Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Syrian official, others discuss Annan's Lebanon report, ME issues

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Syrian official, others discuss Annan's Lebanon report, ME issues

    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."
Working...
X