HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE BY FOREIGN MINISTER OF SYRIA

HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE BY FOREIGN MINISTER OF SYRIA

Syria hoped that United States President George W. Bush’s delay in announcing his initiative for the Middle East would turn out to be in the interest of a just and comprehensive peace in the region and not vice versa, the Syrian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister told correspondents at a wide-ranging Headquarters press conference today.

“Any initiative or any plan or any vision should take into account ending the occupation”, said Foreign Minister Farouk Al-Shara'.  “Without ending the occupation, the vision would be a blackout.  Secondly, as far as the killing of innocent people, we’re against that.  But at the same time, as I have said many times, we have to be very specific when describing who are the civilians." 

“My first question mark", he said, “is this:  are the settlements in the occupied territory civilian when everyone else is armed?  And secondly, can you consider the Palestinains in the West Bank an armed people or a civilian people?  [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon is killing Palestinians in Ramallah, in Jenin and other areas, and all are civilians.  So that’s why we say we are against killing civilians."

The Syrian position remained very clear and very consistent, he said.  Whether in the United States or in the Arab world, in Asia or Africa or in the Middle East; there were no longer local issues.  Most of the issues were international, including agriculture, environment, and above all conflicts.  All conflicts had a certain impact on other nations and on the international arena in general.  The Middle East conflict was one of the thorniest and longest conflicts in the world, at least in the twentieth century.  It was still boiling today, in the twenty-first century.

The Foreign Minister said that pessimism over the issue was understandable, despite all efforts to foster hope and devise a solid framework for a solution.  “But if the solution is not a comprehensive one, is not based on United Nations resolutions, and does not help in ending the Israeli occupation of all territories taken since 1967, the solution could not be sustainable and would not result in a durable peace."

Continuing, he said: “I must in this regard refer to one simple thing, but tragic in depth -- the shameful fact that the fact-finding mission to the Palestinian camp in Jenin has not yet taken place, even though it was recommended by the Security Council.  Syria is a member of the Council for this year and next year, and we were not happy about the way the fact-finding mission was treated.  That is why I say that history will never forget the tragedy of Jenin camp, although the Security Council may well have overlooked it.”

“Sharon, in his public statements, is now expressing a deep sense of failure in his policy.  That’s why he’s trying to spread his sense of hostility, animosity, hatred, and racism.  I mean, he seeks to accuse countries which are helplessly watching the killings in the occupied Palestinian territories.  He should first review the wisdom of his failing policy in the occupied Palestinian territories before accusing others whose actions have been constructive -- especially Syria, which has consistently called for the realization of a just and

comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on international legitimacy, the land-for-peace formula and the Madrid terms of reference”.

Secondly, said Mr. Al-Shara', Sharon was taking the wrong path for peace.  He wanted to achieve security first and then peace.  That had never happened in history, and the path Sharon was taking was “blocked”.  He would never succeed. 

Additionally, Syria and the Arab States had launched a peace initiative adopted unanimously by the Arab League summit last March.  That plan contained “all the ingredients, all the components and all the requirements” for peace.  In that plan, the Arabs had asked only for what was theirs in terms of international legitimacy and United Nations resolutions -- to recover all the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967.  Israel, in return, had been offered peace and normal relations beyond and outside international legitimacy and Security Council resolutions.

“If Israel is serious about peace”, he said, “it should have held very tight to this proposal”.

A correspondent said that the Arab world was spending over $20 million in a media campaign against Israel, and that Syria had just launched a radio station in Hebrew.  She wanted to know if Syria believed that the Arab media had a responsibility to hear the Israeli point of view from the Israelis themselves.  He replied:  “To be honest with you, we’re still at the beginning in having the potential, the ability, the capability, the funds and above all the experience to address world public opinion in general and Israeli public opinion in particular.  It’s not an easy job, but we have to learn and have to start somewhere.”

Mr. Al-Shara’ refuted an earlier statement by John Negroponte, United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, to the effect that Syria stood guilty of supporting, financing and providing office space for terrorist groups that targeted civilians in Israel, even in defiance of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat’s order for such attacks to cease.  Mr. Al-Shara’ said Syria harboured around 400,000 Palestinian refugees uprooted from Palestine in 1948 and in 1967.  Those refugees had a right to express their political opinions.  Palestinian organizations in Syria had only press offices:  they could not operate from there as they did not cross the border.

“All operations by the Palestinians are engineered, planned and executed inside the occupied territories”, he said.  Syria had nothing to do with any such operations.  If Mr. Negroponte and his Government were concerned, he would call on them to help the 400,000 Palestinians living in Damascus to go back home, back to Palestine.  Resolution 194 accorded them the right of return, and Israel was blocking that right.  In other words, Mr. Negroponte or the American Administration should direct their criticism at Israel, which refused to let those people go back home, rather than criticize the countries that hosted the Palestinians and provided them with the basic necessities of life.

He confirmed “the substance” of another corespondent’s query about reports that Syria had provided information to the United States which averted a serious terrorist attack, as well as reports that his country was holding a Syrian-born German national suspected of having links to the 11 September attacks.  “I am not going to confirm anything related to security”, he said, “but I confirm the substance of what has been written in the press about that -- that we have helped in rescuing American lives”.  Syria had done that because it was a matter of principle.  Syria was against terrorism.  At the same time, the Americans knew very well that Syria differentiated between terrorism, which if condemned -- such

as Al Qaeda -- and resistance against occupation in the occupied territories, which it supported.

Asked whether the report to be presented to the Security Council on the “Jenin massacre” had been discussed with him, and what the Secretary-General had said about it, Mr. Al-Shara' reiterated that history would neither ignore nor forget the massacre that took place in the Jenin refugee camp, even if the Security Council ignored it for a while.  All he could say was that the issue had been discussed, and Syria had expressed regret that the Security Council was prevented from implementing its own resolution, which was a resolution born of an American initiative and on the basis of an American draft.  In other words, the United States agreed, regrettably under pressure, to give up one of the resolutions that it had tabled and that was adopted by the Security Council.” 

In the light of the American-Syrian rapprochement, another correspondent asked whether it was possible for the next stage to see a new development in the American-Syrian relationship?  Mr. Al-Shara’ replied that there was dialogue and that there were also attempts to improve relations, and that Syria was in favour of that.  “We have differences.  There are differences among us.  They recognize them and we acknowledge that.  They consider us to be wrong, we consider them to be wrong.”  He said the dialogue continued, and his country supported the continuation so that light could be shed on the reality of the Syrian position.  That position was clear, he went on.  “We do not interpret facts, we simply describe the facts as they are.  We describe the situation as it is.”  Syria’s view of the situation observed the principles of logic and international legitimacy.  If the United States did not agree, perhaps they should revisit their objections.  Once they did that they would come to know exactly the reasons for Syria's positions.

If Israel were to withdraw to the 1967 borders or to other borders freely negotiated with its neighbours, a correspondent asked, how did Syria envisage normalization of relations with Israel?  What would that involve, and how long would it take to get to that point?

The Foreign Minister responded by referring correspondents back to the Beirut summit and to the Arab peace proposal, which said that if Israel withdrew from all the occupied Arab territories to the June 1967 lines, there would be peaceful, normal relations between the Arab countries and Israel. 

Asked about the American peace plan and whether Syria had been consulted, he said that what was important was that a sense of peace had not been arrived at.  “We did not feel that there was peace.  Neither the Arabs who signed the agreements and treaties, nor the Israelis.  No one in the region feels that there can be a stable, permanent and comprehensive peace in the region because of the absence of a comprehensive settlement”, he said.

* *** *