Syrian official, others discuss Annan’s Lebanon report, Middle East issues
Source: Al-Jazeera TV, Doha
2 Oct 04
Walid al-Mu’allim Syrian deputy foreign minister and former ambassador
to Washington, has said that “the Syrian presence in Lebanon is an
issue that is to be decided by the Syrian and Lebanese governments.
They are the only sides that are aware of their own interests and that
can make decisions according to them.”
Walid al-Mu’allim; Rafiq Khuri, chief editor of Lebanese newspaper
Al-Anwar; and Joshua Muravchik, researcher at the American Enterprise
Institute; were guests of the “Open Dialogue” discussion programme
moderated by Ghassan Bi-Jiddu in Beirut and broadcast live by Qatari
Al-Jazeera satellite TV.
An audience composed of several unidentified individuals also
participate in the discussion later on in the programme. The
discussion revolves around the Annan report on Syria and Lebanon, the
assassination of a Hamas member in Damascus and the attempt on the
life of a former Lebanese minister.
Introducing the programme, Bin-Jiddu briefly explains the Syrian, US
and Lebanese stances and asks: “Why this tense atmosphere between
Damascus and Washington and has Lebanon once again become an arena for
settling regional and international scores, or is the attempted
assassination of the former Lebanese minister just a passing
incident?”
Bin-Jiddu then begins the discussion by asking Walid al-Mu’allim, the
Syrian deputy foreign minister, to comment on Kofi Annan’s report. The
Syrian official says:
“I must say that Mr Annan presented his report only yesterday. This
report is being studied by the Syrian leadership and the position on
it will be announced shortly. Annan’s report can be divided into three
parts: A historical part, in which Syria’s role in stopping the civil
war in Lebanon is made clear, another part speaks about the resolution
and the last part contains conclusions.
“With all due respect to Mr Annan, in his capacity as the UN
secretary-general, he is not expected to consider whether it is
possible to implement the resolution within 30 days. This is up to the
members of the UN Security Council to decide. He concentrated on
describing the facts.”
Bin-Jiddu tells Al-Mu’allim that he has heard that Damascus considers
this report to be fair and asks him if “this can be taken as official,
that Syria does not consider Annan’s report to be provocative, that it
was an escalation and was essentially negative towards Syria and
Lebanon.” Al-Mu’allim says: “It is not negative. I cannot describe it
as negative but I cannot say that it is accurate. It is not negative
because it describes developments and the developments between Syria
and Lebanon have been positive. As for accuracy, it is not perfectly
accurate.”
When asked by Bin-Jiddu to elaborate further, Al-Mu’allim says: “When
the secretary-general says that Syria and Lebanon did not abide by the
implementation of the resolution, it is a big indication that it [the
report] is inaccurate.”
Bin-Jiddu then asks Rafiq Khuri to comment. He says that the report
discusses points raised by Syria and Lebanon. He notes that Annan says
that Syria and Lebanon have not implemented the second phase of the
Syrian redeployment and other matters. He says that Annan discussed “a
point that Lebanon has always avoided; namely, the 1949 truce
agreement with Israel.” He says Lebanon now says it cannot dispatch
forces to the borders as required because the truce agreement
stipulates that Lebanon can only send 1,500 soldiers to the entire
southern region.
Bin-Jiddu then asks Joshua Muravchik to comment. Speaking in English
with simultaneous translation in Arabic, Muravchik says that Annan’s
report is “a positive step” towards implementing Resolution 1559. He
says that Syria is an occupying power in Lebanon and that Lebanon is
one of the last “few islands” that are still in the phase of
colonization and he points out that Syria has “annulled” Lebanon’s
independence and must withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon. He
dismisses comparing Syria’s “occupation” of Lebanon with the US
occupation of Iraq as irrelevant because the United States plans to
withdraw when a strong government takes over power in Iraq.
Turning back to Al-Mu’allim, Bin-Jiddu asks him why the United States
is putting pressure on Damascus. Al-Mu’allim says: “I must comment on
what Mr Muravchik said. It seems he needs to read carefully what has
been happening in Lebanon since 1975. He needs to read carefully the
description that the UN secretary-general presented in his report of
the history and development of the Lebanese civil war and the two
Israeli invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and in 1982. Mr Muravchik needs
to know that Syria is in Lebanon at the request of the legitimate
Lebanese authority. It is not an occupier. Indeed, Syria ended the
Lebanese civil war. It did not wreak destruction in Lebanon as we are
witnessing what is happening daily in Iraq. Syria is not an occupying
power and not a colonial power. Syria ended the Lebanese civil war and
took care of the unity of the Lebanese territory and people, and
established the best relations possible with sisterly Lebanon. He
should read history carefully.
“When he speaks of implementing Resolution 1559 in the name of
democracy, Mr Muravchik ignores 40 UN Security Council resolutions on
the Arab-Israeli struggle. Does Mr Muravchik have anything to say on
what we should do with the 40 resolutions that Israel has refused to
implement? Indeed, Israel challenged the international community and
the United Nations, including the United States, which voted for these
resolutions.”
Bin-Jiddu again asks Al-Mu’allim to explain why Washington is putting
pressure on Syria. Al-Mu’allim says: “First of all, based on the
studies that were presented to it from some institutions, such as the
Enterprise Institute, the United States does not want anything
specific from Syria but rather wants Syria to submit to its will. In
its policy, Syria applies its principles. It says yes or no only in
accordance with its political principles. Washington wants to
subjugate the region and bring it under its domination. Colonialism
has many forms. It has old forms and new forms. It aims at
domination. Syria has remained a difficult figure in this equation and
will continue to be so.
“Therefore we deal with the United States in the hope that the
Americans will understand that Syria is serious in its cooperation and
dialogue within the framework of its principles. One of the first
priorities of our policy is to find a fair and comprehensive solution
for the Arab-Israeli struggle, a solution that will implement the UN
resolutions, restore to the Palestinian people their rights and
establish for them their state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
Asked his opinion, Khuri says that the problem is political rather
than legal, adding that the United States approved Syria’s entry into
Lebanon in the 1970s and 1980s. He says after 9/11, the US strategy
was turned upside down, pointing out that the Israeli-Arab dispute is
no longer the main problem and has been replaced by the war on
terrorism. He gives a historical background and lists the events that
took place after 9/11. He says the United States no longer accepts
regional roles by states in the area and it has become a Middle East
power.
A member of the audience then gives his opinion, blaming Syria for the
many “ills” in Lebanon, the assassinations that took place, the
“suppression of freedoms.” He also says that the economic and security
reserves are deteriorating in Lebanon with the Syrian presence. He
says that Lebanon wants good relations with Syria but wants to be free
and independent. He says: “If it wants to defend Lebanon against
Israel, why does it not liberate the Golan Heights before thinking
about Lebanon?” Other members of the audience also speak, giving
divergent views on the issue.
Asked if the United States will confine its actions to the United
Nations or whether it will go further and use force against Syria,
Muravchik says he does not think that the United States will use force
against Syria and that “we have enough fighting in Iraq at present.”
He adds: “It is no secret that the post-war period in Iraq is much
more difficult than had been expected. We want peace established in
the country and we want an elected government.” He notes that the
United States wants to see Lebanon independent once again. He says he
agrees with Al-Mu’allim that Syria played a useful role in Lebanon at
the beginning but wonders why Syria is still there 30 years later. He
says Syria continues to allow terrorists to use its territory and “we
will continue our pressure on Syria to close all offices of
terrorists.” He says the United States calls for democracy all over
the region and wants to see in Syria reform, a free press and a more
representative government.
Asked whom he means by terrorists, Muravchik says there are
“Palestinian terrorist groups” in Syria and that Syria cooperates with
Iran and Hezbollah.
Asked to comment on Muravchik’s remarks, Al-Mu’allim says: “First of
all, the Israeli dimension in the current issue has always been there
even before the war against Iraq. Indeed, this is part of the war
against Iraq. Secondly, I would like to tell Joshua that those he
calls terrorists are not like that. We cooperate with the United
Nations and many countries, including the United States, to combat
international terrorism. As for the Palestinian and non-Palestinian
resistance, the UN Charter approves people’s right to resist foreign
occupation. The Palestinian offices in Damascus were voluntarily
closed. The leaders of these offices closed them voluntarily.
“Everybody knows that no operations have been launched from Syrian
territory. Moreover, what is going on today and what has been going
on for many years in Gaza and the Jabaliya refugee camp must draw Mr
Muravchik’s attention. He must realize that Israel, which he claims is
the only democracy in the region, is practising terrorism against
unarmed people under the gaze of the world and nobody is batting an
eye over this. When southern Lebanon was under Israeli occupation, I
did not read or hear from the institute that he represents any word in
defence of Lebanon’s legitimate right to liberate its territory. It
was the people of Lebanon who liberated the Lebanese territory and not
others from abroad.
“I agree with what Mr Khuri said that there have been many attempts
since 9/11 to change priorities. For instance, Israel wants to tell
the entire world that what is going on in Iraq is much more serious
than what is happening in the Palestinian territory and the
Arab-Israeli conflict because it wants to dissociate itself from the
requirements of peace and wants to have a free hand in killing and
destroying the Palestinian people. Moreover, we all are aware of the
mistakes that were presented as pretexts for the war against Iraq, why
the pretexts for the war were blown out of proportion and who was
behind this exaggeration. You might be surprised to know that Israel’s
UN representative was the only representative who praised UN
Resolution 1559. Why? Because he considered it a realization of
Israel’s strategic interests.
“They now want to transform the situation in Lebanon into an
international conflict, bringing back to memory what happened in the
region before, with the aim of putting pressure Lebanon and
Syria. Concerning its regional role, Syria does not seek this role but
the role itself is seeking it. Hundreds and even thousands of Iraqis
are seeking refuge in Syria, looking for safety. The Iraqi Christian
brothers are seeking refuge in Damascus; they are being treated with
respect and we care for them. This is Syria’s history. Syria welcomed
the Armenian refugees, the Sirkassian refugees. Syria has a regional
dimension. It does not seek this dimension but this dimension is
imposed on it. I do not believe that anyone who is 5,000 km from this
region can deny Syria this role.
“As for democracy in Syria, the reforms and the remarks by the expert
Mr Muravchik, we always look for democracy. But in order for me to
believe him, I would like him to tell me: What will he do with the 40
UN Security Council resolutions that Israel did not implement? These
resolutions called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied Arab
territories. I would like to remind him that the Golan is part of
these occupied Arab territories. Throughout the 10 years of the peace
process, we have played a political role but did not reach a
solution. I believe that if he looks at memorandums issued in the
United States and recently in Israel, he will understand that Israel
has always evaded the requirements of peace. If he has anything to say
about this, then I will be able to discuss with him the question of
democracy. However, the Syrians know their problems and their future
more than others do.”
Asked why all US policies are aimed at meeting Israeli’s interests,
incurring the anger of the Arab and Islamic worlds because of what
they see as “US bias in Israel’s favour,” Muravchik says that he does
not believe that the United States is committed to Israel’s interest
but rather to its existence. He says that many Arab officials had
declared that they wanted to destroy Israel. He says Israel is not
working to destroy any Arab state but the only existence that is in
danger is Israel’s. He says if there is peace between Israel and Syria
it would be a great step towards realizing peace in the region. He
also says that democracy will be of great benefit to Syria.
Rafiq Khuri says that Lebanon should be more flexible, but the weapons
in refugee camps in southern Lebanon are useless and harmful because
they will only create internal troubles in the south. He says that
Hezbollah will not be liquidated but will have a political and social
role in Lebanon. He says liquidating Hezbollah’s military role may not
be possible at present but this role will end when Israel changes its
policy.
Hamzah al-Bashtawi, a member of the audience and a Palestinian refugee
in Lebanon, then gives his views, explaining the “atrocities”
perpetrated against the Palestinian people and the Palestinians’
desire to return to their homeland and regain their rights. He says
that “Zionist terrorism is pursuing the Palestinians everywhere.”
Bin-Jiddu then asks Al-Mu’allim about the assassination of a Hamas
cadre in Damascus, saying that Israel has virtually admitted that it
carried out the assassination. He says that the Israeli newspapers
Ma’ariv and Ha’aretz said that “the operation is a message to Syria
that Syria is no longer immune to such attacks.” Al-Mu’allim says:
“Brother Ghassan, I respond to them by saying: Do not wager on
Damascus’s patience. Syria has acted patiently and responsibly but I
warn you not to wager on Damascus’s patience. The issue of security in
Syria is a red line and we will not allow anybody to tamper with the
security of Syrian citizens. That the Israelis should claim
responsibility for what happened makes it state terrorism. This is a
crime of state terrorism and Israel has claimed responsibility for it.
“Concerning what Mr Muravchik said, I have two points to make. He said
that the late President Hafiz al-Asad did not want an agreement with
Israel. I am surprised. He is a researcher in the Enterprise Institute
but he is not very careful about what he says. I do not have to tell
him who rejected peace. I tell him to read what Uri Sagi wrote in the
newspaper Yediot Aharonot two days ago. He should carefully read what
President Clinton said in his memoirs and he should even read what
Dennis Ross said. He must correct this information.
“Concerning Resolution 1559, I would like to say something about what
Syria and Lebanon have in common. After Lebanon’s long period of
suffering and after its civil war, more than 1.5 million tourists
visited Lebanon this year, thanks to the Lebanese national
accord. Tampering with the national peace of the Lebanese is also
forbidden. Concerning the resolution, we respect international
legitimacy resolutions but this respect does not mean that we should
promote mistakes. This resolution was adopted on an incorrect
basis. It contravened the seventh paragraph of Article 2 of the UN
Charter, which says that the United Nations must not interfere in the
internal affairs of states.
“Therefore, I say that there are two basic documents between Syria and
Lebanon. They are the Lebanese National Agreement signed in Al-Ta’if
and the Treaty of Coordination and Brotherhood that was ratified in
1991. I say that the Syrian presence in Lebanon is an issue that is to
be decided by the Syrian and Lebanese governments. They are the only
sides that are aware of their own interests and that can make
decisions according to them.”