Visitors to the former deputy to the Syrian president, Abdul Halim Khadam, don’t feel like they’re in the presence of a seventy-year-old man who spent nearly half a century in power. Instead, they find a man who, after conducting a series of interviews and media discussions, has transformed into a media event. He still exudes vitality, supported by a memory and leadership that doesn’t miss events, dates, or even individuals.
At first glance, when I approached him for this conversation, I thought he might have exhausted his thoughts and had nothing more to say. However, his experience in Syrian politics and his long involvement in the Lebanese file have endowed him with a significant richness. We were compelled to limit the conversation to the main topics, which led this seasoned politician to defect from his country’s leadership at this critical juncture in the histories of both Syria and Lebanon.
Here is the dialogue:
*We’ll start the conversation with a widespread accusation, which is corruption. The Syrian authorities have responded by labeling you as one of the symbols of this affliction that harmed Syria. Undoubtedly, this accusation weakens the credibility of your current call for change. What is your response?
I have listened to the discussions that took place in the People’s Assembly, but it seems that this assembly has forgotten that I was a political figure and never held any ministry related to projects. Nonetheless, I challenge the Syrian government to present a single file related to me, my children, or my company that is connected to this or that project. I am willing to take full responsibility, even more than that. I proposed to them – and I still have the proposal – the formation of an impartial Arab committee to thoroughly examine all corruption cases in Syria. What applies to me should apply to others as well. You will find that corruption is limited to the family of President Bashar al-Assad and his relatives.
*Nuclear Waste
*What about the second issue raised by some members of the People’s Assembly, which is “nuclear waste”? The accusation is that one of your sons imported it from abroad to bury it in Syria?
Thank you for bringing up this topic. I have never addressed this issue with any other media outlet before. Here, I’d like to provide you with the details of this matter.
This issue was raised about 15 years ago, when an officer informed me that the second person (the first person was Ali Duba) at Military Intelligence, Ahmad Aboud, contacted heads of security branches all over Syria and instructed them to spread rumors that chemical waste was on its way to Syria for burial. It was imported by Abdul Halim Khadam’s sons. My immediate reaction was surprise, so I immediately contacted President Hafez al-Assad and informed him that there was a rumor being spread by Military Intelligence. I asked him to form an investigative committee. He promptly formed a committee consisting of five ministers, led by the Inspector General. The committee went to the port of Tartus, and after three days, they issued a report stating that neither I nor any of Abdul Halim Khadam’s sons had any connection to this matter.
The merchandise was indeed present at the port, so it was reloaded and sent back to the country it came from, which is Italy. It remained in the port of Naples for six months, with the sailors aboard the ship. Due to the Italian government’s procrastination, and faced with the sailors’ threat to dump the waste into the sea, the Italian authorities had to take possession of it. Anyone interested in verifying this can confirm it with Italy.
*What was Assad’s reaction to the attempt to tarnish your reputation?
He summoned me after receiving the committee’s report and told me that your sons have been subjected to injustice, and they have no connection to the case. He asked me about the officer who informed me that Military Intelligence was spreading the rumor. I told him that I couldn’t reveal his identity because we couldn’t protect him, neither you nor me. His reaction was one of annoyance. I told him, “Security in this country is stronger than you!”
*What interest did this officer have to fabricate the accusation against your sons?
He received half a million dollars in return for that. After that, I requested that the person who delivered the shipment to Syria be brought in for questioning. He had been smuggled from Damascus Airport to Cyprus and his name was “Abu Al-Abd Tabalo.” An investigation was conducted with him, and the judiciary sentenced him to eight years in prison. He was imprisoned, and the Political Security took quick action to erase Ahmad Aboud’s name.
*Some say that the merchandise was transferred to Palmyra and buried there?
If the goal of these rumors is to sow confusion, then it wouldn’t surprise me if they are connected to the campaign that the regime is waging against me. But if their goal is the truth, they should return to the port of Tartus.
*In the end, no one knows the composition of these materials that are being discussed. Do you have any idea? Is it nuclear waste or chemical waste? It is known here in Europe that transporting nuclear waste is a very complex process. So how can this be done simply through a ship?
In truth, this question is of the utmost importance. I agree with your analysis. Transporting nuclear waste is subject to very strict conditions. As you may notice, this occurs repeatedly in Europe, especially between Germany and France. Whenever a shipment of nuclear waste is transported from Germany to be treated in France, it is done with extreme care. Due to its extreme danger, protests by environmental activists usually accompany these transports. I believe this matter is related to chemical waste, which can degrade over a period of twenty years, according to specialists.
Lebanon
You recently met with Judge Detlev Mehlis, the head of the international investigation committee into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. What transpired in the meeting and what new developments have you presented? Do you anticipate a significant breakthrough in the investigation soon?
I met with Judge Mehlis, who inquired about some statements I made to the “Al Arabiya” satellite channel. I provided him with the information and facts I had. However, determining the location of the incidents in the investigation falls under the jurisdiction of the investigation committee, which is natural since the investigation is confidential. After I provided my testimony, I am not allowed to discuss the subject any further because it now belongs to the investigation committee.
Does the committee possess new or additional information? Do you believe that it will name those who planned and executed the assassination, and will these individuals face consequences regardless of their positions?
Yes, I expect that, and it is natural that these individuals will face consequences.
You hinted in press interviews at the possibility of the personal involvement of the Syrian President. Do you have evidence, especially given your legal background?
I am not the investigating judge, and I am not the court. The investigation committee determines the accusations, and if the investigation committee proves that a member of the Syrian security is involved in the crime, then it necessarily means that the decision is political, as the mechanisms of action in the Syrian security, and the center of decision-making, lie with the presidency.
But in any case, the dispute over the extension doesn’t justify Hariri’s assassination. Don’t you believe that?
The decision to extend President Emile Lahoud’s term is the reason behind what has afflicted Lebanon and what now afflicts Syria. The Lebanese people were against the extension, as were the Syrian people and the rest of the world. So why persist with it? Syria remained in Lebanon for thirty years. After all this time, can it be imagined that it has no Maronite friend who can come to the presidency other than General Lahoud?
The decision to extend Lahoud’s term was generated by Security Council Resolution 1559. Here, I must recount the story of the birth of this resolution. Hours before the extension, President Bashar al-Assad tasked his foreign minister, Farouk al-Sharaa, with contacting the Spanish Foreign Minister, Miguel Moratinos. He asked for Syria’s assistance in preventing a Security Council resolution from being issued, in exchange for Syria’s readiness to abandon the extension for Lahoud. Indeed, Moratinos informed the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Zapatero, who requested that he contact the Syrian minister to ask President Assad himself to make the request directly. This is what happened, as Assad presented the Syrian initiative to the Spanish Prime Minister. Zapatero immediately engaged with French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
After five hours of negotiations, everyone agreed to the Syrian initiative and, consequently, to prevent the issuance of a Security Council resolution. Moratinos called al-Sharaa and informed him of European approval not to issue a Security Council resolution, and he asked him to contact Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to cancel the parliamentary session scheduled for the extension. Al-Sharaa responded by asking Moratinos to contact Berri, and Moratinos called Berri, who replied, “We are an independent and sovereign state and not subject to influence!” So who generated this decision?
What resulted from this decision? It resulted in the disruption of Syrian-Lebanese relations, the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, and the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon. It led to Arab and international isolation of Syria. So why make a decision of such gravity unless there are interests that have nothing to do with the Syrian role, which prompted the decision to be taken?
Can you clarify what these interests are and what they are related to?
They are related to corruption.
There are accusations of financial irregularities in Lebanon that are directed towards Syrian officials, and some accusations talk about billions of dollars. However, you only mentioned $35 million that Ghazali seized from “Bank AL Madine”?
I learned about Ghazali’s embezzlements through some senior officials, but some judicial investigations indicate $63 million. As for the loss from “Banque AL Madine,” it’s a billion dollars.
Who are Ghazali’s partners in this looting operation?
Ghazali worked as a tax collector. Tax collectors usually receive a certain percentage of the collection, but the share is not his. Thus, the billion that was looted did not go to Ghazali but to his superiors.
I mentioned that Hariri’s suffering with Syrian officials was significant. Did he really get beaten in “Ainjar”?
No, that didn’t happen, but he was subjected to insults from Rustum Ghazaleh. When I learned about it, I contacted President Bashar and discussed the matter with him. I informed him that Nabih Berri was also insulted by Ghazaleh. I told Assad that this reflects poorly on him and Syria, and it’s shameful to remain silent about Ghazaleh’s insults to the Lebanese Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament, Walid Jumblatt, and other ministers. Foreigners wouldn’t have done this when they were here. These stories are circulating on the streets and will agitate both Christians and Muslims. I suggested to him to transfer Ghazaleh and hold him accountable, imposing punishment. Bashar’s response was that we will warn him and contact him to apologize, but that didn’t resolve the issue.
What weakened Syria in Lebanon was the involvement of the security apparatus in political activities.
However, the file of assassinations in Lebanon is heavy and predates Hariri’s time. Can you explain this, at least during the time you were responsible for the Lebanese affairs?
We need to view the war in Lebanon from all angles. It took on various dimensions: Islamic-Christian, Christian-Christian, Sunni-Shiite, Shiite-Druze, Shiite-Shiite, Palestinian-Lebanese, and so on. In these circumstances, there were about twenty foreign security agencies operating in Lebanon. The entire Lebanese population was exposed to assassination. Indeed, tens of thousands of Lebanese were killed.
Even if we follow this explanation to its conclusion, it cannot justify the assassination of some figures, especially Kamal Jumblatt. What is your opinion?
One of the consequences of the civil war is these assassination operations. There are, of course, accusations against Syrian parties. I don’t want to deny or confirm. Concerning the assassination of Kamal Jumblatt, his son Walid had previously talked about it, saying that he had closed the file, but it resurfaced later. However, undoubtedly, whoever killed Kamal Jumblatt committed a brutal crime against a Lebanese national leader who clung to his Arab identity. It was a great loss for the Arab liberation movement and the national movement in general.
You were primarily responsible for the Lebanese file for a long period. Were you well-informed about all security matters?
I was responsible for the political management of the file. Security was related to other entities. There was a committee visiting Beirut, meeting parties, working towards agreements, and creating dialogues between Lebanese parties. We managed the political aspect and dialogue between Lebanese parties. As for the security actions, the committee had no involvement, neither directly nor indirectly.
Syria
You have given a series of press interviews in recent days, but you haven’t clearly stated to the Syrians and the world what your actual project is. Do you want to overthrow the regime, and how, and what is your vision for an alternative?
In fact, I have spoken about a clear project. I have stated that the goal is to transition Syria from the current regime to a democratic system that ensures public freedoms for all, peaceful power rotation, abolishment of policies of isolation and exclusion, and upholds the principle of equal opportunities. It enables citizens to enjoy their individual and collective freedoms, freedom of expression, and the formation of political parties. The people will judge the rightness or wrongness of this party or that. Syria can only rise by following the path of democracy. It has tried various systems for a long time, but the democratic system is the one that allows the Syrian people to play an active role. The elderly remember that through democracy and public freedoms, Syrians managed to distance themselves from the Baghdad Pact and stop its expansion. Freedom is the only guarantee of the smooth functioning of governance. When there is no accountability system, mistakes become boundless and spread in all fields. But in a democratic system, democracy corrects mistakes. Elections are held every four years, providing an opportunity to hold an ineffective government accountable. The president who falls short is judged by the people. However, under systems that have become “republican monarchies,” there’s no room for accountability, and no one can hold the president accountable.
The ruling powers in Syria say that you are isolated and have no internal or external support. What’s your response?
If I were isolated and had no one inside or outside supporting me or my orientations, why then this great confusion? Why do they gather the “People’s Assembly” and have each member insult me? Why was I expelled from the party of which I was a founding member? Why is this powerless leadership gathering to expel me?
If I were isolated, why all this fear then?
Do you believe that the ruling power’s foundation is based on your non-participation so far, both from within and outside?
In the beginning, I don’t seek anyone’s participation. The entire Syrian people are suffering, and I have spoken about what people are discussing in their conscience, homes, and private sessions. My allies are these people who are suffering. When it transitions to the stage of action, there are frameworks in place. But the current stage for me is about revealing the truth to the people and exposing the regime. The regime will inevitably disintegrate.
*So, are you not about to announce a political move from outside?
No, I am not considering that at the moment. I am currently focused on continuing my political and media campaign against the regime. I will also continue my communications with those inside for the transition to a new phase.
No to external support.
*Do you support external support to overthrow the regime, whether through military or political means?
I completely reject that, because any change that comes from outside or with its approval will cost the country dearly and impose many restrictions on it. The Syrian people should bear the burden of transitioning from the current situation to a new democratic state.
*Do you believe that the Syrian people are capable of accomplishing this task on their own, without external support?
Yes, they are capable. The power of the people is increasing while the power of the authorities is weakening and disintegrating.
*In your conversations, you mentioned the Syrian opposition. Which opposition do you accept alliance with?
I spoke about a national opposition in Syria, but in its current state, it is not capable of bringing about change. Therefore, I call on all forces and political figures to unite their efforts and goals in this stage. If the goal today is to save Syria and transition to a democratic system, then why not agree on it? This requires everyone to set aside personal disputes and focus their energies on this goal. When democracy is achieved in Syria, it will determine the balance of power.
I see that we should all agree on two fundamental points: firstly, to get rid of the current regime, and secondly, to establish a democratic system. After that, every matter can be discussed.
*How do you view the “Damascus Declaration” issued by the opposition, and are you willing to coordinate with its parties?
First of all, most of the parties in the “Damascus Declaration” are personal friends of mine, and what is mentioned in the declaration aligns with my views and thoughts. Of course, there are some issues that need to be reviewed. Two things need to be carefully considered: first, the work should not lead to the disintegration of national unity. Second, not everyone who is a member of the Baath Party is responsible for the regime’s mistakes. Therefore, a segment of Syrian society needs to be taken into consideration.
*You’ve been accused by some in the opposition and the government of sabotaging the “Damascus Spring.” What’s your response?
Was there really a “Damascus Spring” to sabotage? I want to refer you to what one of the prominent figures of this experiment, Riad Seif, said. According to “Syria News” electronic newspaper, Anwar Al-Buni, Riad Seif’s lawyer, said: “Khadam assured Seif that he can propose initial principles for dialogue with the aim of establishing a political party, as a prelude to issuing a new law for parties in Syria.” Al-Buni quoted Seif as saying that Khadam informed him that he could launch a party and publish its document.
Can I ask Riad Seif to establish a party according to a new law for parties and then be accused of sabotaging the “Damascus Spring”? In any case, the party law has not been issued yet, so why haven’t they released Seif and his comrades, who were symbols of the “Spring,” until now?
*You have engaged in an open war with President Bashar al-Assad. Is there a possibility of a settlement?
From my side, there is no possibility of any settlement. This possibility has been exhausted over the past five years. I tried to push him towards a path that leads to achieving the reforms that we had agreed upon before he came to power, but he didn’t respond.
*What were these reforms?
We had agreed to move towards democracy, political and economic reforms, reforming state institutions, and ending the role of security agencies. But when he came to power, things changed, and the regime became his personal property. He doesn’t want anyone to interfere with it.
*There has been confusion about your stance on inheritance. Did you oppose it or support it?
No one agreed on this issue, but at the same time, no one could openly oppose it because President Hafez al-Assad had arranged the situation in the armed forces, security agencies, and all vital sectors in a way that any objection or resistance would lead the country into a major internal crisis. One of the major mistakes made by the then-president was allowing family emotions to outweigh his responsibility towards the country, especially regarding inheritance. He disregarded well-established political values in Syria since independence.
*Did you convey this opinion and stance to him?
No, the circumstances were not appropriate because Bashar al-Assad was in a medical condition that didn’t allow him to engage in discussions about important and complex issues. Since 1997, he practically wasn’t in a state to engage in such discussions. Before that, we used to have discussions and disagreements about many matters, and often he would backtrack and apologize. Towards the end of his life, his illness completely overwhelmed him.
*You mentioned the term “national reconciliation” in your talks. What do you mean by it, and reconciliation between whom?
Reconciliation with all those whom the regime excluded and prevented from participating in determining their fate. Here, we need to ask, why isn’t there an active political movement in Syria today, unlike in the early 1950s? Even before 1970, there were strong and active political parties, from communists to Nasserists and Arab socialists. What happened after that? All these parties were torn apart. There were factions that divided and competed for power against each other. This led to the collapse of the party life.
However, in the Baath Party, you wanted this and formed what is known as the “Progressive National Front,” which still exists?
I personally did not attend meetings of this Front except in rare cases when the President himself attended. It’s a sad sight to see these absent faces from consciousness.
**Rumors have spread about meetings held in Paris between you and the former Syrian vice president Rifaat al-Assad, and that he insisted on (khaddam interrupting the question).
First, I have been in disagreement with Rifaat since 1970, intellectually, in approach, and in behavior. I was the one leading the campaign against him within the Baath Party, and I played a primary role in confronting him during the illness of the President and in removing him from power. There is nothing that connects us. Each of us has their own path and vision.
*How do you explain his decision to return to Syria in this context?
I am confident that if he returns, President Bashar will send him to prison.
*Why?
Because he is considering returning in order to seize power from his nephew, not to show solidarity with him. Power is sterile; it gives birth but does not reproduce!
*You were accused of meeting recently with Sylvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, in Paris, and your response was a counter-accusation by saying that Israel prefers a weak regime in Damascus. What is Israel’s actual stance on change in Syria?
Israel wants Syria to remain weak. It wants backwardness in Syria to increase and for the power balance between it and us to tip in Israel’s favor.
*What about Syrian-American relations in the past and present stages?
The Syrian relationship with the United States was tense until the collapse of the Soviet Union, which led to the loss of external support. This collapse was accompanied by a weakening of our Arab relations. At that time, there was an internal discussion about how to protect Syria from being devoured. Consequently, we adopted a policy of dialogue while preserving national interests rather than confrontation. Between 1990 and 2000, there were four summits between President Hafez al-Assad and American presidents, and American foreign ministers visited Syria more than thirty times, not counting delegations. But what were we doing at the same time? We were providing assistance to the Lebanese resistance and supporting the Palestinian uprising. Any dialogue was maintained while adhering to national constants.
As for the current stage, there is fiery rhetoric against the Americans and a presentation of concessions and stagnation.
Our discourse is strong on national issues, but practices differ. Undoubtedly, the principle is clear: any regime that confronts the external without building the internal will only face defeat. Syria cannot confront while half the population lives below the poverty line, and everyone lives in fear of security agencies.
*Do you believe there is a Syrian role in Iraq?
The situation in Iraq is as follows: the central and southern regions are under the control of religious parties loyal to Iran. The western and northwestern parts are divided among several powers, including the remnants of the former regime, the “Association of Muslim Scholars,” “Al-Qaeda,” and the Kurds in the north. Syria has no role on this map, and it cannot play a role within Iraq. As for the talk of infiltration, the borders are long and the tribes are interconnected, but it is not the primary factor.
Another point of interest here is that there are no Syrian extensions within the Iraqi framework. Despite the reconciliation that took place with Saddam’s regime before the war for commercial reasons, and despite the fact that the former opposition was an ally of Syria, Syria’s influence within Iraq is very limited. Reconciliation, for example, did not extend to the party, and the former opposition is no longer an ally of Syria.
Damascus-Paris
There is a question that remains unanswered until now concerning the sudden deterioration in Syrian-French relations since the spring of 2004. At that time, indicators suggested the building of a comprehensive partnership between the two countries. Where does the problem lie, and who bears the responsibility?
From an objective perspective, the Syrian side is responsible for that. France has a special interest in the region and has taken a series of positions that led to confrontations with the United States over Iraq and supported the Arabs and Palestinians in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We all know that Lebanon is a sensitive issue for French policy.
There are three reasons that led to the tension in the situation: firstly, the issue of extending the term of the Lebanese president. Secondly, there were general tensions in the region, and President Jacques Chirac’s advisor visited the Syrian president to understand how France could assist Syria in dealing with American pressures. However, President Bashar did not grasp the meaning of the French message. The third factor is that I requested a visit to France in March 2004 to improve the relationship and explain the situation in the region.
At that time, the Syrian government had announced a tender for the construction of a gas liquefaction plant. Several companies, including the French company “Total,” a Canadian company (Occidental) as a partner in an American company, a Japanese company, and a British company owned by a Syrian named “PetroCanada,” submitted bids. When the offers were opened, the French company was the first choice. However, the Ministry of Oil instructed the other companies to submit new offers, and the Canadian company received insider information from its Syrian partner, who was also a partner in a company owned by Muhammad Makhlouf, the uncle of the president. They submitted a new offer with a better price than the French and Japanese companies.
Before my trip to Paris, I met President Assad and told him that international relations are based on interests above all else, and France is helping us and standing by our side. What will French businessmen say in this case? When we have interests, we give contracts to American companies (this coincided with the issuance of the “Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act”), but when Syria needs assistance, it turns to France.
I came to France, and the Syrian ambassador in Paris had sent a message saying that the success of the Deputy President’s visit is linked to the gas deal. I told President Chirac that if we were not going to award the project to France, then there would be no justification for the visit. However, he insisted on my trip. Nonetheless, I came to Paris hoping to leverage my relationship with President Chirac dating back to the 1970s. I found President Chirac tense, unlike his usual self. I tried to explain the Syrian government’s position regarding the contract, and he responded that it did not bother them and everyone knows their interests.
I returned to Damascus and presented the situation to President Assad. After five days, I received a new invitation from President Chirac to continue the talks, as the time of the previous meeting was not sufficient. I estimated that Chirac wanted to correct the impression and seriously explore the relations between the two countries. I discussed the matter with President Assad, and he strongly rejected the visit, saying that Chirac had insulted us due to his tension in the previous meeting. I told him that we should understand this and that there is no benefit in tension with France. He insisted on his position, so I suggested arranging a visit for him to France, but he refused.
As a result, official French sources informed the Syrian ambassador that they were aware of the president’s refusal of the invitation from the French president and considered it an insult to France. This marked the escalation of tension to an advanced stage, and it pushed forward the decision to extend the president’s term. This occurred just before the meeting between the French president and his American counterpart in June during the celebrations of the Normandy landings, where an American-French understanding was reached against the extension and the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon.
How do you assess the reactions to your recent moves?
I have conducted nearly 40 interviews with both Arab and foreign media outlets. On the official level, there is silence, and I believe it’s a silence based on anticipation of what will happen.
I am pleased with the reaction in Syria. During the interviews, there was a sort of curfew imposed across Syria, which is indicative of significant interest.
Alright, what will happen? You said that the Syrian regime will fall before my passport expires. What is the expiration date of the passport?
I am confident that the regime will end before that, and I am also confident that the officials of this regime will be held accountable.
