembers what happened in Iraq when they had all that evidence, but then it was proved that everything was fabricated; even Colin Powel confessed in an interview that he was not truthful, and we all know the same, and most of the countries know about the problem between Syria and the US, and they always try to find traps for Syria. This is reality.”

From His Excellency Indian Daily, the Hindu Interview (June 12^th, 2008)

“No, because we don't have real bilateral relations with the United States anyway. Most of our relations used to be with Europe and now with Asia. A few years ago we took a strategic direction to move towards Asia and even South America, which is south - south, but not with the United States. We have a few hundred thousand dollars in terms of trade balance. The effect is more political than economic.”

From His Excellency Indian Daily, the Hindu Interview (June 12^th, 2008)

“Usually in Syria we don't bet on who is going to be the President of the United States, especially in a campaign. You don't listen to what they say during the campaign. We usually bet on the policies not speeches, but of course the common thing among those candidates is about the failure of the previous government or administration. This is very important. As long as they see the failure, they are not going to adopt the same doctrine or policy. This is very important for us. Now, how to find a solution? You cannot find a solution in the US. You have to make it in the region. If you want to make it in the region, you have to find out who are the main players: first of all, the Iraqis, and second the rest of the countries surrounding Iraq. They can help. You have to make discussions, to make dialogue. The problem with this administration is that they do not have dialogue even with their allies, in Europe or in the region, including the British first of all, who supported them in their war. So, what we heard from the Democrats, Obama and Hilary Clinton, was positive regarding the Iraqi issue, that you have to make dialogue, to have a political process in order to have withdrawal at the end. What we heard from McCain, that he is going to stay for a hundred years in Iraq: I don't think that's what you may hear from a politician usually, any politician, that he wants to stay one hundred years. But anyway, we have to wait until somebody is in the office.”

From His Excellency Indian Daily, the Hindu Interview (June 12^th, 2008)

"We had several meetings with the Americans, including one between the Syrian foreign minister and his US counterpart. We also received congressional delegations carrying messages from the US Administration. They come to us to its knowledge, but they seem to be wont to retain their positions that they are against Syria even though they have security meetings with the Iranians."

From His Excellency Statements during His Kuwait Visit (June 4^th, 2008)

"Eventually, the negotiations will be carried out under US, international and Arab umbrellas, but the US has no part in the ongoing negotiations at this time,", but the current US administration "has problems not only with Syria, but with its friends as well, which is why nothing much is expected from this administration."

From His Excellency Statements during His UAE Visit (June 3^rd, 2008)

 “ We do reject a deal related to any issue; it is not part of our habits to make deals in politics; hence the issue doesn’t pertain to commodity selling and buying; it pertains to states rights, principles, and interests. In fact, what has happened is contrary to that, where we have been offered many things whether from the Americans or from those who relate to them. We have always told them that the issue of the international court is related to Lebanon, and is an agreement between the Lebanese government and the United Nations.”

 From His Excellency Interview given to the Qatari ‘Al-Wtan’ Daily  (April 27^th 2008)

 " When in anticipation the US Administration or some of its officials talk about the investigation results as to lead to this or that, this means that they have taken the place of the court; when a political administration talks on behalf of the judges means that this issue is manipulated for political purposes.”

From His Excellency Interview given to the Qatari ‘Al-Wtan’ Daily  (April 27^th 2008)

“I will only tell them that their approach towards Syria, the previous approach towards Syria was futile, and you have to seek another approach which is dialogue and taking our interests into consideration. That is the only message we want, it is about our interests.”

“I do not think that we created the war in Iraq to talk about destabilizing the Middle East; we did not create the problem in Lebanon recently, we did not meddle in the affairs of different countries to create the instability or to sow instability. This is first. Second, we do not have any interest in sowing instability in the region because we are going to pay the price. We have strong interests in having a stable region and that is what we are working for. So, we do not take these statements into consideration.”

From H. E. ’s BBC Interview  ( October 1, 2007)

 “…We do not bet on any President or administration. We are betting on policy. But again, as I have said many times that we have lost hope with this administration. We do not think that they will work for peace. We do not think that they have learned anything from their experience and failure in Iraq. That is why, so if you call it buying time or whatever it is something subjective, but this is the reality.”

From H. E. ’s BBC Interview  ( October 1, 2007)

“Actually, we tried hard for many years, but they always turned a deaf ear not only to Syria but even to their allies who were disappointed because of the reaction towards the peace issue, Iraq, Palestine and even towards the issue of terrorism. They turned a deaf ear. It is not true that we did not try; we tried hard and it is very normal that you have to try to keep good relations with the major power in the world; it is not wise not to look for bad relations with it.”

"First of all, they have to stop looking for scapegoats and whipping boys, this administration. And there's a logical answer: We cannot stoke the fire and then extinguish it. If you stoke it, it will burn you. So if we have this chaos in Iraq, it will spill over to Syria and to other countries, so saying this, like saying that the Syrian government is working against the Syrian interest, this is impossible."

" This administration, in general, are not interested in peace at all. This administration is not willing to achieve peace. They don't have the will, and they don't have the vision. This is, in brief, what I know about this administration not about the president in particular. "

Q: And is there anyone operating on the world stage today that you admire? Any leader, any diplomat?

"Maybe Bush, the father, because of his will to achieve the peace in the region. Of course, President Clinton, he has the same will, and he is admired in our region and respected. "

"They have to understand me by understanding my culture as a person. If they want to understand me as a president, they have to understand whom I represent; and this is related to the culture of my people. So, this the problem with the west: If I want to make an analogy to two computers with different systems – if we talk about windows – we notice that they do the same job but they have different systems. So, you have sometimes some software to make the translation between the two systems. We do not have to talk about the events; we have to explain and analyze these events and translate them from our culture to another culture. That is what we want from the media in your country and from the politicians. That is how they can understand, and then they will understand that we need peace, we need prosperity and we need reform."

From HE’s PBS TV Interview, (March 30, 2006)

"When you don't understand the culture, you don't understand the politics, especially in our region. If you don't understand the culture and the politics, you don't understand what decision we take as leaders and why, and what we say and why. That is why we always have misunderstandings when we conduct a dialogue with many delegations coming from the West, especially the United States. They ask us questions that show how they misunderstand our vision and our beliefs and goals."

From HE’s PBS TV Interview, (March 30, 2006)

"First of all, as American officials you have to talk with me about your interests, and as a Syrian official I have to talk with you about my interests. If you ask them about Iraq they would say, "we want stability, we want to support the political process, and we won’t stay in Iraq," and in Syria we want stability, support the political process and don’t want to see any foreign troops there. So, we share the same titles with the Americans, and that is why we can find common interests. Exactly, but we should take into consideration our interests. The problem with this administration is that they talk of their interests only and don’t talk of the interests of other countries. This problem is not only with Syria but also with many countries. But if you talk about the end results, they haven’t achieved their own interests. Four years after the 9/11 events what has the world achieved? Did it achieve any better? I cannot see that. They have to deal with the facts instead of wasting time discussing wishful thinking and titles and slogans."

From HE’s PBS TV Interview, (March 30, 2006)

"When Collin Powell came in 2003 and talked to us about controlling the borders, we said that we could not, and this has been a chronic problem. In principle, no country can control its borders. Big trucks used to enter Syria undetected, so how do you want Syria to control the passage of individuals? At any rate, if you are so concerned about this problem, we accept any technology that could help us in this area. Of course they have not provided anything. Many American delegations came and talked to us about the same issue. They used to start by saying the United States cannot control its borders with Mexico, and end up by saying that Syria has to control its borders with Iraq. This means that a super-power cannot control its borders and we can. Iraqi delegations came and talked with the same logic; and there were unfounded accusations. We told our Iraqi brothers that we were prepared to cooperate in that regard. We told all these parties that regardless of the American demand, and regardless of any pressure, we have an interest in controlling our borders, because the chaos in Iraq had a direct impact on the security situation in Syria. So, we have an interest, but cooperation requires two parties. Shall we cooperate with ourselves on both sides of the border? We are on one side of the border, and there has to be cooperation on the other side, whether on the part of the Americans or the Iraqis. We stress again today that we are open without limits to cooperation with our Iraqi brothers, whether for controlling the borders directly or what lies beyond the borders, through security cooperation and other measures. The strange thing is that the American accusations after the invasion and until the middle of 2004 were about what they called them Jihadis or Salafis or fundamentalists or Islamic terrorists. Suddenly these became Baathists and followers of Sadam Husein. This shows the state of confusion and the psychological pressure on the occupation forces. "

"I wouldn't say this is true- US accusations regarding the Syria-Iraq borders-. It's completely wrong. You have an aspect of the problem. The first aspect is no country can control his borders completely. And example is the border between the United States and Mexico. And many American officials told me: "We cannot control our border with Mexico." But at the end, they end up saying: "You should control your border with Iraq." This is impossible, and I told Mr. Powell that for the first time we met after the war. I told him: "It's impossible to control the border." And we asked for some technical support, but we did many steps to control our border, as I said, not completely, but we did many steps. And we'd like to invite any delegation from the world or from the United States to come and see our borders to see the steps that we took, and to look at the other side to see nothing. There is nobody on the other side, American or Iraqi."

"As regard US sanctions on Syria and Syria-US current and future relations, the President said that such sanctions are a new form of international relations which yields hegemony and interference in a country’s internal affairs. Such a principle is rejected and most states announced their rejection of the sanctions. But the world is influenced and no state lives isolation. So, sanctions can have impacts and it is not yet known whether these impacts are great or otherwise. The Americans are trying to convert the impacts from moral ones into economic and financial ones. We are still maintaining dialogue with the Americans. ‏ On the other hand, the Syrian-US relations are always changing. They were severed in the 1960s and were restored in 1974 when President Nixon visited Syria. Throughout the past 30 years, relations were not stable. Sometimes we reach agreement and at other times we differ due to changes in the American Administration. However, the only thing that remains is dialogue and we hope that by so doing relations can be positive and we hope they become more stable. ‏ We want relations to be stable, but till now they are unstable."

"Until now , dialogue is still the basis. This does not mean the relation is good . It changes continuously and every day. And it differs between one trend and another inside the US. Administration . There are trends that we have the desire to make dialogue with. These trends believe that dialogue with us is important for a number of reasons that are related to the issues of the region in general , and to Syria's role in particular . We cannot specify things now precisely , particularly that the US. administration has gone into election stage and everything in the US is now governed by elections. Many persons told us they were not convinced when they had voted for Syria's Accountability Act. But , they added , they did this out of their electoral interests which motivated them to vote for it. This is known about the United States. Some of them are members of the Congress .But dialogue is still going on."

Q - How do you see the new U.S. Administration?

"There haven’t been any contact with it yet; we have no information,"

Q - What do you expect from President Bush?

"We expect what we want… neutrality in peace process, efficiency in implementing UN Security Council resolutions and pushing the Israelis to give back all Arab rights."

"I think if the American Administration is able to formulate one opinion, then they can probably have cooperation with Europe but you need first to have one opinion. This is what I have said to William Burns, the Assistant Secretary of the United States when he visited me in Damascus two months ago. I said to him: you are a group of administrations, not just one administration. And I said to him: each one of your administrations has a different opinion . So, I think that Europe has to choose one of these administrations to deal with."

Back

INTERVIEWS SPEECHES DOMESTIC ISSUESNATIONAL ISSUESINTERNATIONAL ISSUESNEWS & ANALYSESPICTURES      HOME