Consider that “Hezbollah” committed a mistake by entering into political work.
Khaddam describes the Syrian regime as a tool for Iran.
And he calls for the army to stay out of internal conflict.
Former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam said that the regime in Damascus is “not an ally of Iran, but a strategic tool in its hands,” and he called on the army to “stay out of the political conflict between the people and the ruling family.” He described the late Lebanese President Rafik Hariri as a “foreign minister for Syria” before his assassination in 2005.
Khaddam said in an interview with “United Press International” that his contacts with the banned group “Muslim Brotherhood” in Syria date back to before he announced his split from the regime on December 30 last year, and he emphasized that he plans to return to Damascus “soon,” and that “Hezbollah” committed a mistake by entering into political work without putting its weapons at the disposal of the Lebanese state.
Khaddam was speaking during his visit to the British capital, London, to participate in the “National Salvation Front” conference, which he formed with the General Observer of the “Muslim Brotherhood” in Syria, Ali Sadr al-Din al-Bayyani, and other opposition figures in Brussels last March.
In response to a question about Iran’s role in the region and the fear of the “Shiite Crescent” warned by the Jordanian monarch King Abdullah II, Khaddam said: “Iran is a major state in the region and has a regional strategy that extends to Central Asia and strategic interests, and thus it uses its relations to serve this direction, and Bashar al-Assad is not a strategic ally of Iran, but a strategic tool for it.”
He considered that the current situation of Syrian-Iranian relations is different from what it was in the past, and he said: “In the past, there was a strategic alliance and Syria had interests and Iran had interests, and the main point of convergence for this alliance was Saddam Hussein. But things changed after that due to the absence of the main point of convergence and the weakness of Syria, which no longer has any strategy.”
He added: “There is a current reality, which is that the regime in Syria is linked to Tehran, and there are now Islamic parties in Iraq that have close ties to Iran and are linked to it, and Islamic parties in Lebanon that have ties to Iran.”
Khaddam considered his split in December of last year “was not a hasty decision, but a calculated decision based on the interest of Syria,” and he said: “I tried for a long time to work on introducing reforms to the party’s ideology, the structure of the state, and its mechanisms of operation, and thus transition the country from the ruling party’s system (Baath) to a democratic system, because monopolizing power led to causing great damage to Syria, including the spread of corruption, as the official, especially if he holds a high position, when he is not held accountable and when no one dares to hold him accountable, there are no limits to the mistakes he commits.”
Asked if he has supporters within the ranks of the ruling “Baath” party, the government, and the armed forces, he answered: “As for the government, there are none, because it is in the hands of the ruling family, and as for the armed forces, I personally call on them to stay out of the political conflict, because involving these forces in the political conflict poses a great danger to the armed forces and the country. Syria has suffered greatly from the military’s involvement in politics since 1949, and therefore I call and have called on the armed forces in Syria to stay out of the political conflict between the people and the ruling family.” He continued, “As for the party, there is a wide opposition trend to the ruling family and supports our directions.”
As for his vision of how the desired change in Syria will occur, especially as the United States has repeatedly stated that it does not want to change this regime but wants it to change its behavior, Khaddam said: “Changing the regime represents a Syrian national interest above all else, as this regime has impoverished our people, weakened them, and eroded their national unity. Today, misery prevails throughout the country, with poverty, declining living standards, unemployment, economic recession, market stagnation, weakened purchasing power, and the inability of state institutions and its agencies to provide the minimum services to citizens. Therefore, change is a Syrian interest regardless of the stance of this or that state.”
He added: “We are working for a national change for the benefit of Syria, not for the benefit of any external party, and we reject achieving the desired change through the armed forces and military coups, because all countries that witnessed military coups, or in which the military took power, led their countries to weakness, defeat, and submission. The National Salvation Front seeks a change that leads to the construction of a modern democratic state where power is exchanged and public and individual freedoms are guaranteed. A state that revitalizes Syria and fills the deep gap between it and the developed world, and moves it from a state of weakness and decline to a stage of regaining its self-economic, political, cultural, and military strength.”
Khaddam wondered: “Is there anything that satisfies Syria’s enemies and adversaries more than for Syria to be weak and unable to defend itself and make its voice heard, and to be blown by the wind after it was once a decision-maker in the region?”
He strongly rejected the idea that the regime wanted to make him a scapegoat due to his strong relationship with President Rafik Hariri. He said, “I am not a sacrificial lamb, and no one can make anyone a sacrificial lamb. I believe, and I seek refuge in God from saying ‘I believe’, that the main reason for Syria’s suffering is the nature of the current regime for the aforementioned reasons.”
He also denied that he visited London before his defection or that he met any British or American officials, saying, “I have not visited London before this time for many years, and I don’t have any plans to have meetings with any British officials, and no contact has ever taken place between me and any American official.”
When asked if he planned to move to London due to the restrictions imposed on him by France, he answered, “I only plan to reside in Damascus, and I will return there soon. I don’t have any restrictions in France at all, where there is a tradition that dictates that any politician residing in it refrains from engaging in any media activity against any other party, and I respect this tradition.”
The Syrian People’s Council condemned Khaddam and accused him of high treason. The judicial authorities in Syria issued a warrant for his arrest and delivered it to the French government through INTERPOL.
Khaddam said that the “National Salvation Front,” which he formed with the “Muslim Brotherhood,” “has an agenda and will present action plans and programs for the upcoming phase in the internal, Arab, and international domains during the conference in London (currently being held), and will establish its internal organizational structure.”
He denied the accuracy of the claim that former Chief of Staff General Hikmat al-Shihabi had also planned to defect and join the ranks of the “National Salvation Front.” He said, “This is not true. Al-Shihabi is a national man who retired from politics in 1998 and is currently ill. May God heal him. He has not engaged in any political activity since then. He is my friend, and there are constant communications between him and me.”
Regarding whether the Front’s future activities would focus on sectarianism in Syria and whether it had received support from neighboring countries for this direction, Khaddam answered, “I have never been and will never be a promoter of sectarianism. I am a nationalist and I believe that any action, incitement, or practice within the framework of sectarianism is a betrayal of the country.”
Khaddam acknowledged that his contacts with the banned “Muslim Brotherhood” group date back to before his defection from the Damascus regime. He said, “Indeed, there was communication between us through one of the parties.” However, he denied that the relevant party was the “Damascus Declaration,” which was launched by a group of intellectuals and political activists in protest against the internal conditions and political and public freedoms. He added, “The communication took place through a third party, and during it, we discussed my position regarding the regime and my intention to resign.”
Khaddam also stated that he has no knowledge of the statement attributed to Buramertz, which appeared in an interview with the “New York Times,” stating, “Khaddam will be subject to trial after the fall of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, but for now, he is an integral part of the opposition.” He said, “I have not heard such statements, and I believe that Buramertz, based on his character, perception, and knowledge, would not make such statements. In any case, now and in the future, any Syrian who has a right or an accusation against me can sue me just as Buramertz or any other person can be sued.”
He expressed his belief that one of the reasons for the assassination of President Hariri is that those who convinced Bashar al-Assad and implicated him in the assassination operation wanted to eliminate a man who worked for Syria’s interests. He said, “President Hariri served Syria more than he served Lebanon. He was a foreign minister for Syria, and we entrusted him with foreign missions to repair our relations with countries that our former foreign minister (Farouk al-Sharaa) had damaged. I take pride in my friendship with President Hariri. May God have mercy on him. He was an Arab nationalist who loved Syria, was loyal to it, and made great efforts to serve it.”
Regarding his expectations for what Belgian Judge Serge Brammertz will say in the report he is due to present to the Security Council mid-month, Khaddam said, “Naturally, Brammertz is a secretive man, and nothing has leaked from him. However, based on my previous knowledge of the course of the investigation, I assume that the report will include serious matters related to those who planned and executed the assassination of President Hariri and other assassinations.”
He added, “Brammertz and his predecessor, the German judge Detlev Mehlis, are both professionals, but each of them has his own approach. Mehlis used to leak information in order to gather information through reactions, and this was his method of investigation. Brammertz, on the other hand, has a different approach, which involves controlling information and not leaking it.”
He denied having met Brammertz but indicated that he had met Mehlis, whom he described as “a good investigator who understands his duties closely.”
When asked if he supports the demand to disarm “Hezbollah,” he answered, “Hezbollah led the Lebanese resistance and succeeded in driving the Israelis out of Lebanon and liberating the south. What it achieved would not have been possible without the Lebanese national consensus in supporting the Lebanese resistance.”
He considered that “Hezbollah committed a political mistake by involving itself in the political process in Lebanon and becoming part of the political landscape there. As a result, this led other Lebanese parties to tell them that they are an armed party and it’s not their right to possess this weapon. If there is an issue related to the Shebaa Farms, they should ask their Syrian friends to officially recognize that these farms are Lebanese. Then Lebanon could work through its means to remove the Israelis from the Shebaa Farms. However, this didn’t happen, which led those parties to wonder why Lebanon is being put at stake for the interests of (President) Bashar al-Assad’s politics or Iran’s politics.”
He expressed his belief that “Hezbollah should have preserved its significant historical standing. He said, “Naturally, in any country in the world, when resistance becomes part of the political process, it also becomes part of the political game. This weakens the resistance and weakens its history as well. Therefore, I see that Hezbollah made a mistake by entering the political arena, and it should have placed the issue of resistance or the issue of arms under the leadership of the Lebanese state if it wanted to engage in politics.”
Khaddam said, “Hezbollah was supposed to maintain national consensus around it without anyone being able to detract from the significant role Hezbollah has played. I am not in favor of the Lebanese politics that they pursued, and I am not in favor of them being under the control of Bashar al-Assad or others. I had hoped that Hezbollah would remain an Islamic, national, Lebanese, and Arab party that serves its Arab identity and Islam by promoting national unity in Lebanon.”
