Alhurra TV conducted a special interview with the former Syrian vice president, Abdul-Halim Khaddam, through the weekly program “One of the Questions” presented by the media colleague Nadim Qatish.
During the interview, Khaddam conveyed more than one message to various internal, Arab, and international parties.
During the interview, he also discussed the Brussels Conference’s resolutions and the direction of future actions and resistance. At the beginning, he categorically rejected the words of the opposition Reform Party’s leader, Fareed Al-Ghadri, who called on the Alawite sect “to return to their mountainous areas and leave Damascus, the capital of the Umayyads, to the Sunni majority in Syria in order for them to regain power.” Khaddam clarified: “I am not sectarian; I am a Syrian citizen, and I take pride in my belonging to my homeland. This statement is condemned in every way, both in its entirety and in detail. The one who made this statement is not Syrian, and cannot be considered Syrian. The Alawite sect is an integral part of the Syrian people’s composition and the Syrian national fabric. Anyone who tries to disrupt this fabric is working against Syria and against stability in Syria.” He added: “In Syria, there are various sects, religions, Muslims, and Christians from all sects and denominations, but they are all loyal Syrians. The presence of individuals or members of the ruling family does not mean that the Alawite sect is responsible for it, nor any other sect. ‘No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another.’ This is a fundamental principle in Islam and logic. Therefore, such statements were met with strong condemnation both inside and outside Syria, and I believe that there is no Syrian or non-Syrian, both inside and outside Syria, who can accept such statements. Regarding the existence of what is called the “Alawite consensus” or the “Alawite National Council” monitoring the performance of President Assad, Khaddam said, “Such talk is a collection of incorrect assumptions or ideas. There is no Alawite National Council; the Alawite sect is not responsible for governance, and the authority responsible is the ruling family, Hafez Assad’s family and his son. The Alawite sect or any other sect cannot be held responsible for the rule of this family. In Syrian politics –
” Khaddam adds – National foundations, not sectarian foundations. We differ with the regime because it is an oppressive, tyrannical, and corrupt individual regime. Our disagreement with it is not based on the fact that its leader belongs to the Alawite sect. Therefore, spreading such statements aims to tear apart Syrian national unity, and I say to you very clearly: Syrians as a whole cannot accept such statements, and they are condemned. As for the Alawite influence on the decisions of President Bashar al-Assad, Khaddam pointed out, “Alawites are part of the Syrian people. The overwhelming majority of the Syrian people, from all sects and ethnicities, reject Bashar al-Assad. The matter cannot be attributed to sectarian affiliation but rather to the political individual. As I mentioned, the disagreement is not about sectarian affiliation at all, and it cannot happen in Syria on that basis. To remind you, in the year 3491 [Gregorian calendar year 2000], there were elections, and the first president of the Syrian parliament was the late Fares al-Khoury, who belonged to a small Christian minority. Syrians look at a person’s sincerity, values, and their policies and how closely they align with or diverge from the country’s interests.”
The isolated and the isolated
The situation inside Syria, as described by Khaddam, is as follows: “I believe that Bashar al-Assad did not attend the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cuba because he fears popular movements in his absence. He is anxious and disturbed, and this anxiety keeps him awake at night. He is afraid because he has entangled himself in political positions and on-the-ground actions that conflict with the interests of the country. This is normal and results in several effects of anxiety. Bashar al-Assad isolated Syria with his policies from international relations, and he is fundamentally isolated internally. It is natural for him not to go abroad.”
Regarding the report of the international investigation committee into the assassination of the late President Rafik Hariri and recent events in Lebanon, Khaddam explained: “I expect that the report will not mention names of suspects at this stage because the international court has not been formed yet. Therefore, the report is expected to be professional, but it will be more advanced than the previous report in the sense that it will present new facts, new convictions, and new influences. As for naming names, I do not expect that to happen because when names are mentioned, they cannot issue arrest warrants for them. This matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Lebanese judiciary, and under the current political circumstances, I don’t think it has the capability to issue such warrants. Therefore, I expect and believe that the investigator has postponed naming names until the formation of an international court. The Syrian regime is responsible for the assassination of the late President Rafik Hariri and all the assassinations that followed it, in my conviction. Captain Samir Shehadeh is directly linked to the file of the assassination of the late president and the party that attempted to assassinate him. This attempt was carried out because of his connection to the previous file – the assassination file. I believe that the same party that attempted previous assassination operations is responsible for this, meaning the Syrian security apparatus and its remaining branches in Lebanon. Naturally, such a matter cannot happen without a decision from President Bashar al-Assad, as the security decision in Syria is in the hands of the head of state.”
The campaign directed against the government of President Fouad Siniora, carried out by some internal Lebanese forces and aligned with the recent discourse of President Bashar al-Assad, Khaddam saw as follows: “It is a coherent campaign required by Bashar al-Assad, with an explanation for the war that took place in Lebanon and the abduction of Israeli soldiers, a decision that came from Bashar al-Assad because he wanted to create a rift in the Lebanese society, and he believed that this operation would lead to a war, and he knew that. Therefore, he bet on the Lebanese people being divided over this operation, but this belief was proven wrong because the Lebanese people unified during the war. After the war stopped, it is natural for the Lebanese people to wonder about the role of the state and whether there can be two states…?! Assad wanted to exploit these questions to create discord, so he gave instructions to his friends, including Hezbollah, to move in that direction. I say clearly:
Firstly, any fault that occurs in Lebanon is directly the responsibility of Bashar al-Assad.
Secondly, the March 14th coalition issued a statement some time ago, and I don’t agree with it due to the bad timing of its release, considering the need to heal the aftermath of the war, even though it is their right to do so.
The significant mistake made by Nasrallah is the blatant campaign he launched against a Lebanese team representing a significant popular movement in Lebanon. If he thought that the Syrian people would stand by his side, he is mistaken. The Syrian people stood by the resistance, but when Hezbollah turns to attack inside against Lebanese parties, no Syrian or Arab will stand with him. Everyone stood with him against Israeli aggression, but no one will stand with him when he wants to drag Lebanon into a civil war or an explosion in favor of Bashar al-Assad or anyone else.”
Regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Khaddam hinted at two things:
“First, the American reaction, represented by Secretary Rice’s statement, is natural because if they didn’t do that and thanked the Syrian authorities, it would have been subject to criticism from the Arab, American, and international communities. As for the incident itself, there are two sayings. The first saying is that this operation was carried out by one of the security agencies because the area where the incident occurred is a 100% secure area, the area of the presidential palace, the residence of the head of state, and the residence of many senior officials. It’s impossible for a chicken to pass through that area without security surveillance. Also, the vehicles used in the operation had no license plates. This saying may be true, or it may not be.
The second saying is that the operation is terrorist, and if it is indeed so, it warns of serious things in Syria. This means that the regime, because of its terrorist and oppressive policies, corruption, poverty in the country, its isolation from the people, the deprivation of freedoms, and closing doors to people, all of this has led to a sense of frustration that could lead to extremism. Therefore, if it is a terrorist operation, it is a result of what the country has come to under the current regime.”
The presence of protection by major powers like the United States for the Syrian regime, so that Syria doesn’t turn into another Iraq, was outlined by Khaddam as follows: “The continuation of the regime is what would turn Syria into another Iraq. When the regime is protected and the doors of change are closed, Syria will witness events similar to those in Iraq. When the doors of hope for improvement, decent living, the fight against poverty, unemployment, and… are shut, what do people do? Let’s look at Algeria as an example. In 1988, President Chadli Bendjedid launched a democratic movement, and elections were held. The military staged a coup, used violence, and closed the doors of freedom and disrupted the elections. What happened in Algeria is regrettable, and Algeria still suffers from it. So, what creates a breeding ground for violence and extremism is the violence, tyranny, and corruption of the authorities.”
The possibility of a Syrian-American settlement and whether this worries the opposition was responded to by Khaddam as follows: “This matter does not worry or concern the opposition, which seeks change and will achieve it through national voices and national will, not through foreign intervention, and this is clear to everyone. As for the regime’s ability to meet American demands, I say that it’s not a matter of demands but of policies. The regime is tied to Iranian policy and its fate, and therefore, the problem of the regime is part of the region’s problem and the West’s problem with Iran. Another thing is that Assad is not capable, and he cannot abandon his policy because that would mean he has lost both his religion and the world. I confirm that the Syrian people as a whole condemned Bashar al-Assad’s recent speech and considered it a major political error. I believe that his connection to the Iranian regime’s strategy is behind such a speech because the connection with the Arab states has its requirements and realities. With his recent statements, Assad has effectively increased his Arab and domestic isolation. There is absolutely no Arab cover for such a policy.
As for his emphasis on peace during the speech, he wanted to use Lebanon for dialogue with Israel, effectively wanting to exploit the bloodshed and destruction that have befallen the Lebanese people for that purpose. When he speaks about peace, he wants to calm down peaceful political currents that oppose him and his policies in the West. He wants to tell them, ‘I want peace, and I want you to overlook my actions.’ It’s nothing more than a political maneuver.”
Regarding the possibility of Qatari mediation to open up Syrian-Israeli negotiations, Khaddam responded: “I don’t have information about this matter, but the Syrian regime made a mistake by confronting Riyadh through Qatar. Saudi Arabia played a significant role in favor of Syria. All development projects in the 1970s and beyond were supported financially by Saudis and Gulf countries. Syrian-Saudi relations are not new; they go back to the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and there were many Syrians surrounding the founding king, acting as advisors and assistants. Consequently, emotional bonds were formed between the two peoples and governments, and any harm to these relations is not just a harm to Syria’s history but also to Syria itself and its interests.
If there’s an issue between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Syria should play the role of the brotherly mediator, seeking to resolve differences rather than fueling discord or being a tool in such regional problems. I believe that the Saudi brothers have come to the conviction that the Syrian people are oppressed and suffering, and the continuation of the regime means the continuation of injustice and suffering. As I mentioned earlier, there was Saudi-Syrian sympathy aimed at preventing any movement of change in the region at a time when the region needed Arab solidarity, mutual support, and Arab unity. However, the Syrian regime broke the rule and removed itself from the Arab equation. I believe that the insurance policy for any regime is in the hands of the people of that regime, and the regime’s insurance policy in Syria is the one that the Syrian people will use in the near future in their own interest. I don’t want to make predictions, but I am confident that the Syrian people will transition from this regime to a free and democratic system and will exercise their freedom to choose. As for the internal opposition movement, I was a member of the Syrian leadership and I have extensive relationships in various fields and sectors within the state. I know many people who share my views and my position on governance and the regime. This current exists within the party and in the streets, and it is natural for this current to represent a wide popular sentiment within Syrian society.”
