Syria President al-Assad Interview: “New
Anti-terrorism Coalition Must Succeed, Otherwise the Whole Region Will Be
Destroyed”
"Supporting terrorism is not only aimed against our peoples but against yours as well. This terrorism has started to bite back. What you have seen so far is only the beginning or “the tip of the iceberg”……….President Bashar al-Assad
This is in general terms, but when we come to the facts about what happened in Syria, we cannot deny the importance of the foreign factor. Money was paid to make people demonstrate under slogans related to the constitution, the laws or to reforms. From the very beginning we responded positively to all these proposals, despite the fact that we knew that a large part of it was unreal and not genuine. But it was merely a slogan. Nevertheless, and from the very beginning we called for a political dialogue among Syrian political forces. The result of that dialogue was that the constitution was changed, and the provisions which they claimed, or as some have claimed to be the cause of the crisis, have also been changed. New laws, providing for more freedoms, were passed, new parties established and the media law was changed. All the things which were demanded, or which were used as slogans in the demonstrations, were implemented.
Intervention: Those media outlets broadcast negative news about Syria. How do you feel when you hear such negative news?
This dialogue requires an answer to the following questions: If we agree on something, what is our impact in reality? If we conducted a dialogue and reached the best possible ideas but without being able to implement them because the opposition we are conducting dialogue with has no influence on the terrorists, what do we get? On the other hand, shall we conduct dialogue with an opposition tied to foreign powers? From a national and patriotic perspective, this is unacceptable. You in Iran have political opposition, but you cannot call it an opposition if you knew, as Iranian citizens, that they receive money from a foreign country, or that they implement policies which are at odds with the interests of the Iranian people, and that they serve the interests of a foreign country. These factors do not exist so far. We have conducted dialogue with a number of groups, some of which were patriotic, we are not saying otherwise, but they told us that they have no influence on the terrorists. So, dialogue with them might be useful for the future of Syria, but not for solving the problem of terrorism. That is why the only option for us now is to destroy terrorism, because implementing any solution or any political ideas that might be agreed on will need a state of stability. Otherwise it has no value. Consequently, destroying terrorism is the foundation of any action in Syria. Political ideas can be implemented later.
Posted:
06 Oct 2015 12:30 AM PDT
“New Anti-terrorism
Coalition Must Succeed, Otherwise the Whole Region Will Be Destroyed”……….President Bashar al-Assad
"Supporting terrorism is not only aimed against our peoples but against yours as well. This terrorism has started to bite back. What you have seen so far is only the beginning or “the tip of the iceberg”……….President Bashar al-Assad
Damascus, SANA –
President Bashar al-Assad gave an interview to the Iranian Khabar TV channel.
Following
is the full text of the interview:
Question
1: In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful. Mr.
President, thank you very much for accepting the invitation of the Television
of the Islamic Republic of Iran to give this interview. Thank you very much.
There
are many issues which need to be raised; and in this interview, I’ll raise a
number of them. I hope that I’ll get candid and transparent answers from your
Excellency. For about five years now, Syria has been suffering from a war
waged by armed terrorist groups that inflicted tremendous damage on the Syrian
people. According to available statistics, these damages are estimated at more
than USD 200 billion to the infrastructure, about 250,000 casualties and about
six to seven million displaced Syrian individuals. All this was the result of
Western states’ insistence on overthrowing the Syrian regime. They haven’t
succeeded in doing so. Now we can see a change in positions regarding the
situation in Syria.
The states which used to call for overthrowing the regime have started to
declare that they accept President Assad’s participation in an interim
government. What’s your reading of this change in positions, and why has it
happened?
No
foreign officials might decide Syria’s
future, political system or the individuals to govern
President
Assad: In the beginning, I would like to welcome you in Damascus; and I’m glad to be talking to our
Iranian brothers through your TV station. Concerning the changes that you see
happening in the Western world, part of this is based on their statements to
the media. For us in Syria,
we cannot take these statements seriously, regardless of whether they are
positive or negative, for many reasons. I believe that our Iranian brothers,
including Iranian officials, share our view on this. In other words, both of us
do not trust Western officials. As to their recent statements about a
transitional period and other issues, I would like to be very clear: no foreign
officials might decide the future of Syria,
the future of Syria’s
political system or the individuals who should govern Syria. This is
the Syrian people’s decision. That’s why these statements mean nothing to us.
But
what is absolutely certain is that Western officials are in a state of
confusion and their vision lacks clarity. At the same time, they are
overwhelmed by a sense of failure concerning the plans they drew and didn’t
achieve their objectives. The only objective of course is what you mentioned in
your question, i.e. destroying Syria’s
infrastructure and causing a great deal of bloodshed. We have paid a heavy
price, but their objectives were subjugating Syria completely and replacing one
state with another. They aimed at replacing this state with a client state
which implements the agendas dictated by foreign governments.
We
cannot trust Western positions regardless of whether they were positive or
negative
At
the same time, the lies they propagated at the beginning of the events in Syria, in order
to promote their positions to their audiences, have started to unravel. You
cannot continue to lie to your people for years. You might do that for a
limited period of time. Today, as a result of technological advances in the
field of information, every citizen in every part of the world could know part
of the truth. These parts have started to come together in the minds of their
people, and they have found out that their governments have been lying to them
concerning what has happened in Syria.
They have also paid the price either through terrorist operations, the
terrorism that started to affect those countries or through the waves of
migrants coming to their countries, not only from Syria,
but from different countries in the Middle East.
All these factors started to effect a change, but I would like to stress once
more that we cannot trust Western positions regardless of whether they were
positive or negative.
Question
2: Mr. President, some countries, like France, used to have good relations
with you, between 2008 and 2010. You enjoyed good relations with President
Sarkozy. Why have such people moved to the enemies’ side and started calling
for overthrowing the Syrian regime?
President
Assad: Because Sarkozy was charged by George Bush’s administration to build
contacts with Syria.
Those contacts had a number of objectives which aimed in general at changing
the political line of Syria.
But there was an essential objective that the Americans wanted Sarkozy to
achieve. At that time there was talk about how the 5+1 group should deal with Iran’s nuclear file, specifically how to deal
with nuclear materials or the radioactive materials which were enriched in your
reactors in Iran.
I was required to persuade Iranian officials to send these materials to Western
countries to be enriched and returned to Iran, without any guarantees of
course. That was impossible. It did not convince us, and the Iranian officials
were not convinced.
When
the West was unable to change Syrian policies, they found an opportunity at the
beginning of the events of what is called the “Arab Spring”, an opportunity to
attack the states whose political line they didn’t like. That is why the period
you are talking about was concerned with appearances. In other words, the West
opened up to Syria,
but in fact that period was replete with pressure and blackmail. They haven’t
offered one single thing to Syria,
neither politically, or economically, or in any other field.
Question
3: What you said was about France.
How do you read the positions of other countries, like the UK and the USA?
President
Assad: Their positions today?
Intervention:
I mean that France wanted to
intervene through the relationship that connects you with Iran. How did
other countries, like the UK
and the USA
get involved in dialogue with you at that time?
Western
countries have one master, which is the United States
President
Assad: Yes. When we talk about these states, we are taking about an integrated
system. We use the term “Western countries”, but these Western countries have
one master, which is the United
States. All these countries behave in
accordance with the dictates of the American maestro. Now, the statements of
all these countries are similar. They say the same thing, and when they attack Syria, they use
the same language. That is why when the United States gives the signal,
these countries move in a certain direction, but there is usually a
distribution of roles. At that time France
was asked to play that role, considering the relatively good historical
relations between France and
Syria
since independence. There is a big Syrian community in France, and
there are economic, even military, and of course political relations. That is
why the best option for them was to ask France, and not any other country.
But ultimately, Western officials follow the orders of the American
administration. This is a fact.
Question
4: Does that mean that you know specifically what the West wants from Syria?
President
Assad: They want to change the state. They want to weaken Syria and create a number of weak statelets
which can get busy solving their daily problems and internal disputes with no
time for development or extending support to national causes, particularly the
cause of Palestine, and at the same time
ensuring Israel’s
security. These objectives are not new. They have always been there, but the
instruments of dealing with them differ from time to time.
Question
5: It seems that some of these countries, working on behalf of the United
States, have very close ties with the terrorists, and their policies are
identical with those of the terrorist groups. What is the damage that such
countries, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can
inflict on regional security and stability?
President
Assad: There are, of course, different kinds of terrorism in our region, but
they are all overshadowed by what is called Islamic terrorism because these
terrorist groups or organizations have adopted Islam without having anything to
do with Islam in reality. But this is the term being used now. These groups are
promoting sedition among the different components in the region in general.
This means that the greatest damage is the disintegration of societies in time.
Now, fortunately, there is a great awareness in our society about the danger of
sectarian sedition, and the necessity of uniting ranks, particularly as far as
the Muslims are concerned. But with time, and with the continuation of sectarian
incitement, creating gaps between the different components of society and
producing a young generation brought up on the wrong ideas, that will be a very
serious danger. This disintegration will become one day a de facto situation,
and will lead to confrontations, conflicts and civil wars. This is very
dangerous, and it is not exaggerated. It is a fact.
Question
6: Now, it has become common in international forums for states to announce
that the Syrian crisis cannot be resolved except through a political solution.
But Saudi Arabia
and the Saud clan insist that you should step down from your position. What is
your response to that?
Neither
Saudi Arabia nor Turkey have
right to talk about democracy
President
Assad: What I said a short while ago: any talk about the political system or
the officials in this county is an internal Syrian affair. But if they are
talking about democracy, the question begs itself: are the states you
mentioned, especially Saudi
Arabia, models of democracy, human rights or
public participation? In fact, they are the worst and the most backward
worldwide; and consequently they have no right to talk about this. As to
Erdogan, he is responsible for creating chasms inside his own society, inside Turkey itself. Turkey was
stable for many years, but with his divisive language, and his talk about
sedition and discrimination between its different components, neither he nor
Davutoglu are entitled to give advice to any country or any people in the
world. This is the truth, simply and clearly.
Question
7: Mr. President, you said more than once that some states caused the current
situation in Syria,
and that foreign intervention played a significant role in creating the crisis.
However, this crisis happened on your watch. To what extent have you played a
role in creating this situation?
President
Assad: When there is foreign intervention, it cannot make a significant
negative impact unless there were gaps in this country or in that society. That
is why we said from the very beginning that there are many things which need to
be reformed in Syria.
There are gaps; and we are all responsible for these gaps, as Syrians. Of
course, the state has its share of responsibility in this regard, and the
higher the official, the greater the responsibility.
This is in general terms, but when we come to the facts about what happened in Syria, we cannot deny the importance of the foreign factor. Money was paid to make people demonstrate under slogans related to the constitution, the laws or to reforms. From the very beginning we responded positively to all these proposals, despite the fact that we knew that a large part of it was unreal and not genuine. But it was merely a slogan. Nevertheless, and from the very beginning we called for a political dialogue among Syrian political forces. The result of that dialogue was that the constitution was changed, and the provisions which they claimed, or as some have claimed to be the cause of the crisis, have also been changed. New laws, providing for more freedoms, were passed, new parties established and the media law was changed. All the things which were demanded, or which were used as slogans in the demonstrations, were implemented.
Then,
they started in the West and in the regional countries which are subject to the
Western agendas, particularly Turkey,
Qatar and Saudi Arabia,
started talking about the issue of the president specifically. Why? Because
they wanted to personalize the issue, in order to say that the whole problem in
Syria is caused by one
individual, and consequently he, and not the terrorists or the regional and
Western states which seek to destabilize Syria, is responsible. That is why
I say again that the issue of the presidency or other issues are the concern of
the Syrian people. I, personally, have said, on more than one occasion that
when the Syrian people decide that a certain individual should stay, he will
stay; and when the Syrian people decide that he should go, he will go
immediately. This issue cannot be subject to any discussion, but if the opinion
of the West is contrary to that of the Syrian people, it has no value
whatsoever. That is why we say that returning to dialogue and continuing the
dialogue which is conducted from time to time is the solution for the Syrian
crisis. If there are demands for reform, that shouldn’t be the responsibility
of the President but the responsibility of the state’s institutions, because
they define the shape of the reform. When there is a national issue, it should
be shouldered by the institutions and should be carried out by these
institutions, particularly elected Question 8: So, you believe that what
happened in Syria
has to do with institutions and not the person of the president of the
republic?
President
Assad: Of course, because the president comes to power through institutions and
leaves power through institutions. The president assumes power through the
constitution and steps down through the constitution, the laws and the
elections. Those are the mechanisms. A president cannot assume power through
terrorism or step down as a result of terrorism. He does not assume power
through chaos and does not step down because of chaos. He does not assume power
through foreign intervention or under foreign cover as is the case in most
countries in our region. As you know, this is a fact. When he comes to power
through a foreign country, he continues in power through a decision of this
foreign country and leaves power upon a decision of that country. This,
however, is not the case neither in Syria
nor in Iran,
and will not be the case in the future.
Question
9: If we go back to the beginning of the crisis in March 2011, would you manage
the crisis in the same way you did?
From
the beginning we decided to fight terrorism, and today we are more committed to
this principle
President
Assad: In all things in our lives, there are always main titles and small
details which constitute these titles. What changes often are the details and
not the main titles, except in special cases. This crisis has been a rich
lesson. Every national crisis is a very rich lesson to the officials, to the
population and to society in general. Every day, you learn a new thing and see
things from a different perspective. Sometimes you see things which you don’t
know even about yourself or the society you live in. That is why it doesn’t
make sense to say that the crisis is passing by and we will not learn new
things from it and will not change accordingly. It is natural to have
differences concerning the details, but not the main titles. The reason is that
these are basic principles. For example, in the beginning we decided to have
dialogue, to respond to dialogue and that the solution should be through
dialogue. We still believe in this principle.
Concerning
fighting terrorism, from the beginning it was clear to us that there were
foreign hands behind it, and that it aimed at creating chaos and a terrorist
environment to destabilize Syria.
From the beginning we decided to fight terrorism, and today we are more
committed to this principle. From the beginning we decided to be independent in
solving our problems. We want help from our friends; and this is what Iran is offering, and what Russia is
offering, together with other countries of the world. But no other country can
replace us in solving our problems. I believe that we are more determined today
to be committed to these principles; and the events have shown that what we
used to say at the beginning of the crisis was right. When we come to the
details and mechanisms, there is no doubt that the way we see them now is
different from the way we saw them then.
Question
10: You said that the Syrian crisis should be resolved through Syrian-Syrian
dialogue. Are you prepared, Mr. President, to sit at the same table with those
armed groups fighting on the ground?
President
Assad: It is self-evident that no state in the world conducts dialogue with
terrorists, because terrorists, like other citizens, should be subject to the
laws and should be brought to account. However, the state might conduct
dialogue with terrorists in one case, when the objective of the dialogue is for
the individuals who carried out terrorist acts to lay down their arms and
embrace the state and the law. This has actually happened in Syria; and we
held dialogue with many groups within the framework of what we call
reconciliations through which the state grants amnesty to those individuals,
provided that they go back to their normal lives.
This
mechanism or approach has achieved reasonable success in many regions,
especially when you know that many of those who carried out terrorist acts did
so probably because of certain conditions which pushed them in that direction
and not necessarily because they have a genuine conviction or desire to do so.
There are those who were deceived and those who were misled.
On
the other hand, there are ideological terrorist groups which do not believe in
dialogue. They reject dialogue and reject reconciliation. They believe that
these killings and these acts of terrorism are part of religion and part of
Islam. They believe that when they commit these acts and get killed, they have
done a service to religion, and then go to heaven. It is impossible to conduct
dialogue with these groups; they do not accept it and we do not accept it.
Question
11: What are the damages caused to security and stability in the region by what
happened in Syria
through the acts of these extremist Islamic movements which want to declare an
Islamic State or an Islamic Emirate? And how should they be dealt with?
President
Assad: These terrorist organizations, whether ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra or al-
Qaeda are mere manifestations of a long and deep perversion in our region and
our society. This perversion is at least five decades old; but it practically
started two centuries ago with perverse interpretation of Islam. The main
manifestation of this perversion is the Wahhabi movement which interpreted
Islam in a perverted and, in most cases, contradictory manner with the import
of Islam itself. So, these are mere manifestations.
Dealing
with this short term damage, which is related to the terrorist acts, the
destruction and killing they are carrying out, is not easy, but certainly
possible. Dealing with it will constitute a victory for society, an important
victory because it protects it against a disease and a real epidemic.
The
big danger is for this treatment to take a long time and for these
organizations to become entrenched within society. In that case you will be
dealing with a very dangerous, cultural and intellectual situation. You will be
before a new generation of ideological terrorists who believe in killing,
takfir and discrimination as a basic method for building an Islamic State, as
they believe. Then, the whole region will face a huge dilemma. This type of
thought has no boundaries. It does not recognize political borders. It spreads,
through contagion, very quickly in our region, and even in Europe,
as we see today. That is why these organizations are extremely dangerous, but
it is not enough to fight them as organizations. More importantly, we should
fight the thought which led to the creation of these organizations, the states
which promoted this type of thought and the institutions which provide funds
for this thought through religious schools and foundations which promote extremism
in the Islamic world.
Question
12: Mr. President, Western countries tried, in a symbolic move, to create an
international coalition against terrorism. But this coalition does not seem to
have succeeded. Why?
International
coalition failed because the thief cannot be himself the policeman
President
Assad: That is true, first because the thief cannot be himself the policeman
who protects the city from thieves. Similarly, the state which supports
terrorism cannot fight it. This is the truth about this coalition we see. That
is why, and after more than a year, we do not see any results. On the contrary,
we see that is has been counterproductive. Terrorism has expanded
geographically, and the number of volunteers or recruits to these terrorist
organizations has increased. Second, because these states which support
terrorism from the beginning and which provide cover for it, cannot be serious.
Take, for instance, the number of air strikes conducted by the sixty countries
together in Syria and Iraq. They
constitute only a fraction of what the Syrian air force is doing, despite the
facts that we are a small country in the end, and the Syrian air force is not
big. Nevertheless, we are conducting many folds the number of airstrikes
carried out by those countries.
If
the US
really wanted to fight terrorism, it would have put pressure on terrorists’
supporters
There
is a more important indicator of their lack of seriousness. How can the United States and its allies fight terrorism or
ISIS in Syria and Iraq while their closest allies in the
government of Erdogan and Davutoglu are supporting terrorists and enabling them
to cross the borders and bring weapons, money and volunteers through Turkey? Had the
United States
really wanted to fight terrorism, it would have put pressure on those
countries. That is why I don’t believe that this coalition will do anything
except strike a balance between the existing forces in order to keep the fire
alive and perpetuate the process of erosion in Syria
and Iraq
and later other countries of the region, so that we all remain weak for decades
and maybe generations.
Question
13: The states which oppose your regime consider your presence in power a
pretext for continuing the war. How do you respond to them, Mr. President?
ones,
foremost among which is the People’s Assembly.
President
Assad: If I were a pretext for terrorism in Syria,
what is the pretext for terrorism in Yemen. I’m not in Yemen. Who is
the pretext for terrorism in Libya?
Who is the pretext for terrorism in Iraq? In fact, if we take the
example of ISIS, you will find that it did not emerge in Syria. It
emerged in Iraq in 2006 when
the Americans ran most things, if not everything, particularly the security
issues in Iraq.
It emerged there on their watch; and all ISIS leaders graduated from the
prisons which used to be run by the United States, not the Iraqi
government. This does not make any sense. Western officials in America and elsewhere acknowledge that they
created this extremism through al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
in the beginning to fight the Soviet Union. ISIS is a by-product of al-Qaeda that came in a different
form and in a different region. What they say does not have any value. The West
always looks for some other party or person to hold them responsible because
they will not say that it was them who supported terrorism and stood against
the Syrian people and sought to destroy them together with their culture,
heritage and all the basics of their lives.
Question
14: The Western coalition failed in its fight against terrorism. Now a new
coalition has started to form in the region bringing together Iran, Russia,
Iraq and Syria.
Considering that the terrorists receive a lot of support from the outside, can
this coalition succeed?
New
anti-terrorism coalition must succeed, otherwise the whole region will be
destroyed
President
Assad: It must succeed; otherwise the whole region, not only one or two
countries, will be destroyed. We have full confidence in this. Of course, what
you said about the support extended to these terrorist organizations by other
countries will make the price of victory for these countries which are fighting
terrorism very high indeed. If those countries joined the fight against
terrorism in a serious and genuine manner, at least by stopping their support
to terrorists, it will hasten the process of achieving the results which we all
hope to see. But even if they didn’t do that and continued to support
terrorism, we as states have a vision and have expertise. All of us have
suffered because of terrorism. Iran
and Russia
have suffered different kinds of terrorism. When these countries unite against
terrorism and fight it militarily and in the areas of security and information,
in addition to other aspects, this coalition will, no doubt, achieve real results
on the ground, particularly that it enjoys international support from countries
which do not have a direct role in these crises and in this region. This is
with the exception of the West, which has always sought to support terrorism,
colonization and stood against peoples’ causes, most countries of the world
feel the real danger of terrorism. There have been recently successive
statements from countries which support this coalition. That is why I believe
that this coalition has great chances of success.
Question
15: Mr. President, your country has suffered a great deal as a result of
terrorism. What is your messages to the states which support terrorism?
The
most important terrorist leaders in Syria
and Iraq
are Europeans
President
Assad: We wanted to say to them that terrorism will get to you in the end, but
it has actually reached them recently. When we used to say this a few years
ago, they said that the Syrians are threatening. Today it is no longer a
threat. Terrorism has arrived in different European countries in addition to
the regional countries which support terrorism and have started to suffer the
consequences. There are waves of immigrants from different countries and for
causes related to terrorism and other causes which might push others to leave
the region. It is known that a large number of terrorists have infiltrated
those immigrants, and now they are in those European countries. More
importantly, this region has always been accused of exporting terrorism and
extremism to Europe.
The fact today is that the most important terrorist leaders in Syria and Iraq are Europeans. Probably the largest number of terrorists comes from Muslim countries, and particularly Arab countries, but most of the leaders come from Europe, and specifically from northern Europe which is relatively far from our region and has a rich and sophisticated society. Nevertheless, terrorism comes from those countries to our region. This means that terrorism knows no boundaries, and that terrorism cannot be used as a political card whenever we want. I always liken terrorism to a scorpion. You cannot put a scorpion in your pocket, because it will sting on the first opportunity. We are repeating this now. They have started to realize this fact, but they do not dare acknowledge it, because if they do, they will have to acknowledge that they were mistaken from the beginning. This is difficult for them domestically and will constitute political suicide. That is why we hope that they will be brave enough one day to acknowledge this error and to say that they acted against the interests of their people in the service of their electoral interests.
The fact today is that the most important terrorist leaders in Syria and Iraq are Europeans. Probably the largest number of terrorists comes from Muslim countries, and particularly Arab countries, but most of the leaders come from Europe, and specifically from northern Europe which is relatively far from our region and has a rich and sophisticated society. Nevertheless, terrorism comes from those countries to our region. This means that terrorism knows no boundaries, and that terrorism cannot be used as a political card whenever we want. I always liken terrorism to a scorpion. You cannot put a scorpion in your pocket, because it will sting on the first opportunity. We are repeating this now. They have started to realize this fact, but they do not dare acknowledge it, because if they do, they will have to acknowledge that they were mistaken from the beginning. This is difficult for them domestically and will constitute political suicide. That is why we hope that they will be brave enough one day to acknowledge this error and to say that they acted against the interests of their people in the service of their electoral interests.
Question
16: Mr. President, in addition to the official sources you use in order to get
informed about the condition on the fronts and the condition of the Syrian
people, do you rely on other unofficial sources?
President
Assad: Of course, in all aspects of official work, it is wrong for an official
to rely only on reports and on the work of institutions. There are always
errors in the work of institutions. There are always personal opinions and
personal views which might be at odds with reality because of a certain
interest, or because of the lack of clarity. That is why the broader the
network of relations and the sources of information, the closer to reality the
vision is. That is why meetings with relevant individuals who have nothing to
do with reports, with ordinary citizens, with any other person might add
another aspect of the truth. I believe this is essential, even in times of
peace, let alone in a state of war like the one we live in. You need this kind
of communication in such situations more than you need it in ordinary times.
Paper cannot give you a full picture of reality. This is a general rule for me.
Question
17: You follow foreign TV stations, don’t you?
President
Assad: Of course, I do that all the time. We should understand how our
opponents think.
Intervention: Those media outlets broadcast negative news about Syria. How do you feel when you hear such negative news?
Western
media and officials lost their credibility…what they say has no value or impact
President
Assad: Since the early days of the crisis, this war has been a media and
psychological war in the first place. This media war, particularly through
Arabic TV stations, since only a few people here watch foreign TV stations, has
made a great impact and has been able to distort reality for a large number of
Syrians. But if we say that this was the case in the first year, things have
started to become clearer gradually. So, these media outlets continue to make
an impact in their countries, but they no longer have an impact in our
countries, especially when it comes to foreign media outlets. I think that they
are deceiving their people, not us. Second, when you have a national cause and
you defend your country, you do not pay attention to what others say. You are
concerned first and foremost with protecting your country, with achieving the
popular interest, the national interest. Everything else has to take a second
seat. Since these media outlets have lost their credibility, and since Western
officials have no credibility to start with, what they say has no value or
impact even from a psychological perspective. I read and listen to such things
only to understand how they think, but really it no longer has any impact as
far as I’m concerned.
Question
18: You heard the news about the immigrants and refugees who went to other
countries. When you see images and videos of those refugees, how do you feel?
Western
exploitation of refugee crisis is more painful than being a refugee
President
Assad: This is painful of course. Syria
has always been a safe haven for refugees throughput its history, since before
the Ottoman Empire, and even throughout
ancient history, because of its geographical location, the nature of its
society and culture, and because of many other factors. But recently, at least
throughout the last century, it hosted the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and
before that the Armenians who fled to Syria because of the massacres
perpetrated against them. There were also the massacres perpetrated against the
Syriacs during the days of the Ottoman
State and in other
junctures. We should not also forget the Iraqis after the American invasion in
2003. It is very painful for a Syrian to turn into a refugee; and perhaps this
is a black spot in Syria’s
history which we will remember for decades and centuries. But what is more
painful is the exploitation of the refugees’ problems on the part of Western
countries and Western media. They portray it as a humanitarian tragedy from
which they feel pain, while in reality they are the greatest contributors to
this condition through their support of terrorism and through the sanctions
they imposed on Syria.
Consequently, in many parts of Syria,
and in many situations, the basic requirements of life might not be available.
So, terrorism, on the one hand, and these Western countries, on the other, are
perpetrating the same act. They attack terrorists, but they are terrorists in
their policies, whether by imposing sanctions or by supporting terrorism. This
is another painful aspect of the refugees question; they fire at the Syrian
refugees with one hand and give them food with the other. This is what the
Europeans or the Westerners are doing.
Question
19: Mr. President, the Syrian refugee crisis has become a regional and
international issue. Who, do you think, should address this issue? What do you
expect of international organizations?
Every
refugee is asking for countries to stop supporting terrorism
President
Assad: Before talking about the services that should be provided to them. We
should deal with the cause; why did these Syrian citizens emigrate? Most of
those emigrants do not wish to live one single day outside their country, but
there are certain circumstances which forced them to do so, on top of which are
terrorism and the support of terrorism from outside Syria. So, if we ask
anything of the international organizations or of the states – and I believe
every refugee will ask for the same thing – It would be for them to stop
supporting terrorism, and to put pressure on countries, especially Turkey,
Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop sending terrorists to Syria and
providing them with weapons and money. When they do that, there will be no
problem. Solving the problem in Syria
is not complicated at all. The Situation will be better, and the larger part of
the refugees will come back to their country immediately, because regardless of
the services provided to them in any country in the world or through whatever
organization, it will not be the same as for this person to be in his country
and environment and among his family and friends, neither materially nor
morally.
Question
20: Mr. President, this is the second time I visit Syria this year, and I have talked
to the Syrian people. They are concerned about how long this war might last.
How do you, Mr. President, assess the situation in Syria? How long will this situation
last?
We
pin great hope on Putin’s coalition and on international changes
President
Assad: The war will continue as long as there are those who support terrorism,
because we are not fighting terrorist groups inside Syria, we are fighting
terrorist groups coming from all over the world with the support of the richest
and the most powerful countries. We are a small country, but when you defend
your country, you do not have a choice, and you cannot ask how and how long
unless you have decided to give up on your country. In that case you as a
citizen will not have a homeland. This is out of the question in Syria. That is
why I believe that the new atmosphere which has started to emerge in the
international arena – although once again I exclude the West – started to push
towards finding a real solution to the Syrian crisis. It is true that this is
proposed under the title of a political solution, but there cannot be a
political solution while there are states supporting terrorism. This is one
package. We hope that this new direction started to put pressure on the
governments which support terrorism. And this has actually started to exert
pressure on these states in order to reduce their support. The second cause of
optimism is President Putin’s initiative to form a coalition which includes Russia, Iran,
Iraq and Syria. All these
steps have been the natural answer to this question. For how long this war will
continue? This war will continue until either terrorism defeats the people or
the people defeat terrorists. So, we pin great hope on this coalition now and
on these international changes.
Question
21: Mr. President, what are your own proposals to find a solution to this
crisis?
President
Assad: Of course, we support any political move in parallel with fighting
terrorism. But this needs a number of factors to succeed. When we talk about
dialogue among the Syrians, this dialogue has two aspects: there is a dialogue
on the future of Syria,
and it includes all Syrians. Every Syrian has the right to express an opinion
in this dialogue in order to know the shape of the Syria we want. Later, there are
institutions, there is the public opinion, there is a referendum on a
constitution which might be produced by this dialogue. Whatever the people
decide, then, will be binding to us as a state and for me as an official. But
there is also a dialogue which is specific to the crisis: how to put an end to
terrorism and how to restore security. If we talk about political reform, it
does not concern the terrorists, because terrorists do not fight for political
reform. They fight because they receive money or because they have a perverted
doctrine, or because they want to have a role in a state that becomes another
state’s client.
This dialogue requires an answer to the following questions: If we agree on something, what is our impact in reality? If we conducted a dialogue and reached the best possible ideas but without being able to implement them because the opposition we are conducting dialogue with has no influence on the terrorists, what do we get? On the other hand, shall we conduct dialogue with an opposition tied to foreign powers? From a national and patriotic perspective, this is unacceptable. You in Iran have political opposition, but you cannot call it an opposition if you knew, as Iranian citizens, that they receive money from a foreign country, or that they implement policies which are at odds with the interests of the Iranian people, and that they serve the interests of a foreign country. These factors do not exist so far. We have conducted dialogue with a number of groups, some of which were patriotic, we are not saying otherwise, but they told us that they have no influence on the terrorists. So, dialogue with them might be useful for the future of Syria, but not for solving the problem of terrorism. That is why the only option for us now is to destroy terrorism, because implementing any solution or any political ideas that might be agreed on will need a state of stability. Otherwise it has no value. Consequently, destroying terrorism is the foundation of any action in Syria. Political ideas can be implemented later.
Question
22: Your Excellency, Dr. Bashar Assad, you studied ophthalmology. How did you
make the move to politics?
President
Assad: This question cannot be raised when somebody enters the world of
politics. It is legitimate when someone moves from medicine to engineering,
let’s say. But politics is not a sector, it’s not economics or science. It is
the outcome of all aspects of life: the economy, the military, security,
people’s culture and all daily problems. All these things create something
called politics. Politics is not a profession or an academic specialization. It
is your link to the life you live. And in this region the complicated details
of politics affect our daily life, and one cannot be but interested in politics.
It is part of our lives in this region as a result of circumstances we live
under and which influence us continually. So, I haven’t moved from one
specialization to another or from one sector to another. I moved from place of
work to another in the same public field.
Question
23: Going back to our earlier question about reforms in Syria, I read
your biography and found that you made a good start with the reform process in
2000. Why haven’t you continued with these reforms?
Developing
the economic situation was the basic challenge to reforms since 2000
President
Assad: No, Syria
has proceeded in a continuous development process, but there were priorities.
For us, the basic challenge was the economic situation, which has always
suffered from different problems, even before the crisis, and even under the
relatively good circumstances. That was our priority. When I used to meet the
citizens – before the crisis – complaints were always about the living
conditions and the conditions of the economy. Political reform was linked to a
certain extent to political elites in certain sections of society. It did not
include everyone. As I said, the comprehensive issue was living conditions. Our
basic challenge was how to develop the economy in addition to facing outside
pressure because of different political reasons. That was our priority as a
state. But if you talk to a large number of people, you will hear different
views about priorities. Every person has his own view depending on their
culture and problems. Some people might not have economic problems, so their
priorities become different. For us as a state, we used to take the most common
problems for the population. The state was moving forward, probably not
quickly, but carefully and steadily.
Question
24: Mr. President, you have repeatedly said that important decisions need to be
taken inside Syria, and that the dialogue must be among the Syrians themselves,
but now we see that there are negotiations and discussions outside Syria, for
instance like the negotiations between America and Russia. There are those who
say that they are interfering in drawing Syria’s future. Does not that
constitute a red line for you?
The
Russians have never tried to impose anything on us
President
Assad: We have old relations with the former Soviet Union and later with Russia, for
more than six decades now. They have never tried to impose anything on us
throughout the history of this relation, particularly during this crisis. The
dialogue between Russia an America is not about interfering in Syria, the
dialogue is happening between two sides: one which believes in interference in
other states’ affairs, i.e. America and the West, and the other seeks to
prevent such an intervention, prevent hegemony and violation of Security Council’s
resolutions and UN Charter, i.e. Russia, the BRICS countries and a large number
of other countries. It is not true that this dialogue is about intervention.
They are not discussing the nature of the political system in Syria, or the identity of the next president, or
how to solve the problem of terrorism in Syria. They are discussing the
principle of the independence of the Syrian people’s decisions. That is why I
believe that this dialogue is in the interest of Syria and the interest of the
peoples of the world. When there is a strong power with allies defending the
independence of peoples, this is in the interest of all of us, in the interest
of the sovereignty and independence, which we have been so proud of for
decades.
Question
25: Mr. President, do you know the substance of the negotiations between the
Russians and the Americans?
The
Russians and Americans are continuing contacts between us and the Russians
President
Assad: Yes, there are continuing contacts between us and the Russians. They talk
to us about all the details concerning the Syrian situation, including anything
raised with the Russians by any other country, or any discussion between them
and those countries, whether they were allies, opponents or enemies. There is
complete transparency in this relationship.
Question
26: Going back to the negotiations with the opposition, in your interview with
the Russian media you said that you are looking forward to Moscow 3. Now, there have been two
discussions or meetings in Moscow and also in Geneva. I attended the Geneva meetings and saw
that the opposition was divided and incongruent. In your opinion, can you reach
a serious agreement with such an incongruent opposition?
We
will reach no result if Geneva 3,4…or
10 continue with the same mechanism is in Geneva 1, 2
President
Assad: No, if work is done using the same mechanisms, i.e. opposition groups
formed in the West and in regional countries hostile to Syria which have been
part of the bloodshed like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Turkey, such an opposition
cannot but implement the agendas of those countries. The simple question is: do
these countries seek a solution for the situation in Syria or achieve stability? These
countries are hostile to the Syrian people. They created the problem, and consequently,
for them Geneva
1 and Geneva2 were merely a stage through which they wanted to achieve through
politics what they could not achieve on the ground through terrorist acts. That
is the objective.
Moscow conference’s mechanism is different
If
Geneva 3, 4,
and 10 continue with the same mechanism, i.e. for us to talk to individuals who
are agents of other countries, we will certainly not reach any result. This is
self-evident. We reach a result only when we conduct a dialogue, as Syrians,
with each other. Hence the importance of the Moscow conference, because its mechanism is
different. It includes different groups from inside and outside Syria. There
are individuals who are agents of foreign, Arab or regional countries,
independent individuals and patriotic individuals. The Geneva
conference was based on one provision of the Geneva communique, which is the interim
governing body, which we categorically reject. They wanted the Geneva conference to discuss only this point
and to impose this provision on the Syrian government, or the Syrian state or
the Syrian people.
The
Moscow
conference
discusses everything. It discusses the whole of the Geneva
communique which includes clear provisions like Syria’s independence,
territorial
integrity and the Syrian-Syrian dialogue. Everything in the Geneva
communique contradicts the interim
governing body provision. When we reach a consensus as Syrians in the
Moscow conference, any other conference, or any other
dialogue will be bound by the consensus that we will reach in Moscow.
That is why we said that Moscow 3 is essential for the success of Geneva
3
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say what is on your mind, but observe the rules of debate. No foul language is allowed, no matter how anger-evoking the posted article may be.
Thank you,
TruthSeeker