PRESIDENT ASSAD/ THE QATARI 'AL-WATAN' DAILY  INTERVIEW   (April  27th, 2008)

 

H. E. President Bashar Al-Assad gave a comprehensive interview to the Qatari ‘Al-Watan’ Daily, published April 27th 2008.

Regarding Mideast Peace Process, H. E. President Bashar Al-Assad said: " Erdogan- the Turkish Premier, has informed me of the Israeli willingness to withdraw from the Golan in return for peace with Syria." " Mediations between Damascus and Tel Aviv have been intensified basically following the aggression against in Lebanon during the summer of 2006, and after the victory of the Resistance. The Turkish involvement to this effect came since April 2007 yielding new positive details; where Olmert – the Israeli Premier- affirmed to the Turkish Premier his willingness to return the Golan. We have received this news a week ago; following that we have heard Olmert saying " We know what Syria wants, and Syria knows what we want.".

" What we need now is to find the common ground through the Turkish mediator,"" There would never be secret negotiations with Israel; there would be , if to take place, announced indirect negotiations through the Turkish side. We are to deal first with the issue of the restoration of the land as to see Israel credibility. We have to be precise and cautious in dealing with this issue; perhaps with a new US Administration, we can talk after that of direct negotiations.", " During the visit of the Turkish Premier to Damascus, though coming within the frame of the meetings of the Syrian-Turkish Businessmen Council, we, definitely, would talk about this point. ""Israel presents the idea of direct negotiations; this, however, has different basics. And now we do not talk of this; rather we talk about a Turkish role. It is a Turkish mediation conveying the basic information and details as to find a common ground. This is to be the basic as to launch direct negotiations in a later stage."

 “ We have dealt with peace mediation efforts with the same approach; you come to talk about mediation, and I tell you these are my rights. Only through this way, we can start peace negotiations with certain basics, certain prerequisites; we do not call them conditions, but prerequisites. Without these different points, it would be a waste of time. We need a clear-cut announcement by Olmert that he wants peace, second, that Olmert would present to the Turkish mediator: Erdogan- the Turkish Premier, that he was prepared to return the Golan. If Olmert was not prepared to return the Golan, there is no need to talk about this topic. “,  “ The direct negotiations need a sponsor, which is only the United States. Unfortunately, the current US Administration doesn’t possess neither the vision nor the will for peace process.” asserting in replay to another question  “ The basic role in the peace process is for the US because of its relation with Israel; not because it is stronger or weaker; but because the US has strong relations with Arab sides, and further stronger with Israel. There is a need for a party to exert pressure on Israel, or to influence it in the peace process. Russia can not play this role today, neither could play it in the past.”

 Regarding the said peace conference to be convened in Moscow in light of the Israeli intransigency , H.E. President Al-Assad said: “ No success whatsoever is to take place  in light of the Israeli intransigency. When Lavrov- the Russian Foreign Minister- visited Syria, he was not clear regarding the content of such a conference. It is not suffice to talk about the conference; what does a conference mean? Is it to meet around the table? What is important is the content. So far, we have received nothing regarding the content; we are not sure about the convening date of such a conference. The problem is not only the Israeli intransigency; but is within the US Administration, which has a big saying to this effect. So far nothing clear before us as to make us optimistic, though we have backed whatever conference to be convened in Moscow considering its credibility with Arabs as far as the cause of peace. Would Moscow be allowed to succeed? We do not trust neither Israel, nor the US.”

In reply to another question, H. E. President Al-Assad said: "Why did they attack us? We do not know. What was there information? They, however, knew and saw through satellites and did attack under construction post; where there were none inside, nothing; it was indeed empty! Is it possible to have a nuclear post without protection, without antiaircraft?", " A nuclear post under the surveillance of satellite in the middle of Syria in the desert, and in an open place! How could this be a nuclear site when the satellites daily monitor every meter we construct while we have been building it for many years?" adding "They seek a justification and do not know the reality of this site. They were confused when Syria announced the news, and confused upon seeing the results of their attack on the ground; they have bombed an empty site; what was then the justification for their attack?" 

In reply to another question, President Al-Assad said: " One time they said it was a nuclear site! Another time said it was arms supply post for Hizbuollah! Where from do arms arrive to Hizbuollah? Do they come from Turkey to the middle of Syria and to Lebanon!!! Or do the arms arrive from Iraq : from the US forces to the middle of Syria and to Lebanon?! Where do they come? We do not know; this is ridiculous! Later on, they said that they have air-dropped commandos taking samples! All this is but to justify their error and failure in not knowing the target. And this is the problem."

In reply to a question regarding Syrian response to the Israeli September attack, H. E. President Al-Assad said: “ The response does not mean a missile for missile, a bomb for bomb, neither a bullet for  bullet. We have deterrence means. We know that Israel wants to provoke Syria, and perhaps wants to lead Syria to war. We do not seek war. We, however, have other means to respond; it is not necessary to mention them.” asserting in reply to another question  “ As long as there is a glimmer of hope for peace, no body seeks war. War is an alternative once and one for all the hope for peace were to be  missed.”

 In reply to a question whether these means were through Hizbuollah in Lebanon, President Al-Assad said: “ No, to prove it Hizbuollah did not respond to Israel. Even Hizbuollah did not carry out any operation after 2006 war. When Hizbuollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers, its objective was to liberate the Lebanese prisoners, some of them were leaders in Hizbuollah; Hizbuollah did not carry that for any-Syria related issue. It is unacceptable when some say that Hizbuollah is Syria’s arm; no body would die in a war as to satisfy Syria; nor for money or any other thing. They die for a cause.”

 In reply to a question regarding the assassination of Hizbuollah leader, Imad Mughnia, H.E. asserted that the investigations are still going on and have not reached so far to concrete results.

In reply to a question about the recent Damascus Arab Summit, H. E. the president said: “ The Arab participation in the Summit under these circumstances, though of all the pressures put, means that the Arab condition is not negative as we imagine. We can not say that the Arab condition is very negative when we see some Arab countries rejecting the US pressures and others’ pressures and come to the Summit; this is a very positive thing that we should never negate; we have to be realistic. As Arabs it is necessary for us to distance ourselves from lies and cheating; all the matters should be clear.”

 “ All the Arab countries, apart from the level of participation, did participate in the Summit; this is one factor for the Summit success. There has never been ‘political mines’ in the Summit is another success for the Summit. The convening of the Summit under these circumstances and pressures is a further success for the Summit.” added President Al-Assad, asserting that  “ The positive atmospheres of the Summit have made us more optimistic that any Arab tour by the Summit Presidency to make soon, might yield results. To be frank, there is no problem between Syria and Riyadh, nor between Syria and Cairo. There is a problem from the other side; they have misunderstanding for the Syrian stance. As for Syria, she has no demands from these countries. We consider that we do not have problems with them. This issue depends on them. I want to visit all Arab countries with no exception. “

 “ The problem is to characterize the relations among countries with personal features of Arab leaders , as well as the big suspicions. The problem is when n Arab party would believe that if I were not to be like him, then I stand against him; this is impossible! We, brothers within the same family, can never share the same viewpoint. How would be the case when it comes to the level of States? This is the problem of the Arab-Arab relations.” noted His Excellency in reply to another question.

In reply to a question regarding US Secretary of State recent statement about the said ‘no deal’ with Syria as far as the case of Hariri Assassination, H.E. President Al-Assad said: " 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."

" Our answers have always been that that we never strike deals and that the issue of the court doesn’t relate to Syria. We have since the beginning supported through our declarations the international investigations. Further, Syria’s friends in Lebanon have supported the international investigations and the court during the dialogue preceding the war against Lebanon in 2006. Thus, such a statement- US Secretary of State one- is worthless, especially when there is the Administration, which indeed lacks credibility." noting that " 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." added the President.

"We have repeated for all, Arabs and foreigners, who have discussed the issue of the court with us as if were of concern to us that this issue is of no interest for us; we even have rejected discussing this issue. Nevertheless, there is insistence by some that this issue causes worry, insistence to legate the events taking place in our region, especially in Lebanon, to Syrian worry or to some Lebanese. The only problem in the court is when it aims not as to search for the truth. Had the aim of the court been as to know the truth, where is the problem?! To prove this, Syria has cooperated with Brammerts Committee; Syria has cooperated in a satisfactory way with the Committee as all the reports presented by Brammerts to the UN state this clearly. Had there been any non cooperation , Brammerts would have stated said in his report. We have backed the international investigation and every action, means, way or solution which lead to the truth. There are some who take of using the court as a political means; if this was to be the case, then, Lebanon is to be harmed before Syria is to be so. Our concern in Syria comes from whatever disorder in Lebanon, and not from the court." wondering how could a false witness in Hariri case disappear in mysterious circumstances from France calling on France to announce the details of this disappearance ‘ in the interest of the investigation because this witness has fabricated lies against Syria. The whereabouts of this witness should be known in the interest of the investigation integrity; hence the investigation have to investigate the reasons behind this witness fabrications.", " we have sacrificed during 30 years of our past presence in Lebanon, whether in defending Lebanon against the Israeli invasion of 1982, or in other consequent stages, the thousands of the Syrian lives. Why have we done so? Because the Stability of Lebanon is directly reflected on the stability of Syria" asserting that Syria is to pay a heavy price for whatever instability in Lebanon.

In reply to a question regarding the assassinations that took place in Lebanon during the Syrian presence there, H. E. President Al-Assad said: " Of course, assassinations took place in Syria too; does this mean that Syria is responsible for all these assassinations? Definitely no! we have state that the Syrian responsibility in Lebanon was not to bodyguard persons nor to deter explosions, the Syrian responsibility was to safeguard the national security; that is to deter civil fighting and support the Lebanese Army following the Taif Accord . following the stabilization of security in Lebanon during the 90’s and with the coming of President Lahoud to the presidency in 1998, we have realized that the situation by then was prepared for the Syrian withdrawal. We imitated withdrawal from Lebanon before the assassination of Hariri, withdrawing about 62 or 63 percent of the Syrian troops notwithstanding the circumstances. The Syrian troops role was not security for persons neither entailed the mechanism of a security apparatus. This was never part of the Syrian troops tasks."

Regarding the current Lebanese crisis, H. E. President Al-Assad said: " The problem is not the election of a president, which is part of a big problem related to the lack of confidence among the Lebanese sides. The confidence is to be guaranteed by the constitutions and different commitments including the Presidency, government, parliament, electoral laws and similar other things and many details, which I do not want to get involved in. Once the confidence is missing in a country, the need is for mechanisms with no exceptions that would restore the confidence among the sides. Thus, the issue is not to solve one problem; but to solve the big problem. I can not answer on the behalf of the Lebanese" noting that the Lebanese candidate for the presidency, General Michael Suleiman , whom Syria closely knows, is a good person by different accounts, reiterating Syria’s rejection to exert pressures when it comes to politics, and not even regarding the extension of President Lahoud Presidential term; but resorts to dialogue, " so, we dialogue with the Lebanese out of our vision, the Lebanese sides , however, know their interests more than we know".

Regarding some Lebanese officials declarations and accusations’ against Syria, H. E. President Bashar Al-Assad said: " A large part of the Arab public opinion, and after three years , is not convinced with such declarations. Political declarations at the level of states or political figures without a proof are meaningless and make their speakers lose." announcing that he himself has raised the issue of full diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon in 2005, ‘ once there is a national unity government in Lebanon seeking good relations with Syria, an Embassy is to be a normal out of question thing."

 “ We support every Arab effort to solve the crisis in Lebanon. If some Arabs believe the essence of the Arab problem is Lebanon, as Arabs we have to take the initiative and solve the problem of Lebanon. But to say that Syria is responsible for Lebanon is absolutely unacceptable.” added the president in reply to another question.

Regarding the exerted efforts for Palestinian reconciliation, H. E. President Al-Assad said: “ we stand at the same distance from all sides out of our convention that Israel is to benefit by the Palestinian divisions” asserting that Syria, as  president of the Arab Summit, is in waiting for proposals from the Palestinian factions regarding reconciliation.

 In reply o a question regarding Iraq, President Al-Assad said: “ the Arab identity of Iraq is the base for its stability. The issue of Iraq for us in Syria is very fundamental ; we stand against any  country standing against the unity of Iraq. We support the national unity of Iraq, oppose sectarian condition.”, “They have toppled the Ba’ath Party in Iraq. What was the alternative? Was it through national and secular parties. The situation now is that the alternative was a sectarian war. I, however, think, the national trend in Iraq is stronger now in Iraq. It is true that the sectarian trend is strong through the militias , some militias, but I talk of the popular base: the national trend has become stronger.”

 In reply to a question related to Iran, President Al-Assad said: “ Iran now is a big and important State, whether we like it or not. Iran is a State present in the region and not a newly-born one; it has a civilization, close to the Arab civilization as far as  depth in this region; it has periods of conflicts and accord; but at the same time the Iranians have been standing with us in the Islamic State and etc. They are part of this texture. It is impossible to have a country like Iran as an enemy with which our interests differ and to have Israel as not the enemy. It is impossible to have Iran as the problem in Iraq , while the United States is the solution in Iraq.”

 In reply to a question regarding Iran’s right to possess nuclear power, President Al-Assad said: “ We support every country in the world to have peaceful power, and not Iran only. We do stand against Mass Destruction Weapons (MDW); we have presented in 2003 a draft to the United Nations Security Council for the disarmament of MDW; this draft was shelved! Who opposed it was the United States, because it includes Israel. As for us, we are against MDW, whether for Iran , Israel, or for any country.”

In reply to a question in case Iran were to be attacked, President Al-Assad said: “ We do not have a joint Defence Pact between both states, neither a common front. It is not required from Iran to send armies to Syria, nor from Syria to send armies to Iran. For example, during the war between Iran and Iraq, we supported Iran; but did not send army; we did not fight Saddam on behalf of Iran. The same thing with Hizbuollah, even our relation with the resistance and Hizbuollah. The issue is not that of weapons; the weapons are available, you can bring the weapons by different means, Gaza is besieged from all sides, but it has weapons which were not there before. The resistance can get on every thing. The issue is an issue of political support, right support. This is the issue.”

 In reply to a question regarding the PKK attacks against Turkey, President Al-Assad said: “ the operations carried out by the PKK in Turkey are not acceptable, rejected; killing operations against soldiers and civilians, the most grave against the civilians. Every country pertains its right for self-defence.  The Turkish have given time to the political process to this effect; once the operations persisted, it was normal for them to carry out operations as to protect their land and people.”

In reply to a question about fighting corruption and reforms in Syria, H. E. President Al-Assad said: “ This issue needs an approach and never takes place through rushing up and enthusiasm; the issue of corruption is not to chasing people and shot fire against them, etc.. It is a complex deep rooted operation which needs rational tackling starting with the reform of Administration System in Syria and of course from selecting the persons for the highest levels. We in Syria have achieved success at the higher level. There was more corruption at the higher level; now at the level of the higher leadership it is less. The most difficult corruption related to the low levels, it is small, repeated, and plenty.”,  “ Fighting corruption without institutional reform is useless. … I encouraged Syrian mass media to uncover and expose corruption. When media talks about corruption, the citizen would see things unseen before.”

In reply to a question about the government performance, H. E. Al-Assad said:  “ Our ambitions are big. Undoubtedly, there are negligence; but, undoubtedly, there are accomplishments. The real evaluation is ever for the citizen, because he/she lives the problem, and on whom the problem is reflected. I can not evaluate this issue as the Syrian citizen can. My job is to present the real picture to the citizens so as to sort these different aspects.”

Edited &Translated by

Mohamad Abdo Al-Ibrahim

Back

INTERVIEWS SPEECHES DOMESTIC ISSUESNATIONAL ISSUESINTERNATIONAL ISSUESNEWS & ANALYSESPICTURES      HOME