ARAB-ISRAEL
CONFLICT
Q. If Israel offered a proposal
for peace coherent with the Syrian demands is it possible that
Syria may sign an agreement ahead of the Palestinians?
A. We have always insisted that
the ultimate goal is just and comprehensive peace.
"Comprehensive" means all the occupied territories: the
Golan and Lebanon do not constitute this comprehensive peace and
therefore there has to be a symmetry between the Syrian and
Lebanese tracks on the one hand and the Palestinian track on the
other.
Q. Please allow me to repeat the
question: if you received a full proposal and all what you have to
do is to sign it will you do that?
A. Starting from the same point,
even if Syria were to sign an agreement this would not mean the
end of the conflict and the establishment of peace. We start from
a Pan-Arab stand. What about 4 million Palestinians living in the
Diaspora and what about the Palestinians in Gaza and the West
Bank? Even now, ten years after the beginning of the peace process
they have not got any thing from the Israeli side that is remotely
related to an independent State or Sovereignty or rights. Hence we
cannot see things from a narrow perspective. That is why we insist
on a comprehensive peace. The word comprehensive enjoys a pan Arab
connotation and we insist on comprehensive peace and on
cooperation and coordination with the Arabs on other tracks.
Q. I hope to hear a candid answer,
will you sign?
A. Are we being asked to sign
something that is not comprehensive? To sign something against our
principles? We want a just and comprehensive peace and we will not
back away from this: just and comprehensive peace.
Q. This means that you will not
sign before the Palestinians?
A. The issue is not to sign or not
to sign. Tracks should move simultaneously. We do not know, they
might sign before us. We shall not sign on anything unless we make
sure that it serves the region and achieves an enduring peace
because our aim is not just to sign a peace treaty on paper. A
peace agreement is a means while the objective is peace on the
ground. If the peace agreement is not an agreement of a just and
comprehensive peace, peace will be fragile and temporary.
Therefore we are not ready to sign a peace agreement unless we
feel that this is going to be an enduring peace, and peace will
not be enduring unless it restores all Arab rights with no
exception whatsoever. Therefore if one Arab party signed a peace
agreement this will not solve the problem and this has been proven
through previous peace Arab experiences with Israel.
Q. If the Palestinians singed an
agreement that does not take Arab interests into account what
would be the Syrian stand in this case?
A. If the Palestinians signed they
will impose a reality, and dealing with this reality must take
into account the point of view of the Palestinian people.
Q. If the Palestinian people
agreed does this absolve Syria of its commitment to a
comprehensive peace?
A. We leave this issue to the
Palestinian people who have proven through their Intifada, that
they are active people. If the Palestinian people approve of an
agreement it is natural that Syria will accept it. But does any
one in the world expect that there are people who would be ready
to give up their land and their right to return to this land?
Q. Regarding the issue of
refugees, if the Palestinians signed an agreement in which the
issue is left to them to decide whether to stay where they are or
not to stay, would Syria in this case accept to accommodate the
Palestinians on its territory?
A. From a Pan Arab perspective we
do not object to any Arab citizen in Syria. This is an Arab
starting point and we are with any decision the Palestinians in
Syria may take. In all cases we have never heard from any
Palestinian that they might accept to renounce their right to
return. The only thing we have heard from them is their insistence
to return and this is what they emphasize all the time.
Q. Do you expect the Palestinians
to sign an agreement in the near future?
A. We do not base our stands on
expectations. We study all the possibilities, and in case no
agreement is signed there will be a certain reality. If signing
takes place there will be a different reality, and we deal with
both possibilities. Every thing is possible and we do not have any
information now but we go back to say that the Intifada (uprising)
has created a new way of thinking. Any one who is truly interested
will necessarily ask the following question: would any agreement
be effective if it were not approved by the Palestinian people who
have proven their role and importance. Any agreement signed
without the approval of the Palestinian people will be worthless.
Thus assessments today are different from what they were
previously.
Q. Are there contacts regarding
continuing the negotiations?
A. No, no there isn’t. There is
a complete stalemate. The reason is that no mediator is able to do
anything without the provision of elements from both sides. The
stand of Syria and its principles regarding the peace process
remain unchanged, whereas the Israelis in, all what they propose,
are still far removed from the real pursuit to make true peace.
Q. What is the problem? What is
the difference between the Syrian and Israeli stands?
A. The Principle of Land for
Peace; the substance of peace is either unclear or unacceptable to
them.
Q. Is the Israeli stand still
where it was regarding the Eastern part of the Tiberius lake?
A. Exactly.
Q. And also the issue of water?
A. We refuse to speak about any
issue unless there is an agreement on the most substantive issue
and the most substantive principle. Therefore there is no talk
about any other issue. First an agreement should be reached about
the substance. What is the use of reaching an agreement about
water if there is a difference about territory which is the
substantive issue here. Therefore Syria will not engage in
discussing any issue until it guarantees the full return of its
entire territory to the line of June 4, 1967.
Q. It is being said that the
stands of Dr. Bashar make him more intransigent than the late
President Hafez al Asad.
A. This is relative. What
President Hafez al Asad asked for is exactly what I am asking for
without taking anything out of it or adding anything to it. Syrian
rights have not changed and the Syrian people who are the owners
of these rights did not change either. President Hafez al Asad did
not make any concession and we, in Syria today and tomorrow and in
the future, shall never make any concession, so what is the
difference between his stand and mine?
Q. How do you deal with the newly
elected Israeli Prime Minister and what do you expect from him?
A. We say to every one these are
our requirements for peace. Any one who is able to respond to
these requirements we are ready to pursue negotiations with him.
We deal with reality and not with expectations. We deal with
tangible things.
Q. What is your opinion in the new
American administration?
A. Until now there is no contact
between us and we do not have any information.
Q. What do you expect from
President Bush?
A. We do not expect anything
except what we want: to be neutral and objective in co-sponsoring
the peace process and to be effective in implementing Security
Council resolutions and in pressuring the Israeli side to return
the full Arab rights. At any rate it is quite early to speak about
expectations.
Q. What about the fact that the US
considers Syria a country that supports terrorism, and what is
puzzling is that you deal with the United States despite this odd
situation?
A. This is a question that should
be directed to the Americans. The concept of terrorism is what the
United States has defined and we have nothing to do with it as it
was defined. We differentiate between terrorism and resistance. In
all eases this issue is a means of pressure but not an effective
one at all. We continue our domestic and Arab work and do not link
our work to this concept at all. From our side we look for good
relations with all states including the United States.
Q. Does this type of relation
affect you?
A. The United States does not
allow the transfer of technology to Syria but there are other
sources for technology on which we depend in developing our
technology.
Q. Why didn’t we see Arafat in
Damascus?
A. The doors of Syria are open.
But meetings should have an objective, an agenda and a definite
aim. The Syrian approach is well-known. We always advocate the
support of the Palestinian track despite all circumstances. But
our objective is clear; it is to restore our full rights with
nothing missing whatsoever. Coordination with the Palestinian side
should be strictly for this objective, particularly as the
experience of nine years in the peace process has proven that
there is no alternative to the full return of Arab rights
according to United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Q. It had been noticed that there
is a high level of coordination in the Syrian-Saudi relations;
what are the consequences of this coordination on the Arab Israeli
conflict?
A. Saudi Arabia has clear stands
on Arab issues, including the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. There
is continuous coordination on many levels regarding these issues
and emergency issues. This coordination has proven to be effective
in different cases and circumstances which are related not only to
the Arab-Israeli conflict but also to all issues concerning the
Arab nation, particularly Arab solidarity.
Q. There is a talk about an
Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi alliance?
A. I believe that neither Syria,
nor Egypt or Saudi Arabia believe in the policy of alliances or
try to be part of an alliance. But there are countries which are
more engaged with certain issues than other countries, and there
are issues which are more important than others, and there are
issues which become more paramount in certain circumstances than
others. This sometimes results in coordination between certain
countries regarding these particular issues. Of course, there is a
very important factor which is the effectiveness of these states
regarding these particular issues. Hence, the necessary and
effective coordination among Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
especially during this stage.
SYRIA AND IRAQ
Q. We notice a huge change in the
relationship between Syria and Iraq and also between Syria and
Jordan and even with Turkey, and this has taken place in less than
a year.
A. As for the relationship with
Jordan and since king Abdullab has assumed office he sought to
develop Jordan’s relations with Arab countries and especially
with Syria. Thus the development of relations with Jordan started
with the coming of King Abdullah. Perhaps the relation of
friendship and respect between king Abdullah and myself may have
contributed to pushing these relations forward. As for our
relationship with Iraq, it did not start only lately; rather it
has started in 1997. More Iraqi senior officials are visiting
Damascus recently and this is a natural result of the development
of these relations which have started to improve four years ago,
but the improvement became clear during the last few months.
As for our relations with Turkey;
these relations have been improving since 1998 till today and they
continue to improve. I mean there are no sudden jumps in these
relations. They develop gradually. It is a mere coincidence that
the development of our relations with the countries you have
mentioned has taken place during the same period of time. But the
common principle in developing these relation is to avoid all the
negative aspects which appear from time to time, and this in
itself reinforces the positive points.
Q. It had been noticed that there
is a certain dynamic movement with Iraq. It is true that the
relations with Iraq go back to 1997 but the volume of development
in these relations during the last few months has doubled from
what it has been during the last few years.
A. What is noticeable basically is
the increase of the Iraqi senior officials who are visiting Syria.
As we have said before, and we reiterate now, that the doors of
Syria are open to all our Arab brothers.
Q. We know that the doors of Syria
had always been open, so what is the explanation to what is
happening now?
A. As you have just said the doors
of Syria had always been open, which means that nothing has
changed as far as we are concerned in Syria. Our brothers in Iraq
seem to have taken the initiative to develop relations with Syria
and with other Arab countries as well. Quite few Arab countries,
including Syria, have responded in kind. Syria is very interested
in stopping the suffering of the Iraqi people and enhancing Arab
solidarity.
Q. How do you accommodate the
warmth of relations with Iraq at a time you keep the Iraqi
opposition in Syria? How does an Iraqi senior official accept the
existence of Iraqi opposition as he sits with you in the
Presidential palace?
A. The Iraqi opposition is
certainly not against Iraq. Every Iraqi citizen is with his
country and not with the unfair sanctions. The opposition is an
opposition to a political system. If you ask any member in the
Iraqi opposition inside or outside Iraq he would certainly have
the same opinion regarding lifting the sanctions and putting an
end to the suffering of the Iraqi people. We support things within
this framework: to uplift sanctions against the Iraqi people and
this is not a political alliance with a front against another.
Q. There’s something else that
is not clear; is it true that the size of the Iraqi opposition has
shrunk inside Syria?
A. We did not interfere with this
issue. Syria did not interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq and
thus it did not support one party against another. The doors of
Syria remained open to all and to all the Iraqis, particularly as
the current stage is a difficult stage for the Arab nation as a
whole. We might have a different perspective from the perspective
of many parties, and we might have political or other objections
to what any Arab country might do, but there are priorities for
the dangers and priorities for addressing these dangers, and, in
consequence, for dealing with points of difference. No difference
regarding any issue should affect the central issue such as
Palestine, the Intifada (uprising), the territorial integrity of
Iraq and Arab solidarity.
Q. What about the central issue
for another Arab citizen in the Gulf?
A. There’s no citizen in the
Gulf who would accept the destruction of Iraq or its
disintegration even if he is against the system in it. Hence,
there are issues that are more important than others. For the sake
of Arab solidarity we should renounce our differences.
Q. Now you receive Tariq Aziz and
Taha Yassin Ramadan and other Iraqi officials and you are talking
about the territorial integrity of Iraq and lifting the sanctions
against Iraq, whereas the Palestinians have a central issue of
Gaza and the West Bank, why don’t you receive a Palestinian
official in Syria?.
A. Palestinian officials visited
Damascus although I did not meet with them but I have said in a
press conference that we are convening meetings with some senior
Palestinian officials which aim to support the Palestinian stand
especially in these circumstances, particularly as Israel has
proven that it does not want peace.
Q. Do we expect Syria to receive
the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein?
A. As I have said, our doors are
open to every one.
Q. Is it possible that we might
see President Bashar al Asad in Baghdad?
A. Until now there is nothing of
the kind. Things depend on circumstances. This might come at a
different stage of the development of relations between Syria and
Iraq. It might also come in the way of bringing Iraq to play its
important role at the Arab level once all differences are
resolved.
Q. But the Gulf states have a huge
sensitivity regarding this issue. How do they accept this picture?
A. They know that we have not
changed our stand. I have said in a press conference that our
stand has not changed and this is something that all Gulf
countries know. There’s coordination between us and the Gulf
states and we have always stress that we do not want to win one
country in order to lose another. We would like to maintain good
relations with all Arab countries and we want these relations to
be good among the Arab countries themselves. This is one of the
basic constants of Syrian policy. Therefore any step we take
should be made in coordination with other Arab countries. We
always try not to separate between bilateral relations and
Arab-Arab relations. That is why we say that the Syrian-Iraqi
relations or the Syrian relations with any other Arab country
should take Arab-Arab relations into account.
Q. Did this latest move with Iraq
provoke the sensitivity of the Saudis and the Kuwaitis?
A. We do not make any bilateral
move that is not consistent with the stability of Arab-Arab
relations. This of course requires continuous coordination and
consultation. We enjoy such a coordination and consultation with
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and they know the stand of Syria and they
trust this stand because it is announced and public.
Q. Could Syria play a role in
bringing the points of views closer?
A. One of the constants of Syrian
politics is to consolidate Arab solidarity. Iraq cannot be outside
the frame of this idea. It is true that there’s a problem, and
we, as Arab countries, should exert all efforts to solve this
problem.
Q. Damascus is known for trying to
separate between the Iraqi system and the Iraqi people, and we see
you today dealing with some of the symbols of this system. What
has happened?
A. There were differences and
there was candidness and a review of the past. We considered this
a lesson to learn from and not to relive. The final objective is
Arab solidarity and this requires going beyond past differences.
Q. But you are dealing with the
system?
A. The difference with any party
is not a personal difference but a difference about issues. Our
stands have not changed and our closeness or distance with any
party differ according to their approach to Arab issues.
Q. It is said that Jordan has lost
its special relation with Iraq and that Syria now enjoys this
special relation; is this due to your shrewdness?
A. There is no doubt that the
historical position of Syria and the strong relation between the
Syrian and Iraqi people, despite the fact that there has been a
long boycott between the two countries, give a special tinge to
the relation between Syria and Iraq and also the relation between
Iraq and Jordan and between Jordan and Syria. It is not necessary
that the development of relations between two countries should be
at the expense of a third.
SYRIA AND THE GULF
Q. What about the relationship
with the Emirates which you have visited lately? What was the
objective of this visit? Does it have anything to do with the
issue of the islands? Especially as this visit of yours has
preceded your visit to Tehran. What were exactly the messages
which were exchanged between you and the Iranians and the
Emirates?
A. There are no messages. The
visits aimed at assessing the situation in the Arab world and were
in response to invitations to visit the two countries. It was also
an opportunity to congratulate Sheikh Zaed for good health after
his return from his trip for treatment. The two visits were made
to get acquainted with the stands of the two countries and not to
convey messages between them.
Q. Do you believe that the issue
of the islands is approaching a solution?
A. What we have heard from both
sides is their desire to have a peaceful solution, and this is the
essence of the issue. Whether the solution will be close or far
off, this will depend on the circumstances in both countries.
Q. Wasn’t Syria asked to mediate
between the two?
A. We were not asked to mediate.
Q. For many years Syria was
mediating between The Gulf and Iran. It is believed that Syria has
succeeded in reducing the lranian-Iraqi conflict and preventing
the spread of the Gulf war, so why should it odd if there’s a
Syrian move in the same direction now?
A. Of course, there’s no reason
why not. But the state between them is not a state of war. We said
that we would like to get to know their stands and the
perspectives expressed have shown that there’s no state of war.
Q. How does Iran see Lebanon? It
was clear that Iran was greatly interested in Lebanon during the
Israeli occupation of the South of Lebanon. Now Israel has
withdrawn from Lebanon. Did you discuss Iran interest in Lebanon
during your visit?
A. We discussed all issues. There
was a comprehensive assessment of the situation in the region and
in the world. There was an assessment of the regional and the
international situation, and of course Lebanon is part of the
regional situation. There’s also the Peace Process and Syria and
Lebanon are in one track of the Peace Process, and so it is nonnal
to discuss this issue. The triumph of the resistance, the Intifada
(the uprising) and the Palestinian issue are all interrelated;
none can be separated from the other.
SYRIA AND LEBANON
Q. What is your view of the Taif
agreement and the provisions which were not implemented,
particularly the provision of the redeployment of the Syrian
forces in Lebanon?
A. The Taif agreement aimed at
putting Lebanon on the road to reconciliation and reform in many
fields, particularly in the field of eliminating political
sectarianism and achieving the return of the displaced. The
agreement also touched upon the redeployment of the Syrian forced
during a period that was supposed to be enough to implement all
its provisions which were mentioned in parallel. This period was
estimated to be about two years, and it was left up to the two
countries to assess and decide the circumstances in which
redeployment should take place. These circumstances were changing
continuously after Taif. The unification of Beirut, the
restoration of legitimacy, the Kuwaiti war, the peace
negotiations, the simultaneity of the two tracks, and in
consequence circumstances have rapidly changed.
The presence of the Syrian forces
in Lebanon has two objectives: the one for which Syria has entered
Lebanon which is reconciliation, and this has to be defined by the
Lebanese state. The other objective is linked to the mutual
Syrian-Lebanese interests and this is connected to the issue of
peace and war with Israel. Therefore we hear discussions which
often revolve around one side of this presence. Of course the
inseparability of the two tracks is not just a Syrian but a
Syrian-Lebanese affair. But the issue concerning reconciliation is
a Lebanese affair. But it is not the business of one party in
Lebanon or one particular Lebanese personality; rather it is the
business of the Lebanese state. The Lebanese state usually does
what it believes that serves the national interest of Lebanon and
meets national consensus.
Q. What about the dialogue between
Damascus and Bkirki ‘the headquarters of the Maronite patriarchy
in Lebanon’ or what is called the Syrian-Christian dialogue?
A. As a rule Syria does not deal
with these types of dialogues and what was called the
Syrian-Christian dialogue is, as far as we are concerned, a
Lebanese-Lebanese dialogue. While some of them try to suggest that
it is directed at Syria, Syria insists on the necessity of
directing this dialogue to it through the state of Lebanon. This
comes within the Syrian efforts to consolidate the Lebanese state
rather than to weaken it. Once Syria accepts to conduct this kind
of dialogue which is one sided - as if one is conducting a
dialogue with oneself - once it accepts to deal with it seriously
it means that Syria is belittling the state of Lebanon while Syria
tries, especially after the Taif agreement. to consolidate the
state of Lebanon. I believe that this is the only right way to
have a healthy Lebanon.
Q. What about meetings conducted
in Damascus with Christian personalities, don’t you believe that
this kind of dialogue is an alternative to the role of the state
of Lebanon?
A. First, these meetings were not
confined to any religious group. Second, There are two types of
dialogue. The first type of dialogue is that in which you listen
to the persons in order to form an idea, and the second type of
dialogue is the one you conduct in order to make a decision. We
have many Lebanese friends and we meet with them, and sometimes we
meet with people who might not be close to Syria. Thus we form an
idea through what we hear from those. As for the dialogue with the
aim of making decisions it should be conducted only with the
State. Ultimately any dialogue conducted with any Lebanese
personality, and regardless of the conclusion we draw in Syria.
this conclusion is immediately conveyed to the Lebanese State.
Hence, the idea we form here has to be complemented with the idea
which Lebanon has. Some people believe that these meetings
supersede the state of Lebanon. This is not true. On the contrary,
the dialogue, whether it were conducted through the state of
Lebanon or not, will go back to the state of Lebanon.
Q. To talk a bit more about the
legitimacy of dialogue. The dialogue is legitimate with the
president but there is a long history of dialogue between Syria
and other Lebanese characters, and no one used to differentiate
between the type of dialogue and its objectives. Did this
distinction today between different types of dialogue become
noticeable?
A. I have drawn a distinction
between making contact for dialogue or making contact to make a
decision. Making contacts for dialogues has no limits. To make
contact with any party or any personality within the Lebanese
society is a healthy thing, but making contact for taking
decisions is strictly done through the state of Lebanon, because
any decision must achieve the interests of the two countries:
Syria and Lebanon. Therefore, it is natural, and it is necessary,
that the Lebanese state should fully participate in this contact
and dialogue.
Q. There are people in Lebanon who
hold the President responsible for not conducting a dialogue with
Syria or with Lebanese personalities and that Syria, in this case,
is conducting the dialogue in his place.
A. It depends on what is meant by
dialogue. Does it mean confrontation or an exchange of ideas. If
some mean that dialogue means confrontation the relationship
between President Lahud and us is a relationship of understanding,
appreciation and mutual respect. As for the dialogue in order to
exchange ideas I do not believe that there is a person who
conducts a dialogue with Syria as President Lahud does. As for the
second part of your question it is a Lebanese internal affair.
Q. Are there going to be
differences between you and President Lahud? Do you agree with him
on his vision and everything else; were there any problems with
him.
A. Generally speaking if there are
no differences why should one conduct a dialogue? This is
self-evident. One conducts a dialogue with the other person in
order to get to know his point of view about certain issues, and
when he finds differences in the point of view of the other from
his own point of view one tries to find a common denominator and
this is the most natural dialogue between two persons. And this is
what enables people to reach positive results and I say that there
are no identical things: even twins are not identical. Speaking
about being identical is theoretical and often the difference is
not about a strategic objective but about small details and this
can be found among all friends and persons. Therefore we meet and
phone each other to discuss different topics.
Q. Didn’t President Lahud send
you an envoy or talk to you on the phone to object to a certain
decision?
A. No, for a simple reason, that
when there’s a decision to be taken it is not taken without the
agreement of the two countries on it. Syria does not take any
decision unless it is agreed upon by Lebanon. Hence, if Lebanon
has a different point of view from ours we continue our dialogue
until we reach a common perspective on which we agree with
Lebanon.
Q. But there might be different
points of view inside the official Lebanese institution; the
government, the Parliament. It is quite well known that the
President represents the Lebanese state but there criticism
directed at him. My question is do the common decision taken by
the President with Syria truly express the opinion of the Lebanese
state?
A. The differences you are talking
about are differences on Lebanese issues. There’s no difference
between President Lahud and Lebanese officials on a
Syrian-Lebanese subject. At least this is what we know through
what is said in public. Therefore what is there between Syria and
the others is exactly what is there between Syria and President
Lahud. As for the differences among them they are related to a
different topic regarding Lebanese-Lebanese relationship, the
relationship of government institutions with each other, the
relationship of the country with the rest of society, and Syria
has nothing to do with that.
Q. It is believed that a Syrian
official has announced the agreement of Damascus that President
Lahud handles the political file. This was considered a Syrian
intervention in Lebanese affair and a kind of support to the
President against the Prime Minister. It seemed that Syria was no
longer neutral and started to play a role in the internal Lebanese
conflicts.
A. We cannot possibly stand with
one of them against the other because we do not consider them
adversaries. Therefore any party that might promote such an idea
or such a concept shows that this party does not believe in the
hierarchy of the state, and thus the concept of the state would be
missing. We, in Syria, like every one else in the world, believe
in the hierarchy of the state and it is only natural that the
President of the republic is the head of this hierarchy. The head
of the hierarchy does not represent only the political or the
economic aspects but all aspects. As a result all aspects of the
Lebanese society culminate with the President of the republic.
There are things which are subject to the constitution and things
which are subject to prevailing political norms. In effect Syria
deals with this Lebanese reality. Syria does not adopt one
particular point of view that one official should handle one file
and the other should handle another file.
Q. Let’s assume that Hariri came
to discuss with you a certain political topic would you say to him
that you are confined to economic topics?
A. We speak to any person who
comes from Lebanon, even if he were not an official, about all
topics. We are open to discuss all things with every one. As for
dealing with Syria as a state, each institution deals with its
counterpart in Lebanon which means that economic institutions deal
with economic institutions, nunistries deal with ministries,
organizations deal with organizations and the president of the
republic with the President of the republic in the fields limited
to them during official meetings. That is why we differentiate
between what goes on in a dialogue outside the official work, even
if they were officials and between what happens at work. What I
mean is that if there’s an official in Syria responsible in a
certain field and is sanctioned a certain authority cannat discuss
with his Lebanese counterpart except the except the topics that
are allotted to him. This of course depends on the aim of the
visit and the kind of meeting. Meetings are open and every thing
may be discussed in them but if there’s a meeting between two
officials in economy they will talk about economy and if the
official is responsible for a political file the talk will be
conducted within the framework of this file, and this will be made
clear in the agenda of the meeting. Sometimes there's no agenda
and the meeting is open to all issues.
Q. It is believed that you support
president Lahud more than the speaker of Parliament Mr. Nabih Bin
and the Prime Minister Mr. Rafik al Hariri, what is your comment
on this?
A. Regardless of the names, if we
talk about positions it is normal that the president is the head
of the hierarchy and this is stated in the Lebanese constitution
and in all countries. All the elements of society and state
culminate with the President of the republic. As the President is
the head of the hierarchy and as all elements of society culminate
with him, supporting the president means the support for all
institutions. When you support the president of the republic you
are supporting the speaker of Parliament and the Prime Minister.
It is true that these might have their own differences but this is
not part of the constitution. Constitution does not equate between
the president of the republic and other officials. The President
is the symbol of Lebanon, and the support for the symbol of
Lebanon is support for all Lebanon and all its officials. Hence we
go back to the same point. We do not see them as adversaries.
There’s a hierarchy and the support for the head of the
hierarchy is support for all the hierarchy.
Q. It was mentioned that Damascus
has restricted the political file to president Lahud in the
aftermath of the incident when the Prime minister Rafiq al Harir
presided in a meeting for the central security council and then
when Bin spoke in Bkarki he received a critical response from
Syria.
A. We, in Syria, look for harmony
and not for differences or conflicts. We would like to ensure the
respect for the hierarchy, and therefore we say that it is natural
that the position of the President is not equal to any other
position. The second point is that the Syrian response to what has
happened in Bkarki is not an answer to the speaker of Parliament,
Mr. Bin, but a response to some people who wrongly understood that
Syria has engaged in a dialogue while Syria was not there and was
not interested in that dialogue right from the start. The stand of
Syria came as an answer to the expectations that Syria might do
something in the future whereas it did not announce that, did not
discuss it with any one and did not conduct a dialogue with any
one in that regard. It has been proven that what has been
circulated then was not correct. Syria intervened to correct this
wrong impression and not to answer one particular person, and
certainly not to answer Speaker of Parliament Mr. Bin. Mr. Bin is
a friend of Syria and we respect him and appreciate his role, but
what Syria did was to correct few things which were wrongly
understood by some. As for the talk that Syria supports or does
not support distributing files in a certain way, I would like to
say that all what Syria wants is harmony and coordination. Within
the political hierarchy there is usually a kind of coordination
among different elements of this hierarchy and this is normal. The
conflict at any level of the political hierarchy in any state, and
not just in Lebanon, will be harmful to the general performance.
This means that we support harmony and consensus, and consensus is
decided at the level of the head, at the level of presidents.
Q. It has been noticed that
talking about the Syrian presence in Lebanon has started shortly
after the death of the late President Hafez al Assad, and it
escalated as soon as you assumed the office of the President, how
do you explain this?
A. Any party that gives statements
has its own interpretation, and we, in Syria, do not have
information in order to give the interpretation. At any rate Syria
addresses the issue of the Syrian presence through facts, in
coordination with Lebanon and according to the facts available
with the Lebanese side, and not through statements. Hence our
starting point is the real fact and the available elements with
Lebanon. Whatever the interpretation might be there’s a certain
reality, and we have to deal with this reality and this reality is
determined by both countries. There is political analysis that
says there were parties in Lebanon which were against the
resistance and always expressed a lack of trust in the resistance.
They used to say what can the resistance do? What can the
Katyousha do? Of course the triumph of the resistance defeated
this approach, and therefore any one who loses in one area tries
to look for victory in a different area. This is one
interpretation, but we do not try to enter into different
interpretations because we do not deal with our presence in
Lebanon through these interpretations. Rather we deal with our
presence in Lebanon through certain facts on the ground, and we
leave interpretations to others. We have to differentiate between
interpretation and our handling of the Syrian presence there not
through statements but through its being a fact on the ground
since 1976, and it is there whether there is a statement or there’s
no statement. We deal with this presence through facts present in
both countries.
Q. There are some people who say
that president Asad is open and he will withdraw the Syrian forces
from Lebanon
A. As if it is being said here
that being open means withdrawing forces whereas being closed
means leaving these forces there, and, I myself, find no
connection between the two things. What does being open have to do
with withdrawing forces? The forces did not enter there because of
closeness. The forces entered there to do a certain task which is
to bring reconciliation to Lebanon and upon the request of well
known Lebanese parties whether from the Lebanese state or from
other parties which were at the brink of suffering a drastic loss.
There are minutes of meetings and recorded ones which prove that
the forces entered for this purpose and in order to restore a
sense of balance and that the ultimate objective was to restore
national reconciliation. Then the Taif agreement was reached which
consolidated this; the state and the army were reunified and the
army was reconstructed. Then the issue of peace came and the
simultaneity between the two tracks. The Syrian forces are there
and the reality is changing, but this issue has nothing to do with
openness or closeness, but it is in the interest of both Syria and
Lebanon and not in the interest of Syria alone.
Q. President Bashar came after the
decease of President Hafez al Asad and there are people who
attribute the appearance of these statements to the possibility of
the existence of a political vacuum in Syria or due to the
activity of external forces with the aim of exerting pressure on
Syria. What is your answer to this?
A. Politicians take all
possibilities into account from the far left to the far right.
Every thing is possible; we should never say that this is
impossible. As we know that this possibility is there, even
theoretically, it might be there on the ground. But as I have
said, regardless of these possibilities and reasons, we only deal
with realities on the ground and with our joint interests, and not
with interpretations which do not fall within the framework of the
joint Syrian Lebanese interests. For this reason Syria did not
respond and did not become a party to all this controversy. But as
for these statements being the result of a political vacuum or the
consequence of the defeat of the party that was against the
resistance every thing is possible, and there are other
possibilities as well. In fact there are endless possibilities but
as there’s no proof all these remain the makings of other
peoples’ minds. As these are only in their minds they are
outside the domain of reality and therefore outside the framework
of Syrian action.
Q. Many things are said about the
Lebanese file. Sometimes it is said that it is in the hands of the
vice President Mr. Abdol Halim Khaddam and sometimes it is said
that it is in the hands of Dr. Bashar al Asad before assuming
presidency and now it is reiterated that this file is in the hands
of Major General Ghazi Kanan. Where is the Lebanese file now?
A. In my first press conference I
said there’s no such thing as the Lebanese file. This way of
talk belittles Lebanon. The file may be there for a certain
domain, a certain issue but for an entire country there can be no
file. The relationship between Syria and Lebanon is a relationship
between two countries with all what that entails, and, therefore,
the relation between the two peoples should be at all levels. The
relationship of organizations should be with organizations, the
relation at the level of a state should be between officials in
the two countries. What I mean is that in every field there’s a
relationship between two counterparts in the two countries and
this is what we see in Syria as the healthy relationship between
Syria and Lebanon. But as for the saying that the file of Lebanon
is in Syria and the file of Syria is in Lebanon, this is a way of
putting things that are totally rejected by us. But there might be
certain officials who, due to the nature of their jobs, are more
engaged with this issue than others, and this is decided by the
type of the relationship. We, in Syria, would like the
relationship to be with all people without exception, whether they
were in Syria or in Lebanon. That is why we say in Syria that all
the doors are open at all levels within the government and outside
the government, provided that this relation is organized and in
the right framework, and put in a way that serves the interests of
both peoples.
Q. Touching on this topic what is
the nature of the task of Major General Kanan in Lebanon,
especially as the Lebanese officials have to go to meet him at his
headquarters in Anjar on their way back from Damasus.
A. Who said that ‘they have to’?
He is responsible for security and reconnaissance branch in the
Syrian army and part of this branch is located in Lebanon, and
therefore it is normal that his task is related to the army. As
for the visits they are normal. He is a person who is stationed in
Lebanon and it is natural that he should establish contacts and
make relationships with different Lebanese quarters, especially as
we encourage relations between Syrians and Lebanese. It is also
unreasonable to expect us to say to any Syrian official close your
door in the face of Lebanese citizens whether they were officials
or non-officials. How can we say that there’s a special
relationship between Syria and Lebanon without stressing contacts
among all people in both countries. It is natural that the doors
of Syria, whether the doors of a Syrian official in Syria or in
Lebanon, are open to any Lebanese party.
Q. The relationship between Syria
and the MP Jumblat raises many questions. Sometimes he is
prevented from entering Syria in an official manner and sometimes
he is welcomed and soon climates change. What is the truth of the
relationship between Jumblat and Damascus.
A. Officially he was not prevented
from entering Syria. There was no official order preventing him or
any Lebanese personality from entering Syria. Such an order is
issued only for some one who is prevented for legal reasons and
this does not apply to him. Hence it is not correct that he is not
allowed to enter Syria. As for the relationship there is a good
relationship between the MP Jumblat and many Syrian officials who
have met with him. As for the country I reiterate that countries
build relationships with each other, and other than that the
relations are friendships. If these friendships have a purpose
their purpose is to serve the state and its relations. As we have
said earlier, if friendships are established with Lebanese persons
they are ultimately in the interest of Lebanon.
Q. It is being said that he has
asked for a meeting with you.
A. Our doors are open for all
Lebanese officials and for all Lebanese personalities. We have no
objection to any Lebanese personality coming to Syria. As for an
audience with me this will certainly depend on the necessity and
on my schedule.
Q. Some Lebanese personalities use
the audience with you in order to talk about initiatives and
movements and activities which serve the critics of the Syrian
presence in Lebanon, what is your comment on this?
A. Our meetings with Lebanese
personalities take place within the framework of listening to
different opinions in Lebanon without any exception. We do not try
to be close to certain personalities in Lebanon and removed from
others. Rather we try to be close to all parties regardless of
their stands and their positions. We do not link this point to
meetings with me or with any Syrian official. Some people ask to
meet with us, and we, in Syria, ask to meet with others, whether
it were me or other Syrian officials. There is no set protocol
regarding this point, but it is done according to necessity. We
meet with every one, but as for what some of them say after the
meeting it is their business and Syria has nothing to do with it.
Q. Are you going to visit Lebanon?
A. Of course there will be a visit to Lebanon and it shall be
arranged with President Lahud at a convenient time, but it has not
been decided yet. There is no obstacle in the way of this visit
but each visit has to be prepared for and has to take place at an
appropriate time.
Q. The Lebanese people expected that your first visit is going
to be to Lebanon but you have reached Tehran and you have not
reached Lebanon.
A. I do not agree to this criteria. The sequence of visits is
not an indication of the sequence of the importance of these
countries. The sequence of visits is determined by the issues
under discussion and by the priorities of objectives and not
according to the priority of the relationship. This does not mean
that we do not enjoy strong relationship with European countries
and strong relationship with the Maghreb countries and strong
relationship with many Gulf states. Hence the sequence of visits
only indicates the priority of issues under discussion, and
sometimes issues occur which dictate unplanned visits to a certain
country.
Q. Things are said about Lebanese or Palestinian military
operations against Israel. Does Syria accept that?
A. This is something that Lebanon decides in coordination with
the state and its institutions including the army and also the
Lebanese resistance. Lebanon is the one who decides the type of
resistance and the parties of resistance and Syria is committed to
what Lebanon. both as a state and as a resistance, decides.
Q. Many candid and clear voices were heard in Lebanon which
reject any operation against Israel launched from Lebanon. What is
your stand?
A. Our stand is that of the Lebanese state and the Lebanese
people the clear majority of which stresses the necessity of
liberating the South to the last inch of the Lebanese territory.
As for the statements you are mentioning, is there a national
consetisus about these statements? We, in Syria, know that the
national consensus is to liberate what is left of the South of
Lebanon and the resistance, in cooperation with the state, is the
one who decides the timing and the method. We, in Syria, do not
enter into the details, nor do you enter into the manner. The
public opinion in Syria supports the resistance. As for the few
voices expressed against the resistance they do not express a
national consensus or even a general trend.
Q. If you find that it is useful to launch a military action
from Lebanon would you advise Lebanon to do that?
A. In fact since the early days of the resistance and until
today Syria supports the resistance, and this does not mean a
military support or support with weapons; rather it is a support
for steadfastness for the liberation of the Lebanese territory.
Since the first day of the resistance until today we have not
changed our method of dealing with it. There has never been an
interference in the details of work, neither regarding military
operations nor regarding the timing of these operations. This is
something that the resistance alone can decide. The resistance is
there on Lebanese territory and able to decide the nature and
timing of its work more than any other party. It was noticeable
that the operations of the resistance were not linked, most of the
time, neither to Israeli threats nor to Israeli provocations. and
this shows that the resistance has its special methods, its vision
and its assessment through which it decides the facts on the
ground and makes its own decisions on that basis. Therefore it
might be difficult for some to understand the method of the
resistance because the facts known by the fighters are not kno n
to others.
Q. You say that you are with the Lebanese state. Assuming that
the Lebanese state does not want military operations now under
such circumstances do you support movement on the Lebanese front
in support of the Intifada?
A. The stand of the Lebanese state in supporting the resistance
is a clear stand. There are different ideas about methods of
resistance, and if we consider this opinion an analytical and
theoretical opinion and nothing else, there is no opinion today
for Syrian policy except to support Lebanon to restore its
territories. Other than this the opinions are those of persons
conducting dialogues. Through dialogues attempts are made to find
out the best method. That is why we say that the entire
performance of the resistance during different stages has first
served the Lebanese interest as well as the Syrian interest as the
Syrian and the Lebanese tracks are interrelated and as we support
the resistance and as we are in a similar boat because. like
Lebanon. we have territories under occupation. We argue that
gaining a battle at any field supports other fields. We benefited
from the steadfastness of Lebanon and from the liberation of the
territories of Lebanon just as Lebanon was also a beneficiary from
the steadfastness of Syria. Hence the resistance is the one who
decides its method of work and decides the interests of others and
has been fortunate in its method for many years.
Q. What about the Shaba farms as the last piece of occupied
territories as far as the Lebanese are concerned: does it, from
your perspective require military operations for liberating it?
A. An inch of the territory is like a meter and is like a mile.
It is all occupied territory. There’s no country in the world
that would say I accept to give up a certain part of my territory
but I do not accept to give up another part. Territory is a
question of dignity and not a matter of meters.
Q. How do you restore Shaba through diplomatic means or through
resistance?
A. What is meant by diplomacy?
Q. Security Council, major countries.
A. Did diplomacy restore the South to Lebanon? We can answer
through this question and leave the answer to the resistance. The
resistance is the one who decided the kind of answers and the
correctness of these answers. We, in Syria, do not like to judge
whether this answer is right or wrong. We leave things to reality
to decide. Reality has proven certain things. We do not know
whether the future might prove something different. The one who is
most capable to read this reality is the Lebanese resistance. Of
course the resistance enjoyed the support of the Lebanese people
because without the support of the Lebanese people the resistance
cannot do anything no matter how many other countries may support
it. The Lebanese people are most important in this equation. The
Lebanese people supported the resistance and the evidence is the
result, and the result was the liberation that has taken place
lately.
Q. There are people who say that there are political
detainees who are still in Syria and have not been handed over to
Lebanon, and their families have documents which prove that they
had previously visited them.
A. They might be imprisoned for ordinary crimes and this matter
is subject to agreements between countries.
Q. But you have announced a list of those sentenced for
ordinary crimes and the names of those whose families claim that
they are still in Syria were missing.
A. What is the interest of Syria in hiding their names? Had
Syria had the intention to keep any one it would have kept those
who were handed over to Lebanon and they were imprisoned for
crimes which put the security of the country at risk. It is
possible that the objective behind this gossip is toharm
reputation of Syria
Q. Some people believed that your initiative in releasing some
detainees came as a result of the pressure exerted by the Maronite
Church. This also coincided with the talk about the Syrian
presence in Lebanon, and hence it was concluded that Syria is in
crisis and it wanted to give the Christian public something to
reduce the pressure exerted on her.
A. If some people believed that this was done under pressure it
is their problem. What kind of pressure was exerted? We did not
feel the pressures, but this came as a result of our convictions
and of our confidence in Lebanese institutions. We shall follow up
on all these issues in a way that will achieve the interests of
both Syria and Lebanon.
Q. It seems that there are intentions to distort Syrian
initiative in Lebanon.
A. Intentions may be different but Syria acts in a way that is
consistent with the interests of both Syria and Lebanon. We do not
respond to reaction and we do not react, but we act in a carefully
studied and planned fashion.
Q. You’ve said that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is
temporary, what do you mean by that exactly?
A. Let’s ask a different question. Did Syria say or did any
Syrian official or any Syrian party say, since the entrance of the
Syrian forces to Lebanon in 1976 that the Syrian presence in
Lebanon is permanent? No one has ever said this. On the contrary
the Syrian view says that the Syrian forces have entered to help
Lebanon, and when the requirements of the presence of these forces
are no longer existent in Lebanon these forces shall go back to
Syria. I stress that this is not a new stand. Right from the
beginning this was the Syrian stand and therefore we find
questions such as the one you have just asked quite odd.
Q. In this case what are the circumstances that make you
withdraw some forces every now and then?
A. Things on the ground change from the perspective of both the
Syrian and the Lebanese leadership. These circumstances might be
either civil or military that are relevant to the technical
aspects of the military forces and, as a result, the two
leaderships sometimes find it necessary to adjust this presence
according to the new circumstances.
Q. We always hear that the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon
constitute a huge financial burden on Syria, what is the cost of
the presence of Syrian forces in Lebanon?
A. The military is the most costly in all countries of the
world, its work, training, etc, but the presence of the Syrian
forces in Lebanon is not measured by cost because these forces are
there for an objective that is far more important than cost?
Q. Syrian sources have mentioned that the adjustment of the
presence of the Syrian forces in Lebanon had started much before
any one in Lebanon began talking about the Syrian presence in
Lebanon, and it was said that Damascus never moves its forces
under pressure, why don’t Syria announce military movements?
A. Because the adjustment of the presence of the Syrian forces
is done according to an agreement between the two leaderships.
Hence, sometimes, there is a specific timetable to move these
forces as was the case indeed in last April and October or the
movement of the forces is done according to an arranged timetable
and this is not there currently. The movement is a response to
current field necessities as happened in April and October. At any
rate we have not announced the movement of these forces because
this is a military matter that has to be done secretly and without
being announced in the media.
Q. It was circulated that there was a timetable for
redeployment but that you have postponed implementing it in order
not to appear as if you have carried it out under pressure.
A. The implementation was according to the circumstance and to
the case at the time. There was no plan for redeployment according
to a long-term timetable. Even if there were a plan in the future
it will remain secret and will not be announced in the media.
Q. Don’t you believe that the beginning of the moving of
forces has caused the escalation of certain voices that are asking
for the withdrawal of the Syrian army?
A. We only start from our own causes, and we do not take into
account any statement or any voice. Quite frankly, we are not
interested in all these statements and in all these voices. I
reiterate that our starting point is what the authorities, both in
Syria and in Lebanon, find necessary.
Q. President Lahud said that the Syrian forces will withdraw
after peace while Prime Minister Hariri said that Lebanon might
need these forces after peace. What do you think of these two
opinions?
A. We respond to the need of Lebanon. If the forces have a task
linked to civil peace the forces would withdraw after the
achievement of civil peace and after the Lebanese agree that civil
peace has been achieved because Syria cannot decide that for them.
The Lebanese have to decide this for themselves. The other side of
the presence of the Syrian forces is linked to the Lebanese-Syrian
track in the peace process and the issue of no war and no peace
and the state of negotiations. This can be decided after peace. We
might not be able to decide, neither in Syria nor in Lebanon, how
the situation is going to be after peace. Did any one expect in
the eighties that there is going to be the Taif agreement and then
the Kuwiati war and then the peace negotiations and agreements?
All these were new circumstances that have created a different
reality. Therefore we cannot speak about certain facts before the
emergence of these facts.
Q. There are people who do not object to the presence of the
Syrian forces but they say that there is no need to the Syrian
security presence in Lebanon. That is to say that they distinguish
between the military and the security Syrian presence.
A. The relationship between Syria and Lebanon is a
complementary relation. Therefore any type of this relationship,
whether it was military, security, political, economic, or social
or any other type of relationship, if it were not healthy it is
going to be harmful. Then the important thing is not the kind of
relationship but the healthiness of this relationship. The two
countries are the ones who should decide what kind of relationship
would serve the interests of both countries.
Q. In contrast to what is claimed by some Parliamentarians and
some men of religion I did not feel during my visits to Lebanon
that there is a Syrian hegemony there; how do you respond to those
who claim that there is a Syrian hegemony in Lebanon?
A. Let’s ask first what is meant by the word hegemony? Does
it mean that Syria dictates certain things? Does Syria prevent
others from doing anything? Where is the hegemony? We hear lots of
talk, but in reality many events and many big and small things
have proven that Syria has nothing to do with the details of
Lebanese life.
.../MORE
|