Bashar Al Assad: The End Of The American Predicament In Iraq Depends On The End Of The Occupation And A Balanced Role For The UN

George Semaan / Ghassan Charbel     Al-Hayat     2003/10/7

Many are the questions that come to a journalist's mind when entering the office of President Bashar Al Assad. The region is boiling and Syria is concerned with the hottest issues. It is concerned because the current events affect the future of the region, the security of its countries, their roles, stability and economies. The Syrian leadership is dealing with these issues from two correlated responsibilities: the first, towards its citizens and interests, and the second, towards its national responsibility, which is a part of its commitment and its traditional role.    

No need to display evidence in order to show the gloominess of the image.

In Iraq, the condition of war, occupation and chaos warns of worse if President George Bush's administration insisted on refusing to transfer the file to the UN and enabling international legitimacy to play a balanced role that guarantees ending the occupation and restoring Iraqi policy.

In occupied Palestine, the trouble of the Israeli policies is deepening and the world is all the more convinced that it is impossible to build peace with Ariel Sharon's government. There is an impression that the "Roadmap was born dead." This atmosphere is all the more intensified with the U.S.' bias to Israel, and the insistence of the current administration on reading the region's issues from the perspectives of post-9/11 and "the war on terror," which lead it to exert pressures on Damascus, who clings to its stance and stresses, at the same time, on the necessity of continuing dialogue with Washington under any circumstances.

Al-Hayat asked President Assad the most important questions about the following issues: Iraq, Palestine, relations with the U.S. and change in Syria, in addition to Lebanon, which currently preoccupied with presidential elections, even they are relatively far away, and talk of the possibility of extending the mandate of the actual president. Although the situation in the Middle East is hot, yet, the President did not change his calm way of reading the events in order to preserve both the regional and international situations. Following is the transcript of the interview.

* It is obvious that the increasing American pressure on Syria stems from its position from what is currently happening in Iraq. The Americans have specific demands, which they always state that Damascus realized none of them. They might have other demands. What are those demands? Is Damascus ready to discuss the exchange of interests with Washington in Iraq to establish cooperation with the Americans?

- It is of the Americans' habit not to ask for specific demands, neither in quantity nor in quality. Sometimes, they are contradictory. The issue of the weapons of mass destruction is a telling example on that. They are asking us to give up the WMDs. But when we call for removing all the WMDs from the region, they refuse. Many are the demands, but what is important for us is if these demands are compatible with Syrian interests or not. They asked many things from us, which are related to giving up the constants and interests.

As for their demands, I think that the most important thing to them is the issue of the Palestinian organizations. They asked more than once and in more than a way to expel the organizations' leaders. They are not the leaders of the organizations, but officials in these Palestinian organizations because the leaders are in the occupied territories. Of course, we refused to fire them for more than one reason, on top of which are reasons of principle. These people did not break Syrian laws, did not harm Syrian interests and are not terrorists in the first place.

This is the most important American demand. As for the other demands, they are numerous and it would be difficult to discuss them in one interview.

* More than one American official repeated accusations, especially Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Lately, it was said about the resistance against the American occupation in Iraq, that some of its members are infiltrating from Syria, and probably from other countries neighboring Iraq. How true is this, especially that a number of Arab fighters died during the war while defending Iraq?

- Naturally, if the situation is normal and relations between the countries are normal and there are no problems, there is always smuggling; smuggling of people or goods, be they legal or illegal and in all its forms. However, when the security situation is not stable and in a situation of war, occupation and chaos, as is the case now in Iraq, it is normal for this issue to increase manifold. This is normal. President (George) Bush discussed this issue a while ago on Fox Channel. They asked him about Syria and he said: it is carrying out its duty and is working on it but the borders are long. This is logical. However, there is a difference between the government knowing about it or, just like any other case, it is happening without the knowledge of the government. The borders are long and cannot be controlled. What is more important, regardless of Iraq, is that the situation is the same, between these countries and Iraq, or between the latter and the other neighboring Arab countries. There is a state of great confusion. There is smuggling of weapons and infiltration of people whom we do not know who they are. Of course, the Americans say that these are terrorists and anyone, to them, is a terrorist; perhaps, any Arab is a terrorist to them. In our dialogue with the neighboring countries, we are suffering from this problem and it is not a problem with the Americans. We are discussing the same issue with the neighboring countries. The question is: how do we prevent the illegal movement of people and arms smuggling, which harm the states' interests without cooperation? Of course, there is difficulty. And as long as the situation in Iraq will remain this way, there will always be difficulty to control these issues.

* Do you agree to the American suggestion that Iraq is transforming into a key battlefield with international terrorism? I mean according to the fundamentalist groups or Al Qaeda groups that seem to be infiltrating to Iraq? To which extent is Syria afraid of Iraq falling in chaos? Does this not represent hurt and direct danger on Syria and the other neighboring countries?

- There is contradiction within the same American rhetoric. They were not in Afghanistan, yet, there was terror. Then the Americans came under the pretext of fighting terror. So far, they fought nothing, they realized nothing. They arrived to Iraq before terrorism according to the American theory, and with the American presence, terrorism appeared, so they say. What about the other countries where the U.S. is not present? According to American logic, terrorism would be more widespread. The logical suggestion is that the entire world has now become a battlefield to confront terrorism, not only Afghanistan or Iraq. Discussing the issues of Afghanistan and Iraq is to draw international attention to American actions, in a just way, i.e., giving legitimacy and justice to American actions in a certain region. As for Iraq being an arena for terror, the latter needs first a society ready for such. Iraqi society is not prepared to such circumstance and was never described as terrorist. Hence, this rhetoric is not true. As for what is said about the presence of some terrorists, this is true in all the countries around the world. There are terrorists in America and in Europe. Does this mean that America and Europe are the main arena for terror? This is why I say that the logical thing is that the whole world is an arena for terror and not only Iraq.

* In this framework, if Syria were asked to help to ban, or limit, the presence of terrorist elements in Iraq, how ready is Syria to cooperate in this matter? You have stated that you helped the Americans and Europeans in reining terrorism and unveiling some cells in Europe?

- Ever since we began combating terror in the 1980s, we knew that it had no identity. This was a constant concept for whoever talks about fighting terror. Fighting terror is the sound thing to do, if you were capable, anywhere in the world, be it in Syria, Iraq or in any place in the world. From here comes the importance of cooperation between countries. You cannot have authority in another country, but with cooperation with that country, you could realize this. Today, there is no government in Iraq, there is no Iraqi authority, who do you cooperate with? Who is capable and who is designated to fight terror? No one, and it is difficult to play such a role in a place where there is no authority.      

* You received Iraqi delegations from the transitional ruling council and a tribal delegation. However, Syria was always opposed or critical of projects, resolutions and policies the United States proposed in the UN Security Council in what concerns Iraq. What is Syria's vision to resolve the situation in Iraq? If the actual transitional ruling council insists on the Americans extending their stay for a specific period in order to provide stability and reconstruct the infrastructure in addition to establishing the legal institutions in the country, will Syria insist on the quick departure of the American forces, or will it be ready to understand these claims suggested by the ruling council?

- Of Course, ever since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, we suggested the immediate withdrawal and this would remain the Syrian suggestion. Before talking of an alternative suggestion, I will talk about the current suggestion, which is the stay of these forces. Why? Some people say in order to prevent the current confusion and turmoil in Iraq. There is a mix up between this chaos being a result of the absence of authority and the occupation failing to carry out its duties toward the state it occupies, and civil war. There is a mix up between the image they are trying to portray to others, which is that if the American forces withdraw now, there would be a civil war. However, the seeds of the civil war the others tried to sow, through several operations, assassinations and political steps, failed. We received, a while ago, a number of Iraqis and a tribal delegation, they represent all categories and we heard them say the same thing. There is no contradictory rhetoric or interests. Hence, this seed has no land to grow in. There is no basis for a civil war. The persistence of chaos may prepare for anything which we do not know. But personally, I am optimistic that no conflicts will occur between the Iraqi people. If we say that forces would stay, what would these forces' job be? Controlling security? They cannot control security. The security and social chaos is present in the regions where the American forces are numerous. Whereas in regions where there is no American authority, Iraqis organized themselves and created different forms of local authorities that controlled the security and economic situation, to the point where they even became traditions replacing laws that do not exist at the moment. So, this suggestion is untrue. There is only one thing in any of the world's countries is that people unite around the one thing which they agree upon. Usually, everyone in the one country agrees on a national structure, and the national structure is a government. Thus, what is required is an Iraqi government elected by the Iraqi people in addition to an Iraqi constitution established by the Iraqi people. There is no other solution.

The form is an Iraqi affair

* In case the constitution stipulated federalism, what would be Syria's position and how worrisome to it is federalism in Iraq?

- We did not discuss this issue. We are discussing the division. We are always afraid of division. What we saw is the contrary, we never heard an Iraqi citizen, from any Iraqi category that he seeks any division. As for Iraq's final form, it is an Iraqi affair; it is not up to us to decide. It is an Iraqi affair and we are concerned about Iraq's unity and I do not think that any Iraqi does not want that, or that we do not want Iraq's unity. We did not hear this suggestion to be worried about it. As for the federal suggestion and many others, they are but media suggestions that we did not hear. Everyone, without exception, is talking about Iraqi unity. This is what we want and the form of the unity is an Iraqi matter.

Neighborhood specificity

* For Syria to help in the Iraqi issue, does it have a demand, like the rest of the European countries whom the U.S. is asking for help; to have a greater role for the UN? As a neighboring country to Iraq and according to the historical and social relations between them, does Syria have specific interests it wants to preserve, especially that over three decades, there was a quasi-conflict or confrontation between both regimes in Syria and Iraq? Of course, today the situation is much easier for Syria, so are there specific demands or interests on the economic or political levels, or any other demands Syria insists on in return for trying to help the Coalition or the occupation forces?

- We are starting as you mentioned from the unsound relations between Syria and Iraq that were full of disputes. It is normal that when we look at the future, we consider this negative aspect that was against the Syrian interest simply because there was a dispute with a neighboring Arab country.

It is normal now that everything we are thinking about in the future is the contrary. The relations should be good, full of cordiality, common interests and all the positive aspects for the interests of the two countries. Hence, it is normal that we start with the interest that is a direct one.

Be it a European, American or international role through the UN or an Arab role through the Arab League, the Syrian-Iraqi relation is a neighborly; there is always a neighborhood specificity that cannot be considered under other aspects. We support other aspects when they play a sound role to serve the Iraqi people. However, this does not replace the direct relation, which is a neighborly relation. We discussed with the Iraqis we met that this is the Syrian principle. Any role Syria would play will be based on the Iraqi people's suggestion. In principle, there is no specific formula for there is no state. However, through our meetings with the Iraqis, a panoramic image was constituted according to which we can predict the expectations of the Iraqi people. Up until now, I did not hear any Iraqi citizen saying that Iraq needs foreign forces. On the contrary, he says that with our police and army, which were both disbanded after the fall of Baghdad, we are capable of controlling security and even the borders with the neighboring countries. Of course, I do not think that there is a problem between Iraq and the neighboring countries. Any role we would play will be based on this principle. I think, and I have heard some of it from the Iraqis, that they want a good relation. They want a political relation and a political coordination; they want an economic relation and a social one. This relation is the role. How could we establish this role through this relation? We do not have details now because the Iraqi people are also drafting these details and a certain situation that is not final yet.

Neighboring countries and… intervention

* Concerning the neighborly relations between Syria and Iraq, to which extent is there coordination between Syria and Iran, which is also a neighboring country with historic relations too. Is Syria worried about Iran's increasing relation inside the Iraqi society or its intervention there? What about Turkish intervention or Turkish relation, especially that the Turks are not hiding their readiness to send troops to Iraq? To which extent are you afraid of such Iranian and Turkish influence?

- The word intervention means to play an unwanted role. If it is wanted, then it is not an intervention. In order to define whether it is intervention or not, we should ask the Iraqis. I did not hear this word and I do not think in the light of what we heard from Iranian officials that they want anything other than what I talked about regarding the form of the relation with Iraq and its consequences. We should not forget that Iran suffered eight years of war, and surely this war will be taken into consideration. This should be the first issue the Iranians should avoid in the future. So far, I only see the positive image. The Iranian suggestion is close to the Syrian one: the withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, Iraqi independence, a constitution and a government.

* Is there coordination between both stances?

- Of course, we coordinate through the meetings we hold. But this is, originally, the Iranian point of view when we agree. I cannot say that we reached a new result, these results were reached each alone and the Iranians reached them alone, when we meet and discuss the issue, we find that our positions are similar. The neighboring countries have similar points of view; even the Turks have a similar point of view.

* Even Jordan for instance?

- Yes, in the declared stance and what we heard.                

* And Saudi Arabia?

- Since the beginning Saudi Arabia has adopted a clear position; it supports withdrawal and stability. This was declared during the first meeting of the neighboring countries. However, expressing the stance differs from one country to another. But I think that all of them, and in all our discussions with them, adopt the same stance. Even in our dialogues with the other Arab countries. I think we all reached the conclusion that we are all paying the price of the situation in Iraq. Of course, the neighboring countries are paying the price more than the other countries because the situation became much more difficult than we expected. I think that this issue is agreed upon and we see no naïve vision of the Iraqi issue. Those different countries are looking at the situation in Iraq from a mature perspective.

* Mr. President, concerning the Iraqi issue, did it add another clause to the essential misunderstanding with the U.S. or did it deepen it?

- There is an American misunderstanding with the world's countries and we are one of them. Of course, if we are against the occupation and the U.S. supports it, this constitutes an additional point in the misunderstanding. But it is not due to the occupation. Ever since the Iraqi issue was discussed, we were at conflict. During the Iraq-Iran war, when we were against the war, there was a dispute about the same issue although other countries supported the war. I cannot say 'it added' for the dispute existed. Maybe at a certain time, an agreement was reached about participating with Syria in the coalition (to liberate Kuwait) but it seems that this participation had different objectives. We carried out this action on the basis of collective Arab defense and I do not think the U.S. was going from the same axiom. Otherwise, it would have gone to war alone to liberate the Golan or any other Arab territory. The principles differ but there was an agreement during this period.