cta-image

Donate

Donations from readers like you allow us to do what we do. Please help us continue our work with a monthly or one-time donation.

Donate Today
cta-image

Subscribe Today

Subscribe to receive daily or weekly MEMRI emails on the topics that most interest you.
Subscribe
cta-image

Request a Clip

Media, government, and academia can request a MEMRI clip or other MEMRI research, or ask to consult with or interview a MEMRI expert.
Request Clip
memri
Dec 05, 2005
Share Video:

Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad: Why Investigate Al-Hariri's Assassination and Not Arafat's Assassination, Arafat Was More Important

#950 | 08:39
Source: Syrian TV

Following are excerpts from an interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, which aired on Syrian TV on December 5, 2005. The interview was given to Channel 3 of the French TV.

Bashar Al-Assad: There is no proof that Syria is involved (in the Al-Hariri assassination). There is no criminal evidence, and Syria does not have any interest or a history of similar actions. On the contrary, we have an interest in the investigation getting to the truth, because the truth is, from our perspective, that Syria is completely innocent. I have no doubt about this. Therefore, the investigation must be fair and professional.

[...]

The problem now is not a dispute between Syria and the UN. The problem is that this UN, and particularly the Security Council, have become a tool serving to implement the will of a handful of politicians in the world, whenever they have a dispute with any country. They are not necessarily doing this for the sake of their countries' interests. I believe that they are using the Security Council against their countries' interests and against our own interests. Therefore, the solution – we shouldn't call it a settlement but a solution – is perfectly clear. We must return to the UN Charter. If we implement the UN Charter, Syria would benefit directly. There is no need for settlements, because the solution is very simple.

[...]

France and America were involved in Resolutions 1559 and 1636. What are we to call this if not a "conspiracy"? Perhaps an act of charity. Names do not matter. This is reality, and we can call it whatever you like. But today, France is involved in resolutions of this kind, which do not serve stability in this region.

[...]

I do not understand how France can place all its efforts into investigating the assassination of Prime Minister Al-Hariri – something I understand and support – while it does not say a word about the assassination of President Arafat, who was assassinated in the Palestinian territories and who died in a French hospital. This event passed by without us knowing anything about it. Why these double standards? This is not characteristic of French policy. This is one of the things I don't understand, and I don't know if I can expect an answer soon.

[...]

Prime Minister Al-Hariri died on Lebanese soil, whereas President Arafat died on French soil. That's the first thing. Second, President Arafat had greater stature and was more important historically than Al-Hariri, with all due respect. It would be only natural for France to act out of moral reasons - justice is part of your constitution, after all... to act in this direction.

[...]

I do not hate President Chirac. On the contrary, I may have respected the man very much in the past for many reasons. But I want to differentiate between this relation and Syrian-French relations. It is not the same thing. During this period, these relations were not affected significantly. The relations may have been affected to some extent because of the (Al-Hariri case), and for other reasons concerning the diminishing French role in the Middle East, and which, at times, almost completely disappears.

[...]

The French people has a great history, which is distinguished from the history of many other peoples, even in Europe itself.

[...]

The truth is that this French role is now diminishing, as I just said. Sometimes it seems that this role is non-existent, and sometimes it seems to be subordinate to other roles. This never happened throughout the history of the French role. There are many reasons for this – political and maybe others, which require research. Ultimately, this is harmfujl, first of all, to the interests of the French people, it is harmful to the interests of Europe, to the interests of the world, and to our interests in the Middle East. You cannot separate Europe's interests from the Middle East, and the proof of this is what happened in the past: 9/11 in New York, the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, what is happening in Indonesia, what is happening in the Palestinian territories. Therefore, the French people must act again, through its institutions, to restore a French role, characterized by openness towards all cultures, and to reject the efforts to isolate this French culture, which has not been isolated for more than two hundred years, since the French Revolution.

[...]

They (the Americans) say that they cannot seal off their border with Mexico, so how can we seal off our border with Iraq? That's one thing. Hermetically sealing the borders of any country is theoretical and impossible. Nevertheless, Syria seals its border to a great degree. Let me give you an example with figures. They say they estimate the number of terrorists in Iraq to be between 1,000 and 3,000. They know that Syria has detained approximately 1,600 terrorists in the past two years. This number equals 52 to 160 percent of their estimate. In any event, everything that has been said on this matter is like running ahead or the policy of an ostrich burying its head in the sand in order to avoid seeing the truth. The basic danger that leads to terrorism in Iraq is, first and foremost, the wrong war, and second, the wrong political management of Iraq's affairs by the occupying forces. The reason Syria was accused was in order to divert the blame, so that they would not be held responsible. It's very simple.

[...]

The Muslim Brotherhood are present in a number of Arab countries. In each country they have leaders, and we have ties with some of them. Our problem, or the threat directed towards Syria, stems from some of them who believe in violence and who perpetrated acts of terrorism in Syria in the 1970s and 1980s, causing the deaths of thousands of Syrians. The problem is not one of name. The problem is the ideology that governs these groups, the extremism – regardless of whether this extremism is Islamist, Christian, Jewish, social, or political. Any kind of extremism leads to destruction. But the reasons for this extremism are, first of all, the international anarchy which exists in the world, the great political mistakes made by the superpowers, leading to a rise in the terrorism which is based on this extremism. Is Egypt or Syria worried? We are all worried. You will hear the same things and the same concern in any Arab country. Therefore, in order to remove the concern, we must first remove its cause.

[...]

As for the issues of peace, the Arab countries presented an initiative at the 2002 Arab summit in Beirut. This initiative demanded that Israel turn towards peace. But turning to peace requires a number of things. The first thing is the peoples' desire (for peace). The position of the Arab peoples regarding peace has not changed, despite the bad conditions they are witness to in the Middle East and maybe in most parts of the world. I believe that the Israeli people has distanced itself somewhat from peace, perhaps because of its leaders or due to internal political conditions. The American administration, which is a main sponsor of the peace process, is not interested in the peace process at all. We heard this from them, from the American officials, on a number of occasions. The role played by Europe, which is an important one, must change. Europe cannot play in the peace process the role of marketing American policy regarding the peace process, and nothing more. There must be an independent European role, coordinated with the American role. It should be coordinated with it, and not contradict it. This requires a European-American dialogue which does not exist at present. Therefore, I do not think that the peace process is near. We should be realistic. But every day that this process is delayed, there will be more blood, and the more blood there is, the more barriers are erected, and therefore the cost will be even higher.

Share this Clip: