Bashar al-Assad interview with France2

20 April 2015

David Pujadas: Good evening, Mr. President, I’d like to start straight forward. For most French, you are in a very large part responsible for the chaos going on in Syria, because of the brutality of the repression during the last four years. According to you, what is your part of responsibility?

Bashar al-Assad: Actually, since the first few weeks of the conflict, the terrorists infiltrated the situation in Syria with the support of Western countries and regional countries, and they started attacking the civilians and destroying public places, public properties and private properties, and that’s documented on the internet, by them, not by us. So, our role as government is to defend our society and our citizens. If you want to say what you said is correct after four years, how could a government or president that’s been brutal with his population, killing them, and with the support from the other side of the greatest countries and political powers in the world, with the petrodollars in our region… how could he withstand for four years? Is it possible to have the support of your public while you are brutal with your public?

David Pujadas: In the beginning, there were tens of thousands of people in the street. Were they all jihadists?

Bashar al-Assad: No, definitely not. But the other question is, if in the sixth day of the conflict, the first Syrian policeman was killed… how? By the peaceful demonstration? By the audio waves of the demonstrators? How? He’s been killed by terrorists. Somebody who took a gun and shot that policeman, so he’s a terrorist. It doesn’t matter if he’s a jihadist or not, because he killed a policeman.

David Pujadas: There were perhaps jihadists or terrorists, but our reporters were there at the beginning and they met a lot of people saying “we want more freedom, more democracy.” They weren’t terrorists or jihadists.

Bashar al-Assad: Definitely, everybody has the right to ask for his freedom, and every government should support freedom, of course, under the constitution. But does freedom mean to kill the civilians, to kill policemen, to destroy the schools, the hospitals, the electricity, the infrastructure? That’s not owned by the government; it’s owned by the Syrian people. It’s not owned by us, it’s not owned by me. Is that the freedom that you’re talking about?

David Pujadas: A lot of analysts and a lot of journalists say that you have helped ISIS to emerge, because it’s an opportunity for you to appear like a shield.

Bashar al-Assad: But ISIS was created in Iraq in 2006 under the supervision of the Americans. I’m not in Iraq and I wasn’t in Iraq. I wasn’t controlling Iraq. The Americans controlled Iraq, and ISIS came from Iraq to Syria, because chaos is contagious. When you have chaos at your neighborhood, you have to expect it in your area.

David Pujadas: But the word ISIS at the beginning…

Bashar al-Assad: Let me continue. Whenever you have chaos in a certain country, this is a fertile soil for the terrorists to come. So, when there is chaos in Syria, ISIS came to Syria. Before ISIS came al-Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda, and before that you had the Muslim Brotherhood. They all represent the same grassroots for ISIS to come later.

David Pujadas: So you have no responsibility at all for what happened since the last years in Syria?

Bashar al-Assad: Normally, things are not absolute. To have no responsibility is not precise, because everybody has a responsibility. We have our own problems in Syria. The government is responsible, every one of us is responsible, every Syrian citizen is responsible, but now I’m talking about what brought ISIS here: the chaos, and your government, the government – or if you want to call it regime – the French regime, as they call us, is responsible for supporting those jihadists that they called moderate opposition.

David Pujadas: France is supporting a coalition, national Syrian coalition. Are they terrorists?

Bashar al-Assad: The people who are supported now, who have Western armaments, they became ISIS, they were supported by your state, and by other Western states, by armaments, and that was announced by your Defense Minister. He announced it at the beginning of this year; he said we sent armaments. So, those people you called moderate, in 2012 before the rise of ISIS and before the West acknowledged the existence of al-Qaeda faction which is al-Nusra, they published videos where they eat the heart of a Syrian soldier, where they dismember other victims, and where they behead others. They published it, we didn’t. So, how can you ignore this reality, that they want to publish it, and tell you this is the fact?

David Pujadas: Let’s talk about the present. It appears that the Syrian army continues to utilize indiscriminate weapons like barrel bombs, which have devastating effects on civilians. Why don’t you change this strategy?

Bashar al-Assad: We never heard in our army of indiscriminate killing weapons, because no army, including our army, will accept to use weaponry that doesn’t aim, because it will be of no use. You can’t use it, I mean from a military point of view. This is first. Second, when you want to talk about indiscriminate killing, it’s not about the weapon; it’s about the way you use it, and the proof of that is the drones, the American drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan, they killed more civilians than terrorists. They are the highest precision weapon in the world. So, it’s not about the kind of bomb. We have regular bombs, regular armaments.

David Pujadas: You don’t use barrel bombs?

Bashar al-Assad: What is a barrel bomb? Can you tell me what it is?

David Pujadas: There are several documents, videos, and photographs like this, where you see a barrel bomb dropped by helicopters. This is Aleppo, this is Hama a few months ago, one year ago. Only Syrian army has helicopters, so what can you answer?

Bashar al-Assad: This is not proof. These are two pictures of two things. No one can link them to each other.

David Pujadas: Aleppo, Hama.

Bashar al-Assad: No, no. This picture that you mentioned here, what is it? I have never seen such a thing in our army. I’m not talking about the helicopters, I’m talking about two pictures. How can you relate between the two?

David Pujadas: You say it’s a fake? It’s a false document?

Bashar al-Assad: No, no, it has to be verified, but in our army we only use regular bombs that could be aimed. So, we don’t have any armament that could be shelled indiscriminately. That’s it.

David Pujadas: But this helicopter, only the Syrian army has helicopters.

Bashar al-Assad: Yes, of course, I didn’t say we didn’t have helicopters, that we don’t use it. I’m talking about the armaments. They aim to target the terrorists. Why to kill indiscriminately? Why to kill the civilians? The war in Syria is about winning the hearts of the people, it’s not about killing people. If you kill people, you cannot be in your position, as a government, or as president. It’s impossible.

David Pujadas: What about chemical weapons? You committed two years ago not to use chemical weapons. Did you use chlorine gas in the battle of Idleb last month?

Bashar al-Assad: No, this is another fake narrative by the Western governments. Why? Because we have two factories of chlorine. One of them is closed for a few years now, it’s not used anyway, and the other one is in the northern part in Syria, which is the most important factory than the first one. It’s on the Turkish border, it’s under the control of the terrorists for two years, and we sent formal documents to the United Nations regarding that factory. They wanted to come and they sent us a formal response, they couldn’t reach it. So, the chlorine in Syria is under the control of the rebels. This is first. Second, this is not a WMD, it’s not a weapon of mass destruction. The regular armaments that we have are more influential than chlorine, so we don’t need it anyway.

David Pujadas: But there are investigations, you must have seen that, from HRW, about last month in Idleb. Three attacks with chlorine smell, with symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic gas, that is what was concluded this investigation. These three attacks took place in territory controlled by armed opposition groups. HRW, are they liars?

Bashar al-Assad: We didn’t use it. We don’t need to use it. We have our regular armaments, and we could achieve our goals without it. So, we don’t use it. No, there’s no proof.

David Pujadas: There are witnesses, there are testimonies of doctors.

Bashar al-Assad: No, no. We ask, in every allegation regarding the chemical weapons in the past, in the present, we were the party who asked the international institutions to send delegations for investigations. We are, not the opposite, actually. And our soldiers were exposed to sarine gas two years ago, and we invited the United Nations to make investigations. How could we invite them while we are using them? That’s neither true nor reasonable.

David Pujadas: Are you ready to invite them again, on Idleb?

Bashar al-Assad: We already did. We always invite. We don’t have a problem with that.

David Pujadas: Now, an international coalition led by the U.S. is bombing ISIS from the air. Is it a problem for you, or is it help for you?

Bashar al-Assad: It’s neither, none of them. Because it’s not a problem of course if you attack terrorists, but at the same time, if you’re not serious, you don’t help us.

David Pujadas: Why not serious?

Bashar al-Assad: If you want to make a comparison between the number of air raids of the coalition of 60 countries, while we are one country, a small country, what we do is tenfold, sometimes, than what they do in one day. IS that serious? It took them to liberate what they call in the media Kobani city, on the Turkish borders, it took them four months to liberate it, in spite of having Syrian fighters on the ground. So, they’re not serious so far. And the other proof is that ISIS has expanded in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in the region in general. So, how can you say that it was effective? They’re not serious, that’s why they don’t make any help to anyone in this region.

David Pujadas: There have been thousands of strikes of coalition in the beginning, but France only is striking in Iraq. Would you like France to join the coalition to strike in Syria?

Bashar al-Assad: As I said, they’re not serious anyway. The coalition against terrorism cannot be formed by countries who support the terrorists at the same time, so we don’t care whether they attack it in Syria, or Iraq, or both, as long as they support the same terrorists at the same time. They send weapons to the same terrorists under the title of moderate opposition when Obama said it’s elusive, so the armaments will actually go to whom? To the terrorists. So, this is contradiction. It doesn’t work.

David Pujadas: You have the same enemy with France: ISIS. There have been attacks in France in January. For that moment, did your intelligence service have contact with French intelligence services?

Bashar al-Assad: There are some contacts, but there’s no cooperation.

David Pujadas: What do you mean by contacts?

Bashar al-Assad: We met with them, we met with some of your security officials, but there’s no cooperation.

David Pujadas: No exchange of information?

Bashar al-Assad: No, nothing at all.

David Pujadas: So, why did you meet them?

Bashar al-Assad: They came to Syria, we didn’t go to France. They came, maybe for some exchange of information, but when you want to have this kind of cooperation, it’s a two-directions way, so it’s about we help them, they help us. Now, according to the reality that’s related to your politics or to the policy of the French government, we should help them, while they support the terrorists and kill our people, so it doesn’t work.

David Pujadas: Did France ask for contact with your intelligence services?

Bashar al-Assad: Yes, we met with them. There was a meeting with them.

David Pujadas: It was France asking?

Bashar al-Assad: Yes. We don’t have anything to ask from the French intelligence. We have all the information about the terrorists.

David Pujadas: There are hundreds of French fighting with ISIS in Syria. Did you arrest some of them? Are there some French people from ISIS now in Syrian jails?

Bashar al-Assad: No, in the prisons we don’t have any of them, we only have information, because the majority of those jihadists, they come here to fight and to die and to go to Heaven, that’s their ideology. So they’re not ready to go to any prison.

David Pujadas: So, there are none in jail?

Bashar al-Assad: No, in jail we don’t have any of them.

David Pujadas: There are some people nowadays in France, some politicians, some MPs, you have received some of them these last days, they say that it’s time to dialogue with you. What initiative would you be ready to take to convince the others that you can become a partner for dialogue?

Bashar al-Assad: With them?

David Pujadas: With France.

Bashar al-Assad: They have to convince me first, that they don’t support terrorists, that they are not involved in the blood shedding of the Syrian people first. They made the mistake regarding Syria, we didn’t kill any French or European people. We didn’t help terrorists in your country. We didn’t help the Charlie Hebdo. You helped the terrorists, so your country, Western officials, should convince us that they don’t support terrorists. But we are ready for any dialogue, taking into consideration that it’s going to be for the interest of the Syrian citizens.

David Pujadas: So at this moment, you are not interested in dialogue with France.

Bashar al-Assad: No, we are always interested in dialogue with anyone, but that is based on the policy. How can we make dialogue with a regime that supports terrorists in our country, and what for? That’s the question. When they change their policy, we’ll be ready to make dialogue, but without that policy, there’s no aim for the dialogue. You don’t make dialogue for the sake of dialogue; you make it in order to reach certain results, and that result for me is for this government to stop supporting the terrorists in my country.

David Pujadas: So, you would have no message to send to Francois Hollande in the objective of dialogue?

Bashar al-Assad: I think the main message that should be sent to him is by the French people, and the poll in France will tell you what message Hollande should listen to, which is, as the most unpopular president in the history of France since the 50s, should take care of his population and prevent terrorists from coming to France. For me, as somebody who suffering with his citizens, with the other citizens in Syria, from terrorists, I think the most important message is what you’ve been seeing in France is only the tip of the iceberg. When you talk about terrorism, you have a full mountain under the sea. Be aware of this mountain that will inflict your society.

David Pujadas: When John Kerry, the United States, said perhaps we will have dialogue with Mr. Bashar Assad, with President Assad, after he came back to another position, but you said ok, these are words, I want acts, I’m ready for dialogue. So, you are ready for dialogue?

Bashar al-Assad: Of course, we are ready. I said we are ready, with every country in this world, including the great powers in the world, including France. But I said dialogue should be based on a certain policy. The spearhead against Syria, the spearhead that supports terrorism in Syria, was first France, second UK, not the US this time. Obama acknowledged that the moderate opposition is illusive.. he said that it is fantasy.

David Pujadas: He said it’s a phantasm to think that we could arm them and they could win the war, but he didn’t say there were no moderate opposition.

Bashar al-Assad: Exactly. What’s the meaning of “we could arm them and they couldn’t win the war?” What does it mean? What does fantasy mean? They said they’re going to arm the moderate opposition. Can you tell me what is it, where it is? We don’t see it. We live in Syria, you live in France. I live here, I don’t find it to fight it, if we have to fight it. We don’t find it.

David Pujadas: You say there are foreign countries, too much foreign countries, involved in the Syria conflict, but without Iranian support, without Hezbollah support, would you be able to fight against terrorism now? I mean, you denounced that foreign countries are involved in Syria, but on your part there is Iranian and Hezbollah support for you.

Bashar al-Assad: There’s a big difference between intervention and invitation. Every country, every government in the world, every state, has the right to invite any other country or party or organization to help in any domain, while no country has the right to intervene without invitation. So, we invited Hezbollah. We didn’t invite the Iranians, they’re not here, they didn’t send any troops.

David Pujadas: There are no Iranians here fighting with you?

Bashar al-Assad: No, no, they don’t fight. We have regular relations with Iran for more than three decades. We have commanders, officers coming and going between the two countries based on the cooperation that existed between us for a long time. This is different from fighting. So, we as a government have the right to have such kind of cooperation, but France and other countries don’t have the right to support anyone within our country. This is a breach of the international law, this is a breach of our sovereignty, this a breach of the values that they’ve been proudly talking about – or allegedly some of them talk about – for decades now, maybe for centuries. One of these values is democracy. Is it democracy to send armaments to terrorists? To support rebels? Do I have the right to support the terrorists of Charlie Hebdo or something similar?

David Pujadas: You know what the French Prime Minister said recently about you. He said “he’s a butcher.” What’s your response?

Bashar al-Assad: First of all, let me be frank with you. The statements of the officials in France, no-one is taking them seriously now, for one reason: because France is a satellite somehow to the American policy in the region. It’s not independent, it doesn’t have the weight, it doesn’t have the credibility. This is first. Second, as an official, you always care about the opinion of the population and Syrain citizens. I’m not made in France or any other country. I’m here because of the Syrian citizens, and that’s what you have to take care of.

David Pujadas: Do you think, one day, you will win this war, and that everybody, everything will go on like before, and Syria will go like before, with nothing changed?

Bashar al-Assad: No, nothing should be as before, because you make things as before means you didn’t develop, you didn’t learn from the conflict. This conflict has many lessons. We have to learn from the lessons, and we have to make things not like before, but better, and there’s a big difference.

David Pujadas: And with Bashar Assad ruling Syria?

Bashar al-Assad: I don’t care about this. I care about what the Syrian people want. If they want Bashar al-Assad, he will stay. If they don’t want him, he has to leave right now. I mean, how can he govern without the support of his public? Can he? He cannot.

David Pujadas: How can you know that you have the support of your population?

Bashar al-Assad: First of all, when you don’t have support, they won’t support the army, you will not withstand for four years. How can you withstand without their support?

David Pujadas: Perhaps they’re scared.

Bashar al-Assad: They are 23 millions. How can 23 millions be scared of one person, or one intelligence, or one government? That’s not realistic, not rational.

David Pujadas: You think it’s democracy now in Syria? You think people can really say what they think?

Bashar al-Assad: No, we were on the way to democracy, it’s a process, it’s a long way. There’s no place you reach it, you say this is democracy. If you want to compare me to the West, to France, and other countries, no, you are much ahead of us, definitely, because of your history and because of many other circumstances and factors. If you want to compare me to your closest friend, Saudi Arabia, of course we are democratic. So, it depends on how you compare me.

David Pujadas: If you were convinced that leaving the power would mean peace for Syria, would you do it?

Bashar al-Assad: Without hesitation. If that were the case, without hesitation, I would leave of course. If I’m the reason of conflict in my country, I shouldn’t be here. That’s self-evident.

David Pujadas: I wanted to show you another photograph. This is Gilles Jacquier. He was a journalist in our channel, France 2. He was killed here in Syria 3 years ago. You had promised an investigation about that to know who killed him. What can you tell us about this investigation today?

Bashar al-Assad: Regardless of the allegations at that time that we killed him, he was in a residential area under the control of the government, and he was killed by a mortar, not by a bullet, so the self-evident thing is that the government wouldn’t shell itself or the residential area of its supporters by mortars. So, it’s very clear, everybody knows, and many French media at the time acknowledged that he was killed by a mortar that was shelled by what you call the opposition, actually they are terrorists. So, he was definitely killed by them, but if you want to about – are you asking about the investigation?

David Pujadas: Yes. There has been an investigation? Would you give the result of this investigation you have to prove for French justice?

Bashar al-Assad: No, we don’t have to prove. We have legal procedures, and whenever we have any crime in Syria, we follow these procedures, like any other country. You have a judicial system in Syria, you have regular procedures; so if you want to know about the details, after this interview you can be referred to the involved or interested institution.

David Pujadas: And you would ok to give this information to French justice?

Bashar al-Assad: Of course, we don’t have any problem.

David Pujadas: If French justice would like to send investigators here, policemen, judge, would you be willing to?

Bashar al-Assad: That depends on the agreement between the two governments, if you have agreement or, let’s say, a treaty or such a thing, regarding the judicial systems in the two countries and the cooperation between these two systems, we don’t have a problem, but it’s not a political decision.

David Pujadas: Thank you, Mr. President.

Bashar al-Assad: Thank you for coming.

 

... 

END

President's Interview with Czech Newspaper Literarni Noviny

15/01/2015
The Czech newspaper Literarni Noviny has interviewed President Bashar al-Assad. Find the full text of the interview below.

Question 1: Mr. President, I would like to start from the beginning. Less than a decade ago, Syria was building its relations with the west, and you were implementing World Bank-proposed reforms, and Mr. Kerry, until 2010, I believe, used to call you “my dear friend,” and somehow, overnight, everything changed, and you became a dictator and a Hitler and so on. What’s your opinion about that? How can you explain this dramatic change?

President Assad: In fact, I haven’t changed, neither have we changed our policies, values or principles. The problem lies with the West, and it’s not a new problem. It is related to the independence of our country. In fact, this is the problem of the west with many other countries, including Syria. During the period you refer to concerning relations with the West, between 2008 and 2010, relations were good, but in fact they were not based on mutual respect. For instance, France wanted Syria to play a role with Iran concerning the nuclear file. What was required was not to be part of that file, but to convince Iran to take steps which are against its interests. We refused to do that. They also wanted us to take a position against resistance in our region before putting an end to Israeli occupation and aggression against the Palestinians and other neighboring countries. We refused that too. They wanted us to sign the Euro-Association Agreement which was against our interests and was meant to turn our country into an open market for their products while giving us a very small share of their markets. We refused to do that because it is against the interests of the Syrian people.

These are a few examples of that relationship, and that’s why they took that decision. The same is happening now with Russia; two decades ago, Russia was a close friend of the West. Suddenly, Russia became an aggressive country; and the West started to demonize President Putin, and the same propaganda was used in both the Syrian and Russian cases. So, the problem has to do with the independence of these countries. The West wants client states ruled by puppets. This is the core issue with the West. It has nothing to do with democracy, freedom, or supporting the people in the region. An example is what happened in Libya and the continuing killing in Syria with Western support.

Question 2: But in those times, the beginning of the so-called American war on terrorism, Syria used to help the CIA in the rendition programs and interrogating and torturing people. Why did you join that program?

President Assad: You mean before the crisis?

Journalist: Yes

President Assad: We have been suffering from extremism for more than five decades. And terrorism, in its stark shape, appeared in Syria in the 1970s. At that time we called for international cooperation to fight terrorism. Nobody cared about that then. In the West, they were not aware of this problem. That’s why we have always been ready to help and cooperate with any country that wants to fight terrorism. And for that reason we helped the Americans, and we are always ready to join any country which is sincere about fighting terrorism. We will never change our position in that regard, before, during, or after the crisis. The problem of the west is that it did not understand how to deal with this issue. They believed that fighting terrorism is similar to a computer game, which is not true. Fighting terrorism should be through culture, the economy, and in different fields.

Question 3: Regarding this question of terrorism, you heard about events in France recently, what are your comments about that?

President Assad: When you talk about terrorism, about killing civilians, and regardless of the political position, agreement or disagreement with the people who have been killed, this is a case of terrorism; and we are against killing innocent people anywhere in the world. This is our principle.

We are one of the countries which best understand this issue because we have been suffering from terrorism for the past four years and we lost thousands of innocent lives in Syria. That’s why we sympathize with the families of those victims. However, and at the same time, we want to remind many people in the West that we have been talking about these repercussions since the beginning of the crisis in Syria. We have been saying, you shouldn't support terrorism and provide it with a political umbrella, because this will reflect on your countries and your people.

They didn't listen to us. Western politicians were short-sighted and narrow-minded. What happened in France proved that what we said was true. At the same time, this incident brought European policies to account, because they are responsible for what happened in our region, for what happened in France, and maybe what happened earlier in other European countries.

Question 4: In your opinion, what is the best way to fight terrorism?

President Assad: If we want to talk about the reality now, we need to fight terrorists because they are killing innocent people, and we have to defend these people. This is the most important and urgent method to deal with it. But if we want to talk about the crisis, fighting terrorism doesn’t need an army, but needs good policies. We should fight ignorance with culture and education, should build a good economy to fight poverty, and there should be an exchange of information among the countries concerned with fighting terrorism.

The problem cannot be addressed in the way they addressed it in Afghanistan, I mean what they did in Afghanistan in 2001. A group of Congressmen visited Damascus at that time and they were talking about invading Afghanistan in revenge for what happened in New York earlier. I said this is not how you should do it, because fighting terrorism is similar to treating cancer. You do not treat cancer by cutting it, but by extracting it. What happened in Afghanistan is that they cut the cancer, and the result was that it spread much faster. That’s why, as I said, we should focus on good policies, on the economy, and on culture and education.

Journalist: So, you used to repeat that to European politicians but they didn’t listen.

President Assad: Exactly.

Question 5: Do you feel that the European Union policies or the policies of European Union member states have changed towards Syria in the past year somehow?

President Assad: There is a slow and shy change, but they do not acknowledge that they were mistaken. They do not dare do that because they went too far: they demonized Syria, the state, the president, the army, and everything. What can they say to their public opinion now after four years? Shall they say they were mistaken? They cannot do that. That’s why they say that they acknowledge the existence of terrorism in our region, but add that it was all because of the president. They do not acknowledge anything else. So, there is some change, and we have contacts with some officials on different levels. These contacts are not announced of course, so we do not mention the names of the officials or the countries. These officials said that the European policies were wrong and that they wanted to rectify these policies. We don’t have a problem with that, because it is not a problem of love and hate, it is about the interests of states. But I don’t think they will make fast changes, because we haven’t seen any serious efforts made by any European country so far.

Question 6: Do you have some special opinion about the foreign policy of the Czech Republic towards Syria?

President Assad: If we look at the European Union in general, we see that its member states did not have the same position during the crisis. The Czech Republic and Romania were among the countries which maintained their relationship with Syria during the crisis, and this is important, although it doesn’t mean that they supported our government or agreed with it about everything or about some things, or anything of that kind. It means that as long as these relations were maintained, they were able to understand what’s going on in a better manner. So, concerning the Czech Republic, I can say that our relations were not very good before the crisis, but during the crisis it was shown that it had a much clearer vision than other countries. That has a number of reasons, but most importantly by maintaining these relations, it was able to see, analyze, and understand what is actually happening, and by so doing it can be more objective than other European countries.

Question 7: You mentioned demonizing Syria and yourself personally. I just want to hear your explanations about a couple of these allegations. For example, there is still a popular thesis that your refusal to step down is the sole reason for the war, for what is going on in the country. What do you have to say about this?

President Assad: No president can remain in his position, in such circumstances, without the support of the Syrian public opinion and the Syrian people, particularly that we are facing an aggression by the United States, most European countries, many regional countries, including some countries neighboring Syria like Turkey, Jordan, and some parties in Lebanon, and the Gulf countries with the billions of dollars they spend in Syria. How can we stand fast without the support of the Syrian people? This is self evident and cannot be denied by anyone except if they are talking about a superman; and in Syria we do not have a superman, we have a man. So, this shows that the Syrian people support their president; and consequently, can we talk about people supporting their president in order to have more killing and terrorism? We are talking here about the majority of the Syrian people, in their millions. Is it possible that all these people support the president only to be exposed to more terrorism? Isn't that an accusation to the Syrian people that they do not have a realistic vision? This doesn't make sense.

In fact, they support the president because they know that what happened in Syria from the beginning was because of the money spent by Qatar in support of demonstrations to create propaganda that there is a revolution in Syria. It was also because of the money spent by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to support terrorists with money, weapons, and logistic support. And then it was because of Turkey which has provided all logistic support and supply chancels to terrorists in Syria. There is also Jordan and some parties in Lebanon. This is the reality. This is what happened in Syria. It is not about the president or about him being in this position. The other question is: what is the relationship between the existence of ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and the president? Can we say that the cause of 9/11 in New York was President Bush, and that if Bush was changed, then 9/11 wouldn’t have happened? This is unrealistic and illogical. They know that, but they insist on continuing to tell these lies for the reasons I mentioned earlier. They do not dare acknowledge that they were mistaken, that they misread the situation in Syria, that they listened to ignorant officials in countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and that they sold their values for petrodollars. They allowed themselves to be led by these countries. This is the real reason for what happened in Syria not that the president did not step down or that he remained in his position.

Question 8: A second, very popular and still unchallenged allegation in the Czech Republic is that you are the mass killer of your own people. What do you think about that?

President Assad: It is the same answer. How can a president kill his people, and consequently his people become against him, and the whole world against him; and nevertheless he remains in his position? What is the power that keeps the president in this position? It is the same answer. This is unrealistic, as I said. The issue has nothing to do with stepping down. We are defending our people. I enjoy the support of the Syrian people because I defend this country. No president can kill his people, fight terrorists, fight the world, and yet remain in his position. This is unrealistic.

Question 9: And the newest one is that you are partner with ISIS, because the Syrian Army is not fighting ISIS, and ISIS isn’t fighting the Syrian Army.

President Assad: So, this means that I support ISIS in order for them to kill our soldiers, take our military bases, and at the same time benefit from ISIS. How is that? Once again, there is a contradiction in this. There is another widespread allegation in the west: that we are benefitting from the American strikes. Some of them said that. How? If we support ISIS, then we do not benefit from the American strikes, and if they say that we benefit from the American strikes, then we are against ISIS. Regardless of all that, I stress once more that we are fighting all sorts of terrorists, whether ISIS, Jabhet al-Nusra, or others. There is no single reason to say that we support ISIS. We don’t have any reason.

Question 10: Regarding ISIS, it looks like, at least from Europe, that radical Islam is gaining ground in the region, and it will be spreading and spreading. Do you think so, or is it just some kind of fad which will disappear in ten years’ time, or something like that?

President Assad: This radical Islam, from our perspective as moderate Muslims, is not Islam. There is no extremism in any religion, whether it is Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. All religions are moderate; and when there is extremism, it is a deviation from religion. If we want to use the term “radical Islam” as you said, I think it is true, because radical Islam has been instilled in the minds of the people of the region for more than four decades with the influence of Saudi money and the Wahabi interpretation of Islam, which is a very extreme interpretation, a deviation from true Islam, and constitutes the base of terrorism in this region. So, as long as money continued to flow in the same direction and for the same reasons, through religious schools and religious TV channels, and similar things, it will become more widespread, not only in our region, but in Europe too. What happened in France yesterday is a strong indication of that. I mean that this terrorist incident which happened in Paris did not happen in vacuum. It did not happen because some people wanted to avenge that publication of some cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. In fact, this is the normal and natural result of the extremist, closed-mined, and Dark Ages ideology which originates from Saudi Arabia. So, there is no reason to say that this ideology will recede in the near future unless the world puts an end to the flow of money in the wrong direction and in support of this extremist ideology which leads to this kind of terrorism.

Question 11: Last year, you said that the major battles in the Syrian war will be over, and now it will be time to start reconstruction in the country. Is that statement still valid?

President Assad: In fact, when war happens in any country, the most important area of the economy becomes the reconstruction of the country. This will be the largest part of our economy, and we have started to draw plans for the process of reconstruction. It’s not only about rebuilding the infrastructure, but also about rebuilding human beings. But now I’m talking about the economy.

Journalist: I’m asking about reconstruction because many countries support the war against Syria now, but as soon as reconstruction starts, they will be eager to take part in the process in order to make some money from rebuilding the same Syria which they are destroying now. Do you have some plans for this reconstruction, and what countries will be joining this effort?

President Assad: We have our plans of course, and we started in some areas where national reconciliation has been achieved and life is back to normal. It is a long-term plan and will include different parts of Syria where terrorists have caused destruction. As for the countries which might take part in reconstruction, the process will be selective and will not be open to everyone. I don’t believe that the Syrian people will accept the participation of any company from a hostile country which has been responsible, directly or indirectly, for shedding Syrian blood during the crisis. But since you are a Czech journalist, I can say that the Czech Republic might be one of the countries that might take part in the reconstruction process because it was more objective than most European countries, despite the pressures exercised on its government and officials to cut relations with Syria. That’s why we should show our appreciation for this position, and I can say that the door will be open for this kind of cooperation in this field of the economy.

Journalist: This sounds good for us, but I can’t imagine reconciliation happening in Syria after four years of war. I believe it is a very difficult process to try to overcome the hostilities which grew during this period. Can you describe to us the efforts you are making in this direction?

President Assad: Fortunately, you are raising this question at a time that reconciliation efforts have succeeded in many areas, and we are not talking about an imaginary thing or about wishful thinking. This has actually happened. In the beginning, the question we put to ourselves was the same question you are raising now. Will we succeed? Can people forget the hostilities and the blood? This is not easy, and it wasn’t easy in the beginning, particularly if you are dealing with different groups, some of which are extremist groups and reject reconciliation, like Jabhet al-Nusra and ISIS in some regions.

These groups have actually succeeded in undermining these efforts. But in other regions, where the majority of the groups insisted on achieving reconciliation, reconciliation succeeded, and the groups involved in it were able to drive the groups opposed to it out of their areas. If we want to talk about reality, the people who used to fight each other, on the side of the government or against it, have gone back to their normal life, rebuilt their friendships, and are dealing with each other on daily basis because they were friends and neighbors before the crisis and before the events.

In fact, reconciliation efforts succeeded in most areas because the people who took part in them realized that before reconciliation they were moving in the wrong direction. They also realized that they were used as tools in return for the money flowing from Qatar and Saudi Arabia and in the service of the closed-minded Muslim Brotherhood ideology of Erdogan in Turkey. They realized that they have done harm to their country, so they turned in the right direction, and here reconciliation was successful. So, my answer is that the process has succeeded, and that the doors are open now more than any time before for reconciliation. By time, more Syrians will join the reconciliation and more Syrians will realize that they cannot go on in the same direction, unless we want to destroy our society, ourselves, and our country completely.

Question 12: A kind of reconciliation might happen at the end of January in Moscow where your government will be discussing with at least some members of the exiled opposition. Do you expect some concrete results, and what do you think of this Russian initiative?

President Assad: I think that the Russian position is that they support Syria in fighting terrorism, which is very important. At the same time, it paves the way before a political path. Our position is similar, for we do not want to miss any political opportunity, and this is what we are trying to do. If we succeed, it’s a good thing. If we don’t, we will not lose anything. So, we are going to Russia not to start a dialogue, but to meet these different personalities to discuss the basis of dialogue when it starts: like the unity of Syria, containing terrorist organizations, supporting the army, fighting terrorism, and things like this. As to what I expect from this meeting, I think we should be realistic, since we are dealing with personalities.

When we talk about opposition, we do not talk about someone opposing something. Anyone can oppose anything. Opposition, in the political sense, is a party or an entity which has representatives in the local administration or in parliament who can influence their people and act in the best interest of their country, not in the best interest of foreign powers. I believe this is a universal concept. Now, we are talking about different personalities, some of them are patriotic, some do not have any influence and do not represent an important part of the Syrian people, and some are puppets in the hands of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, or the United States, and consequently they do not act in the best interest of their country. There are other personalities which represent an extremist ideology.

Consequently, it is too early to judge the potential for the success of failure of this step. Nevertheless, we support this Russian initiative, and we believe that we should go as a government in order to listen to what they have to say. If they have something useful and is in the best interest of the Syrian people and the country, we will go forward, and if not, we will not deal with them seriously.

Question 13: According to media reports, Russians are coordinating this process with the United States, and it means that these two superpowers, as it looks, can find a common ground, maybe for the first time, regarding Syria. Do you think this is the beginning of the end of the Syrian war?

President Assad: You mean when they reach this common ground?

Journalist: Yes, if they managed to agree on something, this will be positive.

President Assad: Any good relation between Russia and the West, and especially the United States, will reflect positively on the region, particularly in this period, and especially concerning Syria. But I would like to say that the solution should come first and foremost from within Syria. Second, if we want to talk about international relations and their impact, they need to be serious. When we talk about a common ground, what is the nature of this common ground? How serious is the United States in fighting ISIS? So far, what it is doing is cosmetic, while the Russians are very determined to fight terrorism. In the same context, how serious is the United States in influencing Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia – and these countries are not allies of the United States, but puppets in its hands – to what extent the United States will influence them to stop the flow of money, weapons, and terrorists into Syria. Unless these questions are answered, it is impossible to reach this common ground.

So far, the United States is playing games and playing for time. What the United States ultimately wants is to use Russia against Syria. It wants Russia to exercise pressure on Syria. This is the common ground the Americans are looking for, and not the common ground necessary to fight terrorism, allow the Syrian people to determine their future, and respect the sovereignty of all countries including Syria. So far, we do not see this common ground. The Russians are trying their best to find it, but I don’t believe that the Americans will respond to this effort positively.

Journalist: Thank you very much, and I hope this year will be good for Syria.

President Assad: Thank you.

...

SOURCE | http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=25117