SYRIAN- US RELATIONS

''When President Obama came to power, there’s some improvement, at least in the atmosphere.  Obviously there are a lot of concrete things happening, moving forward slowly, but the main interest of this administration now and of Senator Kerry is about how can we re-launch the peace process?  President Obama is interested in the peace process in general, but the talk with Senator Kerry was about the Syrian track.  And I think the main — the crux of the problems in this region is the lack of peace.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

''You cannot separate the two things because if they want to play the role of the arbiter, they cannot play that role while they are sided with the Israelis.  They have to be an impartial arbiter.   They’re not, and they were never impartial arbiters since the beginning of the peace process.   They have to gain the trust of the different players.  If you don’t have good relations with Syria, how can Syria depend on you as an arbiter?  So, you have to improve the relations.  So, I told the American offshoot that we have to start from improving relations.  If you talk about putting Syria on the terrorism act — terrorism list, they have the Syrian Accountability Act in the Congress.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

''Well, we’re waiting for the results.  Without the results — I trust Senator Kerry to start with.  I talked with Senator Kerry, and I think he’s genuine, and I met him five times.  Not the first meeting or the second meeting.  I met him five times under very difficult circumstances, so what he said — he said what he meant — what he means.  But, at the end, he’s not the one who’s going to implement.  You have the administration and you have the Congress; anyone could put obstacles.  So, I think we are looking for the results.  Today, I’m convinced about what he said, but I’m convinced that President Obama wants to do something positive in that regard, but I’m not confident that the institution will allow President Obama to do what he wants to do with Syria and in other subjects and issues.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

Not because he- President Obama- cannot but because you have institutions in the United States, you have your political system.  It’s not only the president.  If it’s only the president, we could blame the president.  We say that he didn’t do what he had to do.  But you have the institutions and you have the Congress, so it’s not only the ambassador to Syria.  He was about to come, but the Congress, the Republican in the Congress, opposed it recently, so the president has to stop.  So, that’s why I said it’s not that the president doesn’t want to or he cannot do something.  It’s about the whole political system that you have in the United States, and you know more than me about it.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

''They- USA- contradict themselves.  They talk about stability in the region.  Stability starts with good relations.  You cannot have stability and have bad relations.  This is — second, what is the argument? Why do they need to have Syria be away from Iran?  They have conflict Iran so what does it mean to put Syria away from Iran?  Sometime they talk about the relation between Syrian and Iranian relation and the peace.  That’s not true.  That’s not realistic because Iran supported our efforts to achieve, to get back our land through the peace negotiations in 2008 when we had indirect negotiations in Turkey.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

''In 2004, or maybe ‘5, I’m not sure, a delegation, big delegation, from the Pentagon from the State Department, from the army and the intelligence came to Syria to ask for cooperation.  And we told them, send us delegation to see what kind of cooperation we can have on the borders, the same delegation, that delegation left Syria, and they didn’t come back again.  We have the same issue recently in the autumn, last autumn.''

From H.E.'s PBS Interview  (May 28, 2010)

“I would like to draw a distinction between President Obama, who has authority, and the United States as a State. The President has good intentions. The climate between us has definitely improved: the veto was lifted to our access to the World Trade Agreement. Sanctions were partially softened, though they were reconfirmed. Yet there are institutions such as Congress, lobbies that weigh in our relationship sometimes in a positive way, other times in a negative way. And, in the end, it is results that matter”.

From H.E.'s La Repubblica Interview (May 24, 2010)

Bush gave Obama this big ball of fire, and it is burning, domestically and internationally. Obama, he does not know how to catch it.

The approach has changed; no more dictations but more listening and more recognition of America’s problems around the world, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. But at the same time there are no concrete results…. What we have is only the first step…. Maybe I am optimistic about Obama, but that does not mean that I am optimistic about other institutions that play negative or paralyzing role[s] to Obama.

If you talk about four years, you have one year to learn and the last year to work for the next elections. So, you only have two years. The problem, with these complicated problems around the world, where the United States should play a role to find a solution, is that two years is a very short time…. Is it enough for somebody like Obama?

From His Excellency's ''Direct Quotes'' by the New Yorker, (February 3, 2010)

''We quite agree with the main lines of what he said before he was President, and since he is President, but when we see the result, countries and peoples ask for a plan of action. How to transform this positive talk that we heard into a reality on the field. I can’t talk about deception, it’s less than a year that President Obama is in power, I think therefore that we must give more time to Obama. But I can say that the peoples of the Middle East are beginning to lose hope. I hope they are wrong.''

From His Excellency's France 2 TV Interview, (November 15, 2009)

''The USA is the biggest power in the world, playing a role all over the world, with no exception. Consequently, it is able to do more than others. The first of our expectations from this Administration was related to the issue of peace. We have witnessed the beginning of a move within this frame, received Mr. Mitchell, started a dialogue about the issue of the peace; this dialogue was no more than views exchange, no common vision reached to, there was no executive plan,''

From His Excellency's Le Figaro Interview, (November 13, 2009)

''There is a change in the way of handling the matters; the language of dictations was replaced with the language of dialogue; this is a good point. However, the matter did not exceed the limit of the dialogue,''

From His Excellency's Press Statements during His Visit to Croatia, (October 28-29, 2009)

''From the perspective of the general political frame, we do not see any positive development in practice. If there is anything that has changed, then it is the differences in the approaches toward existing problems. There is no longer a US policy of dictating to us. There is a US that is more willing to listen to our opinions. There used to be a sentiment in the US that “think tanks in America could solve the problems in the Middle East.” Now the mentality that problems can be solved by working with countries in the region is being instilled.''

From His Excellency's Interview with the Turkish Zaman Paper, (September 15, 2009) 

''To give a concrete example, in contrast to the Bush administration, there is a US administration that is more open to Turkey's mediation efforts in the region. But in terms of solving problems, the US administration's viewpoint is not very clear, although we do hear general things such as “comprehensive peace” in the region. This is very important from our perspective. Comprehensive means including Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Syria [in the peace process]. There was nothing like this during Bush's time. [Obama] needs to fill in the details under the main heading. This needs to be followed by an implementation/action plan. Nine months have passed since Obama came to office, and this is a very important period in a four-year tenure. We think he needed to act more quickly so that we could say “OK, the Obama administration is different.” All in all, I can say that there are intentions, but we need to see results as well.''

From His Excellency's Interview with the Turkish Zaman Paper, (September 15, 2009)

“It's normal to have differences between different cultures, between different nations and states. But I think the United States has a special role as the greatest power.”

 From His Excellency’s Sky News Interview, (July 2, 2009)

"But I think the United States has a special role as the greatest power. I think President Obama should visit as many countries as he can in order to make these dialogues. And of course that includes Syria."

 From His Excellency’s Sky News Interview, (July 2, 2009)

"A big change comes when you make actions. An invitation is about dialogue, dialogue is about having common ground, a common vision. Then you have to make a plan then, later, you take action."

 From His Excellency’s Sky News Interview, (July 2, 2009)

“We can say we have a glimmer of hope. They announced their will, which is good, but this is the first step. The second step is to have a plan after you negotiate with the different parties and establish contacts with them. But the most important thing is the partner. Peace is about two parties: the Arabs and the Israelis. We have the will; the Arab side has the will. Now, what about the Israelis? I think the whole world now shares with us the vision that this very extremist government is not ready for peace. But, again, it is not only about this government. What about Olmert? He could not achieve peace because if you have a weak government, like the previous one, you cannot achieve peace. Weak governments go to war and extremist governments go to war, as well. So, it is the same result. Which government can achieve peace? That is the question and it depends on how much the U.S. Administration and their allies in Europe can work with the Israelis to bring them back to the track of peace.”

From His Excellency’s Interview with the Austrian Der Standard, (April, 18, 2009)

“We heard he- President Obama- is coming to the region; somebody told me he is coming. About the meeting: in principle, it is normal to have a meeting between two Presidents. We do not have any problem now with the United States, especially after Mr. Obama announced his will to withdraw from Iraq. This is very important. But meeting and having a summit has to do with the subject that we are going to discuss. It is very important, first, to agree on the subjects and, then, to prepare for these subjects. So far, there are no proposals from any side to have such a summit. We are still at the beginning of the relation between the Syrian government and the United States Administration. That is why it is still early to talk about this. It is not a photo opportunity. If it were a photo opportunity we could make it happen tomorrow, but it is about goals you want to achieve and this is very important. That is why you have to discuss the subject, first. We have contact at other levels of the Administration and things are moving forward. That is the important thing.”

From His Excellency’s Interview with the Austrian Der Standard, (April, 18, 2009)

"Yes, in principle. It would be a very positive sign- meeting with President Obama-. But I'm not looking for a photo opportunity. I want to see him, to talk."

 From His Excellency La Repubblica Interview, (March 18, 2009)

“The United States under Obama could play an important role bringing peace to the region. Only Washington can press Israel."

 From His Excellency La Repubblica Interview, (March 18, 2009)

"The previous administration only talked with countries in the region, including Syria, about their interests, regardless of our interests."

From His Excellency the Japanese Asahi Shimbun Newspaper Interview, (March 12, 2009)

"You start the dialogue and then through the dialogue you see if you have to change or the other one has to change. ... We can continue the dialogue in order to maybe someday have common ground,"

 From His Excellency the Japanese Asahi Shimbun Newspaper Interview, (March 12, 2009)

"It is not us who have changed. It is the Americans who have changed",

From His Excellency the Japanese Asahi Shimbun Newspaper Interview, (March 12, 2009)

 “We want to discuss all the issues of concern to the USA and to Syria, so that we could see where the points of convergence are, as well the points of divergence that we could dialogue over,”

 From His Excellency Al-Khaleej Newspaper Interview, (March 9, 2009)

"We have the impression that this administration will be different, and we have seen the signals. But we have to wait for the reality and the results."

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009)

"Bush failed in everything," "They [the Bush administ­ration] worked hard to achieve regime change. But it didn't work. It didn't work because I am not an American puppet and have good relations with my people."

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009)

"An ambassador is important,", "Sending these delegations is important. This number of congressmen coming to Syria is a good gesture. It shows that this administration wants to see dialogue with Syria. What we have heard from them – Obama, Clinton and others – is positive."; "We are still in the period of gestures and signals. There is nothing real yet."

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009)

"We would like to have dialogue with the US administration. We would like to see him [Petraeus] here in Syria,"

From His Excellency Interview with the Guardian, (February 17, 2009)

“We want to be optimistic; let us view the issue – the change in the USA- with an optimistic vision, without saying that we have big expectations or hopes. An optimistic vision is based on no new wars, and that there would be a solution for the Iraqi issue represented through Mr. Obama’s pledge to withdraw from Iraq, of course in parallel with the political process, and on the new US Administration involvement, in a serious way, in the Peace Process. We have positive signals; however, we have learned to be cautious, and not to condition our calculations to such signals. As long as there are no concrete things, we have to assume that things have never been changed yet.”

From His Excellency Al-Manar TV Interview, (January 26, 2009)

“We speak of hopes, not expectations. The Bush administration brought us two wars. The situation in the world has worsened in every respect in the last eight years. Everything has gotten worse, including economic development. The Americans must withdraw from Iraq. The new US administration must seriously commit itself to the peace process. We must help it to do so, together with the Europeans.”

From His Excellency Der Spiegel Interview, (January 19, 2009)

“We are independent. No one can tell us what to do. Our actions are determined solely by our interests. Good relations with Washington cannot mean bad relations with Tehran.”

From His Excellency Der Spiegel Interview, (January 19, 2009)

“We would like to contribute to stabilizing the region. But we must be included and not isolated, as has been the case until now. We are willing to engage in any form of cooperation that is also helpful when it comes to America's relations with other countries.”

From His Excellency Der Spiegel Interview, (January 19, 2009)

 “We hope that with the New Administration- I think many worldwide share us this hope- there would be no new wars in any place of the world, especially in the Middle East. Secondly, we hope that the Administration is to work seriously, practically and realistically for peace in our region. Thirdly, we hope that this Administration would undertake a serious  work , would have a clear vision for solving the big problem; which is Iraq; first through the work as to withdraw foreign troops from Iraq; second, through the creation of a political process which would lead to the stabilization of Iraq, and to the unification of its territories in the future.”

 From His Excellency Joint Press Conference with His Croatian Counterpart, H. E. Stjepan Mesic, (December 22, 2008)

 

“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 U A E 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.”

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

“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.”

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

"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."

From HE’s ABC News TV Interview, (February 5, 2007)

" 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. "

From HE’s ABC News TV Interview, (February 5, 2007)

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. "

From HE’s ABC News TV Interview, (February 5, 2007)

"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. "

From HE’s Damascus University Speech , (November 10, 2005)

"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."

From HE’s CNN Interview, (October 12, 2005)

"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."

From HE’s Interview with the Chinese People Daily, (June 21, 2004)

"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."

From HE’s Interview with Al Jazeera, (May 3, 2004)

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."

From HE’s Interview with al-Sharq Al-Awsat Daily, (January 29, 2004)

"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."

From HE’s Interview with Corriere Della Sera, (February 14, 2002)