source: http://sana.sy/en/?p=56697
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?
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.
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?
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?
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 ones, foremost among which is the People’s
Assembly.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Question 27: There
are many initiatives for solving the Syrian crisis, including the
Russian initiative, the de Mistura initiative and the recent initiative
made by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. What is your
assessment of this last initiative?
President Assad:
When Mr. Zarif visited us a few months ago, the visit was on the
background of proposing ideas for an Iranian initiative. Before the
visit, the Iranian Foreign Ministry announced the basic principles for
this initiative, principles with which we totally agree. But as you
know, the success or failure of any political action is bound to be
linked to the many details which might be included in such an action.
When Mr. Zarif visited, we discussed with him all these details, and the
meetings continued later between officials in both foreign ministries
in order to come out with the final draft of this initiative. What has
changed during this period was the announcement of President Putin’s
initiative, particularly in his speech in the Collective Security Treaty
Organization’s Collective Security Council in which he identified
basically his perception of the initiative, especially in relation to
fighting terrorism.
Now,
the discussion continues between us and our Iranian brothers at the
foreign ministry in order to take into account this important change, so
that it becomes not necessarily part of the Iranian initiative, but to
make the initiative compatible with these important and positive changes
on the Syrian arena, and probably on the Syrian-Iraqi arena. That is
why I say that this initiative is very important and necessary,
particularly after signing the Iranian nuclear deal, and with European
officials starting to communicate with Iran. We believe that the Iranian
role has become important for us in Syria through this initiative. Of
course, when it is complete the details are integrated, it will be
announced.
Question 28: We
heard recently that a Chinese warship arrived in Lattakia and that a
Russian warship also arrived in the Lattakia port on board of which
there are two thousand Russian soldiers with advanced equipment.
Military operations and airstrikes against terrorists have started. Why
have they come now and got involved in the conflict, and what will the
results be?
President Assad:
Concerning China, it does not take part militarily in fighting
terrorism. It has announced a clear position. It supports the Russian
role and the Russian efforts in this regard, and supports President
Putin’s initiative concerning fighting terrorism, which includes the
recent Russian presence in Syria and which has started operations
recently. As to the Russian aircraft carrier, Russia has a presence in
Syrian airports, and there is no need for an aircraft carrier. When
operations started in Syria recently, the Russian Defense Ministry
announced officially the start of these operations. So, everything is
clear and public, and there is nothing hidden. Russia announced that
these operations are in the form of airstrikes, but without any land
operations as the media tried to depict. The military assistance comes
exclusively within this framework.
Question 29: Mr. President, do the military personnel have a specific frame of reference in Syria?
President Assad:
As for the timeframe, it has not been set yet. This depends on the
development of events. But if you mean the plans and details of these
plans, yes, the plans have been drawn in cooperation between Syrian and
Russian officers a while ago when preparations started for the reception
for Russian forces in Syria.
Question 30: Going
back to cooperation relations between Iran, Hezbollah and Syria, these
three parties enjoy strategic relations in the region. Do you believe
that these relations can stand up to Zionist American plans?
President Assad:
I believe that without this relation, which you described as strategic,
which dates back for decades, the situation in the region would not
have been the same in terms of independence. At least, there’re would
not have been an independent state, or independent government and
consequently an independent people. This axis distinguishes itself by
defending its rights and adhering to independence. There is no doubt
that it is capable of doing so, because it was able to do so in the
past. God willing it will be able to defeat terrorism which is a new
instrument for subjugating the region. It will certainly be able to do
that. Once again, I say that there are no other options for this region
if it wanted to be independent and to prosper and develop. What enabled
you scientifically to make your achievements in the nuclear field was
independence. Without independence, Iran would not have been able to
achieve this. It would not have been allowed to reach this level. So,
independence is the foundation of development, the foundation of
prosperity in all development areas: economically, culturally,
intellectually and in all other areas without any exception. So we
should maintain this relationship, consolidate and develop it.
Question 31: What
are the impacts which will be made by the nuclear agreement between
Iran and the West on the political equations in the region in your
opinion?President al-Assad-Interview-Iranian Khabar TV 3
President Assad:
It has a tremendous impact, not in the way some people see it in terms
of Iran’s technical, scientific or political capabilities. It has a
great and extensive impact on all developing countries, because Iran is a
developing country which has broken the knowledge blockade imposed on
developing countries in order for the West to monopolize knowledge in
certain areas, particularly that oil resources are being exhausted, and
the future becoming dependent on nuclear energy.
All
what has been said about this issue concerning the nuclear bomb was
merely an illusion and fake marketing on the part of the West, because
the real nuclear bombs they fear are the brains which now exist in Iran.
This is the challenge. Iran is a developing country that provided a
model. It emerged from a destructive war that lasted eight years, but
the people were united and provided patriotic models. It provided a
model of independence and that is why it achieved this result. This is
the model which worries the West, and it is the model which concerns us
as a developing country, as a country which maintains a strong
relationship with us.
On
the other hand, you and we are strategic allies; so if Iran is
stronger, Syria will be stronger, and vice versa. From another
perspective, had Iran abandoned its rights in the nuclear file, that
concession would have been used as the new standard which will be
applied to other countries, regardless of the legitimate international
right of all countries to obtain nuclear energy. In the future, Syria or
any other similar country might need nuclear energy. What Iran has won
by its steadfastness and through the intelligence of its negotiators
will be applied to all these other countries in the future. What you
won, we have won as a developing country. That is why this is a very
important aspect.
The
final aspect is that related to the crisis. Acknowledging the real
weight of Iran and its regional role will give it an opportunity to use
its increasing influence to persuade the West that their policies are
wrong. Of course, I do not pin, nor do you I believe, great hopes on the
West changing its colonialist world view and moving in the right
direction, but any effort made by Iran must have its impact. This
impact, even if it were limited, would accumulate in time in order to
mitigate the damage inflicted on our country by the colonialist West,
practically now in relation to the situation in Syria and through your
renewed relation with the European countries.
Question 32: Mr.
President, as you know Iranian strategic relations have their roots in
ancient history, and these relations have been strengthened and
developed based on mutual regional interests. Can we have your take on
the areas around which these mutual interests revolve?
President Assad:
As I said a short while ago in the area of the independence of national
decision making which covers all the other areas. When we are
independent, we cooperate first politically, economically and
militarily. Of course, we have been able to achieve the best in
cooperating politically during the past three and a half decades, since
the success of the Iranian Revolution. But I believe that we have not
done enough economically, despite the conditions in which Syria lives. I
believe this is an important area, and this is what I discussed with
Iranian officials. The crisis itself might be an opportunity,
particularly in light of the Western sanctions against Syria, for
economic relations to develop between us and Iran. There are also
military relations which are old and go back to the same period. They
are advanced relations and we cooperate in detail with Iran on military
issues. So, it is a comprehensive cooperation in all areas, but as I
said, priority is given to the independence of decision-making in the
region and preventing more countries from falling under Western
hegemony.
Question 33: Mr.
President, how do you see the role of his imminence, the Supreme
Leader, in achieving stability in Syria and enabling the Syrian people
to defend themselves against terrorism?
President Assad:
First, the relationship between his imminence, the Supreme Leader, and
me is a brotherly relationship despite the difference in years between
us. It is a genuine brotherly relationship. He is possessed with special
attributes in terms of clarity and adherence to principles. These are
the things you look for in any politician; and I believe these are the
attributes which are in harmony with Iranian policies and the Iranian
people’s adherence to principles. They provided a new model in the
possibility for states to maintain their principles and interests at the
same time based on principles and not on short term political tactics
or opportunistic political tactics.
This
is what his imminence, the Supreme Leader, provided during the Syrian
crisis. I’m also talking about Iranian policies before that; because the
current policy is a continuation of the policies of Imam Khomeini who
also embodied the adherence to principles. This has been the shape of
Iranian policies since the revolution, with one difference only: the
fact that they developed continuously to meet the needs of the times.
They are based on the same principles but they always have more
developed manifestations. In fact Iran’s support to Syria is based on a
popular position now; but his imminence, the Supreme Leader, has an
essential role through his directives to Iranian institutions; and we
are familiar with the details of these directives in terms of the
mechanisms of supporting the Syrian institutions in order to support
Syria in her ferocious war against terrorism and the countries which
support it.
Question 34: How do you define or explain to us this Iranian position in support of the Syrian people during this crisis?
President Assad:
It can be summarized in two words: First, what I said about adherence
to principles. The Iranian people are principled. And the second word is
loyalty, for the Iranian people have been loyal to Syria which
supported Iran when it went through war for eight years. That war had
the same objectives which they want to achieve in Syria today, but in a
different form, using different tools and under different international
circumstances. The Iranian people and leadership have not forgotten
Syria’s position at that time. When most countries of the world tried
impose sanctions against Iran, Syria was, I don’t want to say the only
state, but one of the few states which stood by Iran, but it was the
clearest in its position.
Today,
whenever we meet any Iranian individuals they talk about Syria’s role
at that time. Today, Iran pays back loyalty with loyalty, truthfulness
and transparency. On the other hand, the Iranian people have a certain
vision and a certain methodology which actually led you to the nuclear
deal. When you see things clearly, enemies and opponents cannot deceive
you. This vision for the region in general, including Syria, and
including Iran’s future and also the future of the region is very
important for the stability which we seek in the coming decades.
These
characteristics are very important, and I talked a short while ago
about patriotism, about the patriotic model provided by the Iranian
people. I cite a simple example: when they started their attempts to
stir unrest in Iran, it was the first country in which they wanted to
implement the regional model through the 2008 elections. I met a number
of European officials who told me that the Iranian state will fall soon.
Of course they say “regime” and not “state”, because they do not
recognize our states or peoples. I used to say no, these movements will
fail. And Iran, the Iranian society, people and state were able to
isolate this limited attempt, and all other attempts failed.
Unfortunately, this succeeded in other countries of the region. These
are patriotic models: the Iranians uniting around the nuclear file
despite the different political currents in Iran. There are national
issues around which you unite. I believe that all these attributes
represent the Iranian people.
Question 35: Recently,
there was a human disaster in Mina. The Saud clan government evaded
stating the truth and tried not to uncover the facts. How do you
describe this irresponsible Saudi behavior?
President Assad:
First of all, I offer my sincere condolences to the Iranian people for
this human catastrophe. The chaos we saw in managing the Hajj rituals
isn’t the first. Far from the political aspect, there is a difference
between having the holy sites within the sovereignty of a state and
dealing with these sites as if they were their personal possession. This
is a painful incident for many countries of the world which lost their
citizens in the incident. At the same time the Saudis have prevented the
Syrians from making the Hajj for the past four years for purely
political reasons, which is very dangerous. That is why the issue of how
to manage the Hajj and who manages it started to be discussed
throughout the Muslim world. The Hajj is not a Saudi event, it is a
Muslim and global event. I believe that this issue needs to be discussed
seriously at the level of the Muslim states.
Question 36: Once
again, we go back to internal Syrian affairs. The opposition calls for
you to step down. If you believe that stepping down will restore
security and stability to Syria, what would you do?
President Assad:
This is decided only by the people. That is why I say to them: if you
believe that you are right why don’t you convince the Syrian people, and
the Syrian people will decide, through their institutions or the
elections, who the president should be. There were elections last year.
Where were you? What did you do? What is your impact on the street?
Nothing. Their impact is nothing. Every person who lends his decisions
to another country is despised by the Syrian people, and his influence
will be zero. He becomes a mere talking head in the media. All those who
believe in such a proposition should take part in the elections and try
to prove their viewpoints. We have no objection. As for me personally, I
say once again that if my departure is the solution, I will never
hesitate to do that.
Question 37: This
interview will be translated into a number of languages and many
members of your opposition will watch this. What is your message to
them?
President Assad:
The real opposition is that which belongs to the people. If any person
is convinced that he opposes the government, we tell him to speak out
for the concerns of the Syrian citizens. If you speak out for the
concerns, aspirations and desires of this citizen and act in his best
interest, he will consider you his representative, and you will have a
role in your country whether others wanted that or not. No one can stand
against the people. But don’t call yourself a member of the opposition
if you are an agent for another country. To be in opposition means to be
patriotic. There is no unpatriotic opposition. Any unpatriotic
individual is not a member of the opposition, he is a foreign agent.
Question 38: what is your message to the leaders of the countries which oppose you?
President Assad:
I ask them to tell their people the truth one day. They always say the
truth after they leave politics, because they act for their electoral
interests. I tell them briefly: work for your national not electoral
interests. 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”.
Journalist: Thank
you very much for availing us of this opportunity to talk with you. If
there is any other points you want to make, please go ahead.
President Assad:
Thank you for coming to Syria; and I would like to send, through you,
to the brotherly Iranian people my best greetings and all my love. The
main part of the history that will be written in Syria after victory,
God willing, will be dedicated to Iran’s support to Syria in all
economic, political, and military fields. Thank you once more.
Journalist: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
No comments:
Post a Comment