- Talking about peace now is like fetching water from the moon. * War will bring about the opposite for the Arabs.
- Abdul Halim Khaddam, Deputy to the Syrian President, emphasized in an interview with “Al-Sharq Al-Awsat” the necessity for Arabs to take a unified stance to prevent the occurrence of war on Iraq. He stated that Syria does not call for waging a war against the United States, nor for preparing armies for this war. However, what is required is not to provide facilitations to foreign armies that seek to invade and destroy Iraq. He said that Syria’s stance is moderate, not extremist, and that he wants the application of international legitimacy. He affirmed that the goal of invading Iraq is America’s desire to reshape the region and erase the Arab future for many decades to come. The dialogue raised many questions, and here is its text.
- Your recent book about the contemporary Arab system, titled “Reading Reality and Foreseeing the Future,” why did you present this book in this particular stage?
ـ The main objective is to present a scientific study accompanied by facts and realities about the reality of the Arab system and the reasons for its setbacks, losses, and defeats in the past period, and its continuous decline. It is an incorrect and unsound system, and I tried to point out these reasons and provide a clear picture of the reality for the Arabs and the new generations, so they see the facts as they are and improve their choice of path in the future.
- What are the most significant negatives that the Arab system has faced in the past period?
ـ The Arab system was not built with the aim of achieving Arab unity. If we go back to the Charter of the Arab League, we will know that this system was established on the basis of reinforcing the concept of statehood for each individual country among the seven founding states of the Arab League. Hence, the duality arose between the general Arab sentiment that this system would lead them to Arab unity and defense of their interests, which would provide them stability and prevent the Zionist project from achieving its goals. On the other hand, there were government policies that were in another direction, and they had other considerations. This caused the general Arab system to live in duality. Government policies had their own concerns and considerations, so the Arab system practiced a policy of selling empty words to the people. The actions contradicted the people’s interests. If we talk about decisions like the decision of economic unity that the Arabs adopted in 1957, until now, nothing has been achieved from it. And now, what the Arab nation has reached after all these years is nothing. In fact, what we have achieved is deepening division and contradiction in building and serving the interests of the Arab economy. This contradiction has formed an obstacle to their political unity. Also, the Joint Defense Treaty signed in the 1950s, which until now remains only ink on paper, in essence, this treaty meets all the Arabs’ defense needs. However, this agreement was frozen and no mechanisms or programs were put in place for it. It remained based on unrealistic and non-serious political discourse. The Liberation War of October is the only case in which the Arabs rallied together in our modern era, which means that there is a flaw in the Arab system and a lack of common Arab understanding.
- Do many Arab countries still suffer from external influence on their internal and foreign decisions?
ـ Most of the Arab countries were under foreign colonial rule, and Britain supported the Zionist project and gave them Palestine. Britain wanted to contribute to absorbing their angry reaction. It called for the establishment of the Arab League and used the situation in the region to safeguard its future interests, especially given that the results of the Second World War were in favor of the United States and the Soviet Union. There was concern about the Soviet expansion towards the Middle East, so they tried to counter it. Also, the seven Arab countries that gathered to establish the Arab League had conflicting relationships and were in disputes. At that time, Lebanon was afraid of Syria, and Syria was afraid of Iraq and Jordan, and Saudi Arabia was afraid of the Hashemite family in Iraq and Jordan. There was concern about Egypt, and the only link between these countries was the fear of each other. Therefore, they established a charter to guarantee their individual situations, not a charter to guarantee the general Arab situation. This situation remains the same, and their division has increased. Qatar’s interests have emerged to ensure the general Arab situation, and it remains as it is, and their division has increased. Different groups of people have emerged who have interests in maintaining the current situation. Therefore, despite all the problems and calamities that the Arab world has faced, which threatened everyone and continue to threaten, these dangers did not lead the participants in this system to take the right steps to rectify the deteriorating situation.
- Doesn’t the Arab inability to take a unified and decisive stance towards the ongoing massacres in Palestine and the crisis in Iraq constitute a humiliating position for the overall Arab system?
Both the situations in Palestine and Iraq reflect the reality of the incapable Arab system. In the case of Palestine, with the ongoing massacres against Palestinians, the starvation, destruction of their homes, and constant siege, what is the Arab reaction? No one is calling for an unprepared war, but this silence and abandonment of the extensive capabilities that Arab governments possess to stop these massacres and exert pressure on Israel and the United States, which supports it, portrays this Arab incapacity. The second picture is that of Iraq and the threats it faces from the United States. It’s painful that the official Arab response doesn’t match the scale of the dangers that will affect all Arabs if the war occurs. Those who oppose war are labeled as extremists while they are actually moderate, and those labeled as moderates are actually defeated. The psychological war waged by the United States has successfully sowed division within the Arab world. Arab moderation is represented by a few Arab nations, including Syria. We don’t call for war against the United States or Britain, and we don’t encourage Arab countries to prepare their armies for war. We call for taking a stance against war, for not facilitating foreign armies to destroy and invade Iraq.
Comparing the current Arab situation to that of 1948, we find it worse now. The moderates aim to uphold international legitimacy, but unfortunately, some are blinded to the dark future that war would bring.
- Does this mean that external foreign pressures influence Arab decisions?
Indeed, America has launched a psychological war against Arabs and succeeded in instilling fear among them. The Arab situation prior to the current crisis was characterized by division and fragmentation, making it easier for foreign parties to manipulate the Arab arena. Yes, there are Arab entities that lack true political autonomy, not serving the interests of their nations. The belief that this war will bring security and stability is misguided and lacks a realistic and objective assessment of the current reality and future possibilities. When we called on Arab governments to take a serious and firm stance against war, it wasn’t for the sake of one factor or another.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared during a Senate session that the goal is clear: to reshape the region. This implies a new Sykes-Picot and a dark future for the Arab world for years to come.
- How do you perceive Israel’s role in the upcoming phase?
Undoubtedly, Israel will be a key decision-maker in this context. The nature of US-Israeli relations differs from the nature of relations between the United States and its so-called Arab allies. Israel is America’s strategic ally in the region, part of its strategic security, whereas America lacks Arab friends. Israel is a major component of US Middle East strategy, and it will reap the benefits of this war at the expense of Arabs. We are not advocating for Iraq alone; we stand up for all Arabs. The negative effects of the war will impact the Arab world from Mauritania to the Arabian Gulf. America doesn’t deal with its friends credibly; otherwise, why would it ignore the desires and demands of the Arab peoples?
- Analysis indicates that Syria will be the most affected by the impending war and could be the next target after Iraq. Doesn’t this prompt Syria to make efforts to avert the war?
No one will escape the harmful effects of the upcoming war. Syria will likely be one of the least affected Arab countries due to its political, economic, and cultural unity. Syria’s national unity runs deep, and while there may be disagreements between Syrians and their leadership at times, in the face of external threat, Syria will unite. This unity is not as easily found in many other Arab countries, where the earthquake’s impact will be more destructive. For the sake of the Arab future, we work to avert this threat that endangers us all.
- Are Arabs truly capable of preventing war?
Yes, when the will is liberated and the fog of confusion clears, Arabs are capable of stopping the war. France, Germany, and Russia oppose the war strongly. They aren’t against it because of their love for Iraq or its regime. They realize the war will impact their interests, European security, international peace, and stability. President Jacques Chirac and others have taken this stand for the sake of international security and peace. Even Chile, geographically far from Iraq, opposed the war due to its potential global repercussions. Can the entire world be concerned about the effects of the impending war and we Arabs not be more concerned, as we are the most affected?
- Don’t you have concerns about Turkey’s fully cooperative stance in the declared war on Iraq?
Undoubtedly, the majority of the Turkish people are against the war, and the Turkish government is reluctant to get involved. However, there are pressures on Turkey to find a way out. Despite this, Turkey has set conditions when negotiating with the Americans. In contrast, some Arab countries accepted without conditions or benefits, and they will bear the losses from these deployments and the upcoming war.
- While Syria calls for preventing the war, it’s observed that it hosts factions of Iraqi opposition, both Kurdish and Shia, who support the war. Isn’t this a contradiction in Syria’s stance?
The Iraqi opposition is against the war. Statements from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq are anti-American. I don’t believe they will cooperate with the US, nor does America welcome their cooperation. The Iraqi opposition has been sidelined by the Americans. As for the Kurds – the National and Democratic parties – they maintain contact with Baghdad. They are in a difficult position, caught between American pressure on one side and their reluctance to enter a war on the other, torn between Arab and Kurdish interests, and fearing Turkey’s involvement and its impact. We shouldn’t pass premature judgments; we need to await unfolding developments.
- Do you expect the return of the peace process in the future, especially given the current developments in the region?
Speaking about the peace process now is like talking about bringing rain from the moon. Currently, no one is discussing peace; everyone is preoccupied with how to prevent war. In Syria, we don’t want the humiliation that Ariel Sharon presents, especially because the major power capable of imposing a solution is fully standing by Israel and considering it part of its strategic security.
- How do you foresee the Arab future if the war happens?
The effects will be detrimental for everyone, and this period won’t be prolonged. It will have components that will mark the beginning of a clear vision and the start of a new and different Arab future. Between reaching this future and the situation that the war will generate, there will be a painful period. It will serve as a transitional phase toward a conscious new future. This war will bring about the opposite for Arabs, even though in terms of the historical movement of the Arab situation, this opposite comes late.
