{"article":{"id":264663,"heading":"Flashback: President Assad: US seeks war on Iraq in order to redraw the map of Middle East","author":"Cem Ert\u00fcr","created":"2014-06-20 21:23:46","modified":"2014-06-21 01:36:53","last_modified":"Sat, 21 Jun 2014 08:36:53","article":"






Flashback to 2003:  President al-Assad: 'U.S. seeks war on Iraq in order to redraw the map of the Middle East'
\r\n
 
compiled by Cem Ertür
20 June 2014






Syrian president calls on Arab states to forbid use of facilities for Iraq war<\/b>

[English\r\n translation of the transcript of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s \r\nspeech at the Arab League summit in Sharm el-Sheikh on March 1, 2003. \r\nThe speech was delivered three weeks before the invasion of Iraq.]

BBC Monitoring Middle East, 2 March 2003<\/i>

[empasis added]



Syrian\r\n President Bashar al-Asad has called on the Arab states not only to \r\nreject in statements the US plans for war on Iraq, but to follow this up\r\n with action, in order to avoid the \"strong paradox\" between words and \r\ndeeds, by denying the US the right to use Arab facilities to launch a \r\nwar. In a speech to the 15th ordinary Arab summit, Al-Asad said that \r\nonce this decision to forbid use of facilities was announced in the \r\nsummit statement, an Arab group should be formed to take this to the \r\npermanent members of the UN Security Council. The president said that he\r\n was not calling for the withdrawal of foreign forces or bases from Arab\r\n countries, but emphasized that these forces must stay within their host\r\n country's borders, and must not be used to launch an attack on another \r\nArab country. The following is the text of the Syrian president's speech\r\n at the 15th ordinary Arab summit conference in Sharm al-Shaykh, \r\nbroadcast live by Syrian TV on 1 March [2003]; subheadings inserted \r\neditorially:<\/i>



Your Majesty King Hamad Bin-Isa Al \r\nKhalifah, your Majesties, Excellencies and Highnesses; Your Excellency \r\nthe Secretary-General of the Arab League:

What I am going to say \r\ntoday is not a speech, but rather a discussion involving some ideas \r\nconcerning the Iraqi issue. It is perhaps a speech that does not have \r\npreambles and compliments, but gets to the heart of the subject \r\ndirectly.

Sometimes one feels danger and discovers that the \r\nimpending danger is big. However, when this danger reaches you, you feel\r\n it was far greater than you had earlier expected. We are all today \r\nfeeling the danger facing the region and Iraq. I, however, believe that \r\nwe are not feeling the real extent of the danger. Some believe that this\r\n danger will affect them in an indirect manner, others believe that this\r\n danger will get close to their borders, whilst others believe the \r\ndanger will stop at the borders. Some may think that some appeasement \r\nmay ward off this danger for good or for a long time. In fact, all will \r\nbe in the middle of this danger and all will be targeted, perhaps not \r\ndirectly in the first place, but in stages. I believe that we never felt\r\n the real extent of the danger of many things that happened in the past.\r\n This includes the Sykes- Picot agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the \r\ncreation of the State of Israel, and today the issue of Iraq.

Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary decisions<\/b>

This\r\n summit is called an ordinary one, but is extraordinary due to the \r\ncurrent circumstances. An extraordinary summit requires two things: \r\nFirst, extraordinary circumstances, and second, extraordinary leaders \r\nwho would, of course, come out with some extraordinary decisions. I \r\nbelieve that everyone wants to be extraordinary and distinguished. \r\nExtraordinary today means courage, objectivity and departure from \r\npersonal grudges. It is at the same time an effort to serve our \r\ninterests rather than the interests of others.

It is dangerous \r\ntoday to make ordinary decisions under such circumstances. I do not \r\nthink the situation today is much different from the situation in 1990. \r\nAt that time, the Arabs met in a summit on 8 August 1990. There was a \r\nstate of shock, loss and division. Today, the situation is not much \r\ndifferent. Perhaps division at that time was clearer. Nevertheless, a \r\nsummit was held and there were bold decisions taken to regain the \r\nsovereignty of Kuwait.

Certainly, some will say that it was the \r\ninternational alliance that did that job. That is true. The Arabs at \r\nthat time were required to give legitimacy and extend facilities [to the\r\n international alliance]. Today, if the Arabs were to take part in a war\r\n against Iraq, the United States would not allow them to do so. Their \r\nintervention is not acceptable. What is required is to grant legitimacy \r\nand extend facilities. What is happening today is an extension of that \r\nstage. There is no gap between the two situations. Tragedies get larger \r\nor smaller but they continue, and there is a diagram where the highest \r\npoint indicates the degree by which the Arabs are targeted, and the \r\nlowest indicates the bottom rock degree of Arab performance and Arab \r\nsituation. The only difference between that time and this time is that \r\nin 1990 Kuwait was occupied. Today, Iraq is not occupying any land and \r\nis not threatening any country, whether a neighbouring or any other \r\ncountry. We are neighbours of Iraq and we have the right to talk about \r\nthis point, as do others.

I will start by saying that I do not \r\nknow [Iraqi] President Saddam Husayn. I have never met him nor spoken to\r\n him even on the telephone. In the past years we had great, harsh \r\ndifferences with the Iraqi brothers, which continued for more than a \r\ndecade. I am saying this so that I will not be accused of speaking in a \r\nromantic or emotional way. In my talk now, there is no emotion of love \r\nor hatred. Rather, there is reason only. It is our right to love or hate\r\n a person; it is our right to agree or disagree with the policy of an \r\nofficial; and it is our right to like or dislike the performance of a \r\npresident. This is a personal issue. It is not important if we agree or \r\ndisagree about this issue. But we should ask this simple question: Is it\r\n our right to disagree over the issue of Iraq, over whether to like or \r\ndislike Iraq, or to agree on a strike on Iraq or not? If this is our \r\nright, then why talk about the Arab League and Arab solidarity, which \r\nwill then turn into a name without substance?

Some Arabs presenting problem as though with Iraq<\/b>

Some\r\n depict the problem as if it were with the Iraqi president or the Iraqi \r\nregime. By saying some, I do not mean some foreigners. I mean some Arab \r\nofficials. Had the issue really been one of this sort and had there been\r\n officials threatening the territory of Iraq or the region, it would \r\nhave been our duty to send a delegation to tell them to sacrifice \r\nsomething in one way or another in order to rescue the homeland and the \r\nregion in general. This would be recorded as a national and pan-Arab \r\naction. But we all know that this is not the case. We all know the masks\r\n that were used.

At first the United States proposed the issue\r\n of the return of [weapons] inspectors. Later, it spoke about the \r\nimplementation of the UN and Security Council resolutions. It then spoke\r\n about the weapons of mass destruction. Later they said the problem lay \r\nin the regime itself. They then began to talk about democracy and human \r\nrights. Now they give the promise of development in Iraq and our region \r\nin general after this war. We will not be surprised if a new expression \r\nappears like the empty US expressions we always hear - an expression \r\ncalled the development war or development by means of war. All the \r\npoints presented were mere masks used by the United States to deceive \r\nthe world. In my opinion, however, nobody in the world was taken in by \r\nthese proposals. Later, bored of wearing these masks, these officials \r\ndecided to take them off. They said the issue was not any of the above. \r\nThe issue was that of taking control of the world and the region. The \r\nissue was one of oil and oil was one of the instruments used to control \r\nthe world. The issue was one of re-drawing the map in the manner that \r\nsuited them and, of course, suited Israel, and this is another aspect of\r\n the issue.

The issue is one of destroying the infrastructure of \r\nIraq, headed by the scientists. By the infrastructure I do not mean \r\nfactories, missiles or the other things they are talking about. They \r\nwant people whose hearts beat but whose minds do not work. This is \r\nrequired from all the Arabs. It is like those who are in deep slumber. \r\nThey want the minds to act only when they want and in the manner they \r\nwant. What they did not say was the part connected with Israel, and I do\r\n not think this is unknown to all.<\/b>

They were the first to \r\nreject the return of inspectors when Iraq agreed to their return. As for\r\n the UN and Security Council resolutions, I do not think there is a \r\ncountry in this world that is violating these resolutions as much as the\r\n United States is doing. Regarding the weapons of mass destruction, had \r\nthese weapons been really directed against the Arab countries, they \r\nwould have asked that they be increased rather than decreased.

US has case-by-case standards, not just double standards<\/b>

They\r\n claim to be concerned about us. How can they be concerned about us over\r\n Iraq and not Israel? Who is killing the Arabs? Is it Iraq or Israel? \r\nWho is killing the Palestinians daily? Killing these days is in the \r\nscores. All the weapons that exist in the Arab world certainly do not \r\nthreaten the United States or any other continent. If they were able to \r\ndisarm people of their personal weapons in the Arab world, they would \r\nnot hesitate to do it so that Israel could continue to move freely in \r\nour skies and lands, killing whoever and whenever it wanted. As for \r\ndemocracy, if any of us imprisoned 100,000 of the citizens who \r\ndemonstrated against the US policy, he would become a democratic leader \r\nin the Arab world and the region. If he imprisoned a pro-US person who \r\ncommitted a wrong act, he would then be against democracy and would be \r\naccused of encroachment on human rights. If a person manages to deprive a\r\n Palestinian citizen of his simplest rights, he will then turn into an \r\nadvocate of peace, democracy, human rights and all other similar \r\nworthless titles.

We do the United States injustice when we talk \r\nabout double standards. A double standard means two standards. They have\r\n 1,000 standards for 1,000 cases and perhaps more. What is important is \r\nthat they wanted to remove these masks and say the issue was not that of\r\n the masks they wore, but one of control. Some of us began to move and \r\nsay no, keep these masks. They say the issue is one of control and we \r\nsay the issue is one of the regime. They take off the mask and we put it\r\n on their faces.

What I mean to say is that we should not confuse\r\n the issue of a person or persons with that of a homeland. No person in \r\nthe world can undermine a homeland, regardless of who he is. Also, it is\r\n inadmissible to confuse the Kuwaiti-Iraqi situation with the Iraqi \r\nissue. As I have said, it is true that what is happening today is an \r\nextension of what happened in 1990, but that began in a certain \r\ndirection and deviated or was meant to deviate in another direction in \r\norder to get where we are today.

This sort of talk may not please\r\n some Arab brothers, but convictions should be said as they are, without\r\n any cosmetics. In 1990 we stood with Kuwait against the Iraqi position \r\nand not against Iraq; today we stand with Iraq and Kuwait, but against \r\nany plan that means, or leads to, the destruction of Iraq.

\"Strong paradox\" between words and actions; Arabs must decide their stands<\/b>

I\r\n will now present the picture of a simple exaggeration. Let us assume \r\nthat some are against the regime and some are against Iraq or \r\nindifferent to the destruction of Iraq. Let us make a clear decision at \r\nthis summit to topple the regime and destroy Iraq, and inform others of \r\nthis. This is better. At least if we do this, we will be more merciful \r\nthan the foreigners. Why am I presenting this exaggeration? Of course, \r\nthe answer will be no and this is rejected. This is taken for granted. \r\nHere emerges a strong paradox between what we always say and announce \r\nabout our rejection of interference into the domestic Iraqi affairs and \r\nour rejection of a strike against Iraq on the one hand, and the actions \r\nof some who are for war, for a strike, and for interference in the \r\ndomestic affairs on the other. They are thus hiding behind the US \r\nstands. If we are for a certain idea, then let us adopt it in this Arab \r\nLeague. If we are against the idea, then let us stand in the face of the\r\n one proposing it. Let us do so instead of hiding behind the stands of \r\nothers. It is no longer possible under these circumstances to stand in \r\nthe middle with one leg in this place and another in another place. We \r\nmust firmly decide our stands.

In today's world three elements \r\nimpact the issue of war negatively or positively: an international \r\nelement, a regional element and a local Iraqi element. Brushing aside \r\nthe local element, the international element is based on the regional \r\nelement. If the regional element weakens, the side calling for war in \r\nthe international element will get stronger and vice versa. If the \r\nregional element gets stronger, the opposite will also be true. The \r\ninternational element has political power, while the regional element \r\nhas political and field power with all the meanings contained in the \r\nword of field. This includes the geographic, demographic, military and \r\nother meanings. This field element is a point of strength for us if we \r\nuse it correctly to prevent the war. It is a point of weakness for us if\r\n we let the war take place while we are in the field. We will then be \r\nonly a target in the middle of war. If we do not understand these \r\nequations accurately and clearly, we will be held twice responsible in \r\nthe future. So far, the international element is showing better \r\nperformance than that of all of us. Thus far, we have done nothing other\r\n than make statements. Thus far, no single Arab action has been taken to\r\n prevent the anticipated war. We are concerned with this war and with \r\nIraq ethically, nationally, morally and materially. A certain action \r\nmust be taken to match and support the international element that \r\nopposes war. Otherwise, we must announce that it makes no difference if \r\nwe meet or fail to meet because we are helpless states.

Foreign forces must stay within host country's borders
<\/b>
What\r\n is required? I am not demanding the implementation of the Joint Arab \r\nDefence Pact. At the same time I am not calling for the withdrawal of \r\nforeign forces or bases. This is an act of sovereignty. Each state has \r\nthe right to call in whoever it wants. Naturally, no one is comfortable \r\nwith the presence of foreign bases, but we will not interfere because \r\nthis is not our affair. Some states may have interests or apprehensions \r\nin this regard. What is important is that these forces should not have \r\nany influence outside these states' borders, whether they be friendly, \r\nsisterly or national forces. Any action by these forces outside the \r\nborders of the state will make this state an aggressor state. It will \r\nthen be fully responsible for its actions.

What is required then \r\nis not providing any facilities for this war. This clause is the basis \r\non which we must rely at this summit. It determines our role now and in \r\nthe future. It also determines the role of others in our causes. It is \r\nthe minimum we can do. If we fail to do so, it will be said that this \r\nsummit was held to clear consciences before the Arab nation or to evade \r\nresponsibility before the Arabs and others. We will be held responsible \r\nby the Arab citizens and even the foreigners.

Regrettably, some \r\nofficials have told me and others: We cannot bear or impose this. The \r\none who says \"I cannot\" does not possess a [free] decision. And the one \r\nwho does not have the power to make a decision does not have \r\nsovereignty. What sort of solidarity are we talking about if there are \r\ntwo decisions, one Arab and the other non- Arab? Do we call this Arab \r\nsolidarity? It is solidarity but not Arab solidarity. Solidarity is the \r\nsolidarity of two decisions, not two officials. If solidarity is that of\r\n solidarity between officials, then our relations are good and our \r\nhobbies may be common. But if my decision is required to be in \r\nsolidarity with a non-Arab decision, then I do not need mediation. We \r\ncan act in solidarity with the foreigner directly. Today we need a \r\ndecision, a unanimous decision, on this point.

Arab delegation must not go only to Iraq<\/b>

Some\r\n proposed sending a delegation to Iraq. This poses a number of \r\nquestions. Will the delegation go only to Iraq, or also to the United \r\nStates? If we do not do so and send the delegation only to Iraq, this \r\nwill mean that the problem lies in Iraq and not the United States, which\r\n is seeking war with or without reason. We will then send a message that\r\n the problem lies in Iraq and not the implementation of the Security \r\nCouncil resolutions. We will send a message that the problem lies in \r\nIraq and not in the aggression against Iraq.

Second, if the \r\ndelegation went to Iraq, what would the delegation ask for? Would it ask\r\n for Iraq's cooperation with the United Nations? If it asked for such \r\ncooperation, would it ask the same from Washington, which is not \r\ncooperating in any way whatsoever, and which is trying to block any \r\nresolution that averts war? What is the extent of cooperation? We know \r\nthat the United States always asks one thing after another. When the \r\nother side presents something, it asks for more. When that side reaches \r\nconcession number 100, it asks \"where is concession number one?\" This is\r\n what happened to our Palestinian brothers in the negotiations. \r\nConcessions followed one after another and they always told them: You \r\nhave not offered anything. That is how we reached the situation we are \r\nin today.

Of course we want Iraq to cooperate, but we must know \r\nthe extent of this cooperation. We must not repeat what the others say \r\nfor another purpose. We will then be walking with them not knowing where\r\n we are going. We must define this cooperation. What is the extent of \r\ncooperation that Iraq is demanded to show, and that it has failed to? We\r\n as Arab states will then be able to form a group that can go to Iraq \r\nand discuss all these topics there. Accordingly, we must specify the \r\nextent of this cooperation. At the same time, are we going to welcome \r\nthe cooperation Iraq has shown? When the United States says Iraq has not\r\n cooperated and we will fight, we tell Iraq cooperate. When the \r\ninspectors say Iraq cooperated and the results they reached do not \r\njustify war, we remain silent. I think we must see the positive aspect, \r\nwhich is the largest in what was undertaken by Iraq. If there are gaps \r\nand simple details, we are all Arab brothers and can talk with one \r\nanother very frankly, without barriers.

War to serve as cover for \"Israeli crimes\"<\/b>

The\r\n last point in the Iraqi issue is that this issue is today inseparable \r\nfrom the Palestinian cause. Our failure in dealing with the Iraqi issue \r\nmeans our failure in dealing with the Palestinian cause. We cannot \r\nseparate the two issues today. If this war takes place, it will serve as\r\n a cover for Israeli crimes. I do not say [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel]\r\n Sharon's crimes because I said a long time ago - perhaps two summits \r\nago - that every Israeli is a Sharon. This has been confirmed today. All\r\n the Israelis are continuously and increasingly killing the Palestinians\r\n every day. This war will serve as a cover for these Israeli crimes. It \r\nwill be a circumvention of the intifadah and resistance. It will \r\neventually lead to peace according to the Israeli formula, which we all \r\nreject. It might lead to partitioning Iraq so that Israel could gain \r\nlegitimacy. Israel is a state that claims to be democratic. It is a \r\nstate of one colour and will gain legitimacy when it is surrounded by \r\nsimilar mini- states. It will then acquire political and social \r\nlegitimacy.

While talking about the issue of Iraq, we will, of \r\ncourse, not forget our brothers in Palestine nor forget to emphasize our\r\n legitimate rights in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and all the \r\nresolutions endorsed by the Security Council on the return of all \r\nrights, particularly return to the 1967 borders and the establishment of\r\n the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and the return of \r\nthe refugees. We will not forget to emphasize our absolute support for \r\nresistance in the shape and formula envisaged by the resisting men. \r\nCertainly we will not forget to emphasize, as usual, the need to call \r\nfor severing all forms of cooperation with Israel. We will certainly \r\ncontinue to call for this until Israel abides by peace, something which \r\nwe have not seen thus far.

After welcoming Iraq's cooperation and\r\n the continuation of this cooperation, I suggest that we emphasize the \r\nclause that says no facilities should be provided for war purposes. If \r\nwe agree on this point, it will not be sufficient to return satisfied \r\nwith what we have achieved. This decision should be followed by action. I\r\n propose forming an Arab group to convey these resolutions and perhaps \r\nthe [final] statement to the five permanent UN member states and other \r\ninfluential states concerned with the issue of Iraq. This committee can \r\nbe chaired by the states presiding over three summits --the current \r\nsummit, the previous summit, and the next summit. This means Bahrain, \r\nLebanon and Tunisia if these states agree. If the summit or the Arab \r\nleaders decide that this group can later visit Iraq to discuss the Iraqi\r\n issue with the Iraqi brothers, that will be considered a foregone \r\nconclusion to balance things out.

Three choices for summit participants<\/b>

I\r\n would like to finish my speech by saying that we have three \r\npossibilities. The first, which is the worst, is to agree with war and \r\nthis, of course, will not be the case. The second is that we do not \r\nagree, and thus give a message to the warmongers of the world to launch a\r\n war. The third possibility, which is good, is to agree on all the steps\r\n we can take to prevent war. Certainly we can do so, despite the \r\npresence of those who are desperate or sowing despair in our world. We \r\nare capable of doing this. There would have been no need for this \r\nmeeting had we been unable to do so. The fact that we met means we have \r\nthe ability to do something. Any other option we take will cost us \r\nheavily in the long run and not the short term. In that case, the coming\r\n generations will read that Baghdad was first destroyed in 1258 when \r\nHulago stormed it, due the weakness of the Arab Abbasid state, and that \r\nit was stormed at the beginning of the 21st century due to the weakness \r\nof the Arab regimes or the failure of the Arab summit. But this time it \r\nwill not be alone; several Arab states will be with it.

I wish you and this summit success. Thanks to His Majesty King Hamad Bin-Isa Al Khalifah. Thank you. [applause]



_____________________________



excerpts from:  President Assad \/ Corriere della Sera interview (February 14, 2002)

[English\r\n translation of the transcript of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s \r\ninterview with Corriere della Sera newspaper. The interview was \r\nconducted in Damascus on February 14, 2002; a year before the March 2003\r\n invasion of Iraq.]

by M. Abdo al-Ibrahim, presidentassad.net<\/i>



Corriere della Sera: If\r\n you do not mind, Mr. President, we start with the last developments, \r\nlet us say those related to Iraq. You know there are, in a certain way, \r\ndifferent messages arising in the region, but the other day, apparently,\r\n the possibility of an attack against Iraq increased. Of course, the \r\nproblem for Syria now is not the same as it was in 1990 when you were \r\nwith the allies against Saddam Hussein in order to liberate Kuwait. Now,\r\n the relations between Syria and Iraq are much better than they were at \r\nthat time. So, what are your expectations in case something like this \r\nhappens?

President al-Assad:<\/b> First, I would like to check \r\nsome of the idioms. When we took the position in the 1990s with the \r\nallied forces, we took a stand in support of liberating Kuwait and not \r\nagainst Iraq. The other point is that there is no animosity between Iraq\r\n and us. On the contrary, our relations with Iraq at the peoples level \r\nhave always been good. In the past there were political differences, but\r\n for quite few years we have both gone beyond these political \r\ndifferences; we have overcome them. But our stand towards what you have \r\njust mentioned is not linked to all these issues. It is linked to \r\nsomething larger, to the international framework. It is linked to \r\nconcepts that are being now talked about at the international level. \r\nThese concepts are going perhaps to decide the future of the world in \r\nthe short and long run, especially the concepts that had been talked \r\nabout for the last fifty or sixty years like democracy, justice, human \r\nrights and other idioms that are linked to these. The question that \r\nshould be asked is: Is there any justification to strike Iraq? Is \r\nstriking Iraq a part of combating terrorism as the entire world has been\r\n talking about this issue now? Is striking Iraq going to achieve justice\r\n and human rights for people who are deprived of their rights, or is it \r\ngoing to bring more injustice and lack of human rights?

I think \r\nstriking Iraq is contradictory to all these concepts of democracy and \r\nhuman rights. What happened in the 1990s is very different from what is \r\nhappening today. There was an international consensus about what had \r\nhappened then, and there was a legitimate and legal handling of what was\r\n going on related to international law, to the United Nations Charter \r\nand to social values that reject an aggression against another country \r\nor another people. What we are witnessing today has nothing to do with \r\nany international law or international charter. Today, all the European \r\nofficials, with whom we have met, are, without exception, against \r\nstriking Iraq. And of course all the Muslim and Arab countries, without \r\nany exception, are against striking Iraq. So, the most dangerous thing \r\nnow is that are we living in a world where only one opinion prevails? It\r\n is very natural for us as a neighborly country to Iraq and as an Arab \r\ncountry, to sympathize with the Iraqi people and to be against striking \r\nIraq. But I am talking about the issue at an international level and \r\nfrom a far-reaching perspective. I think that for the last thousands of \r\nyears the world has not been dependent on a unilateralist perspective as\r\n it does nowadays. This means that we are really entering into the \r\nunknown, and striking against Iraq is a very dangerous step of entering \r\ninto this unknown.

Corriere della Sera:<\/b> But if this happens, what would be your reaction? What will you do?

President al-Assad:<\/b>\r\n I am not going to talk about the political reaction, whether it is by \r\nSyria or by any other country. You know that the political stand would \r\nbe to condemn or to reject, and I do not think that these expressions \r\nhave any real value in them now. I think what is more dangerous than the\r\n political stand is the popular opinion that is going to formulate \r\nitself after such an action. The results of such a popular opinion do \r\nnot necessarily appear immediately, they might appear after a long time.\r\n In fact, if they were to analyze the event of the 11th September, they \r\nprobably would have found that it is the result of an accumulation of \r\nmany factors, some are tangible and others are intangible, an \r\naccumulation of deep-rooted hatred caused by popular anger the root \r\ncauses of which are political, economic and social. I believe that \r\nstrike against Iraq, or any similar thing to be done in the future \r\nwithout any measure, or without any criteria, is certainly going to lead\r\n to turbulences in the world the form and range of which are difficult \r\nto predict.

But I think it is, most often, going to take the \r\nsecurity shape. And I do not believe it is in the interest of the United\r\n States to create more tension and turbulence in the world for which it \r\nmight have to pay in the future. […]

Corriere della Sera: <\/b>[…]\r\n You have an alliance with Iran in fact, but recently you are improving \r\nyour relation with one of your foreigner foes, Iraq. So, don’t you see \r\ncontradiction in it, and if you remember some months ago you denied that\r\n Syria broke the embargo letting 100 thousand oil barrels from Iraq to \r\nreach Mediterranean passing through your country. But others are saying \r\nthis is not true, what is your answer to this?

President al-Assad:<\/b> First, as for Iraq, it is not our foe as you have mentioned in your question.

Corriere della Sera:<\/b> I said foreign foe.

President al-Assad:<\/b>\r\n I think to be a foe is something more than what happened between Syria \r\nand Iraq. There were political differences. Let us say there were huge \r\npolitical differences at certain points. But there has always been, \r\nbetween Syria and Iraq and Iran points of convergence between each \r\nother. If we want to look only at the points of difference I agree with \r\nyou that there is a contradiction, and at that I could have a point of \r\ndifference with Italy, for example. What I want to say is that we, as \r\nhuman beings, decide whether it is a contradictory relationship or a \r\nhealthy relationship through our calculation of points of difference or \r\nagreement.. But I think even Iran and Iraq directly started to improve \r\ntheir relationship with each other during the last few years. Therefore,\r\n I can’t see any contradiction because we are living in the same region \r\nand it is only normal that we should try to improve our relations with \r\neach other. I think the contradiction is to keep these differences and \r\nstick to them rather than to go beyond them and improve our relations. \r\nAs far as the oil is concerned, we announced our opinion very clearly \r\nsince the beginning of this issue. We said that we have an oil pipeline \r\nbetween Iraq and us which we are testing during the last year, and \r\ntherefore when we say we are testing this pipeline, we are definitely \r\ntesting it with oil not with water or with winds. And certainly the \r\ndirection is from Iraq to Syria because we have no oil to send to Iraq. \r\nAnd I have said this to American officials. But this is a very old \r\npipeline that has been there since the fifties, and when we had our \r\npolitical differences with Iraq, this pipeline was not used and it is \r\npoor pipeline. This is the reason that prompted us to say that we are \r\ngoing to build a new pipeline with much bigger capacity. And we were \r\ndiscussing things with countries in the region and with European \r\ncountries about this pipeline. And we said that with this new pipeline \r\nwith Iraq, we are going to be committed to UN resolutions and we were \r\nsupposed to submit a request for a meeting that the UN should convene \r\nabout this issue at the end of last summer, and then this meeting was \r\npostponed. And therefore, we are not violating any UN resolutions.


_____________________________


Related content:<\/b>

US-Sponsored Terrorism in Iraq and “Constructive Chaos” in the Middle East

Selected articles

by Julie Lévesque, Global Research, 19 June 2014


Flashback to 2003: \"Major combat in Iraq is over, U.S. warns rogue Syria\"

propaganda alert by Cem Ertür, Indybay, 16 April 2014

_____________________________<\/div>\n","contact":"cem.ertur@gmail.com","link":"https:\/\/www.indybay.org\/newsitems\/2014\/06\/20\/18757644.php","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"\u201cWe all know the masks that were used. At first the United States proposed the issue of the return of [weapons] inspectors [to Iraq]. Later, it spoke about the implementation of the UN and Security Council resolutions. It then spoke about the weapons of mass destruction. Later they said the problem lay in the regime itself. They then began to talk about democracy and human rights. Now they give the promise of development in Iraq and our region in general after this war. [\u2026] The [real] issue was that of taking control of the world and the region. The issue was one of oil and oil was one of the instruments used to control the world. The issue was one of re-drawing the map in the manner that suited them and, of course, suited Israel [\u2026]. The issue is one of destroying the infrastructure of Iraq\u201d [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, speech at the Arab League summit, Sharm el-Sheikh, 1 March 2003. This speech was delivered three weeks before the invasion of Iraq.]\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n","numcomment":1,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2014\/06\/264663.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":264666,"heading":"Fast Forward CIA Arms ISIS Al CIA Duh with WMD's claimed to be Saddam's","article":"Now Fast Forward. The CIA gives Their ISIS Al CIA Duh Commandos some WMD's and has them claim they have found Saddam's WMD's and will use them in order to Justify a Reinvasion or Iraq now that Syria and Hezbollah have booted both The CIA ISIS Al CIA Duh Terrorist out of Syria along with their Blackwater Xe Academi Trainers and Israel's Mossod. So it's back to the drawng board in Iraq after The US reinvades Iraq in order to make the World safe from Al CIA Duh in Iraq.","author":"CIA sends in Al CIA Duh ISIS to reinvade","parent_id":264663,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2014-06-21 01:36:53","modified":"2014-06-21 01:36:53","fileurl":""}]}