In a comprehensive television interview about the Syrian experience in Lebanon and dealing with the peace process and regional issues, Khaddam stated, “We do not interfere in Lebanese internal affairs and we stand with everyone without exception. Those who spread rumors about Syria swallowing Lebanon are the number one enemies of Lebanon.”
Abdel Halim Khaddam, the Deputy President of Syria, affirmed that the file of the Lebanese civil war has been definitively closed and there is a Lebanese national consensus on all fronts. There is consensus regarding Lebanon’s Arab identity and consensus on fighting Israel and the necessity of continuing to build the state, its institutions, and reconstruction. He pointed out, “Lebanon’s national unity is much stronger now than before the war. Some used to see Lebanon’s strength in its weakness, but now the Lebanese see that Lebanon’s strength lies in its resistance to occupation and in supporting the resistance and confronting challenges.”
While denying that Syria interferes in Lebanese internal affairs, Khaddam emphasized that Syria stands with all Lebanese without exception, and it does not want for Lebanon or any other Arab country what it does not want for itself. He highlighted that Syria intervened in Lebanon to restore security, stability, and to end the war based on the request of the Lebanese state at the beginning of the Lebanese war. He welcomed any Lebanese party visiting Syria and urged everyone to dispel any concerns or frustrations they may have. Syria will not support anyone against another; however, it will stand against any faction that aims to tear the country apart.
He believed that “the Lebanese state needs both opposition and loyalty, but it is important that everyone works within the framework of higher national interests, and that their disagreements are not about national objectives but about the path to protecting and achieving these objectives.” He considered that those who spread rumors about Syria swallowing Lebanon are the number one enemies of Lebanon, stressing that Syria did not have ambitions; otherwise, it wouldn’t have made great sacrifices to preserve Lebanon’s unity, independence, and sovereignty, while some turned to Israel seeking help to divide the country.
Regarding the current situation in the region, Khaddam saw that the Israeli government is ignoring the causes of conflict in the region in an attempt to create new realities on the ground and new political concepts, and some international parties are trying to promote these concepts. They want to change the concept of peace, as if the land is not the main cause of the conflict. He considered that the balance of power is not permanent, and the Arabs will not remain the weaker party forever.
Khaddam also addressed the lack of suitable US pressures on Netanyahu’s government to reconsider its policies and return to the Madrid reference. He pointed out that the continuation of pressuring Arabs and indulging Israel does not constitute a stability factor in the region. He stressed that no one can force the Palestinian people to abandon their national rights and oblige them to commit to obligations that affect these rights.
Khaddam announced that the Doha Conference has practically collapsed. It transformed from a summit conference to a ministerial conference, and now they are hoping for the participation of ambassadors. He asked, “If the goal of this conference is to encourage the peace process, where is the encouragement? Israel’s policy completely contradicts the peace process and obstructs it.” He described the Arab stance towards the conference as “good and comfortable.”
He considered the region to be in a state of aggression, and it is natural that the party being attacked uses all means to strengthen its capabilities and push back the aggression to reclaim its lands. Lebanon and Syria are working within this context to establish a just and comprehensive peace in the region, built on the decisions of the Security Council and international legitimacy. They will not accept any form of compromise on the occupied territories that will return to their rightful owners.
He hoped that Russia would play a role as one of the sponsors of the peace process and that Europe would actively support the peace process.
Khaddam’s positions were part of a television program aired last night, in which he responded to a series of questions related to the internal Lebanese situation and Lebanese-Syrian relations in facing the Israeli plans in the region.
He reiterated that Syria will not support anyone against anyone, and there is no need for concern or “frustration” among some.
It is too early to talk about elections or presidential extensions in Lebanon.
The questions and answers went as follows:
Your Excellency, the Vice President, the Lebanese file has been on your table for more than twenty years. Do the Lebanese tire you, or do they tire you out?
- “In reality, it’s not about being tired but about the results one intends to achieve. I can say that what has been achieved in Lebanon brings great satisfaction and doesn’t make the significant efforts and sacrifices, both mentally and in terms of work, feel burdensome. Therefore, dealing with the Lebanese file and the Lebanese issue is part of the work of every official in Syria, given the interconnectedness of situations in the region and the Arab arena, and the significant repercussions of Lebanon’s events on the Arab and regional situation. Lebanon has witnessed both worrying and uplifting developments. Worrying during the civil war and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and uplifting when the Lebanese were able to close the chapter of the Lebanese war and transition to a new phase in their lives and national unity. Hence, I express my contentment in dealing with our brothers in Lebanon in the various stages of the Lebanese crisis.”
After all the efforts you’ve exerted, are you now reassured that the efforts have been focused in the right place and that the page of war has been completely closed in Lebanon?
The war file has been completely closed.
- “Since the crisis began in Lebanon, we had a standpoint that has not changed. Our standpoint was that the civil war and the ongoing conflict would not allow any faction in Lebanon to achieve any gains. Instead, it would have negative repercussions on the country, and the Lebanese would pay a high price in terms of their blood and money for a futile war. Based on this, the historic decision made by His Excellency President Hafez al-Assad to work towards ending the civil war, no matter how much effort, sacrifice, and blood it required. Indeed, we entered Lebanon and were able, in the first phase, to stop the civil war in 1976 and convene the Cairo Summit, as we all know. However, other developments occurred in the region that negatively impacted the Lebanese situation. Moreover, at the time, some Lebanese parties were not ready to enter the phase of national reconciliation due to Israel’s subsequent intervention and the subsequent developments. I say that Lebanon has achieved significant steps, as I have mentioned, and the file of the civil war has been closed and concluded. Let’s make a comparison between the situation in Lebanon before the 1970s and now. Before the 1970s, the Lebanese differed on priorities and essentials, they differed on the stance towards Israel.”
Is there a national consensus politically?
- “Yes, yes, they used to differ about the country’s identity. Is Lebanon an Arab country? Does Lebanon have an Arab identity, and are the Lebanese Arabs? They also differed about the way of national work in Lebanon. Israel entered in 1982, and the Lebanese were divided. There was a group that welcomed the Israeli army and cooperated with it, all of this during the civil war. Now, what do we find in Lebanon?”
First: National unity is much stronger now than it was before the civil war in all aspects. There is absolutely no one calling for the division of the country or compromising its national unity. There is a Lebanese national consensus on the unity of the country, which was not available before and during the civil war.
Second: There is a national consensus on the stance towards Israel. Now, there is no segment in Lebanon that calls for dealing with Israel or looks forward to such interaction. This is a very important matter that should not be overlooked.
Third: There is a national consensus on Lebanon’s identity as an Arab country. This is a very important issue. There is a national consensus on the necessity of continuing to build the state and its institutions, achieving the widest possible range of modernization, reconstruction, and a fresh start. These are fundamental and essential matters that the Lebanese agree upon. The matter of peace, the matter of the stance towards Israel. In the past, it wasn’t like this. In the past, some Lebanese used to believe that Lebanon’s strength lies in its weakness. Now, the Lebanese see that Lebanon’s strength lies in its resistance to occupation, in supporting the resistance, and in confronting challenges. And when the aggression took place last April, what did we see? We saw all the Lebanese houses in all Lebanese areas open to welcome those who were displaced from their areas due to the Israeli aggression. This matter should remain in the memory of the Lebanese, and it expresses a very important national development.”
As for the matter of negotiations, there is absolutely no political or social group in Lebanon that calls for separating the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. Instead, there is a Lebanese consensus on enhancing solidarity between Syria and Lebanon to confront occupation and to achieve peace and the recovery of occupied territories.
Lebanon is part of the Arab world.
Does this mean that some Lebanese have lost hope in dealing with Israel or in attempting to bet on a specific change, especially since there’s talk of changes after Albright’s visit to Lebanon?
“I don’t want to say that there are Lebanese who have lost hope in dealing or, in other words, if the opportunity arises, they’ll return to dealing. I don’t want to use this phrase as I believe it’s not accurate. There’s a conviction among the Lebanese that they should be part of the Arab world, and there’s a belief among the Lebanese that their cause, interests, and future lie within the Arab framework. Israel is an enemy to them, just as it is an enemy to other factions in Lebanon. While there are individuals with certain opinions, political foundations shouldn’t be built on individual stances. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese are not desperate and do not wish to engage with Israel. In fact, they have become convinced and aware that Israel is contrary to Lebanon.”
The abysmal failure of Israeli policies and the shifts that have led to sacrifices in Lebanon in exchange for political gains for them in Israel have been solidified through experience for all Lebanese. It’s not an option in this sense, Your Excellency. I agree with you. However, I find it a waste. The Lebanese like to find a role for the Lebanese in their mindset. They consider themselves bigger than a small country and believe they can contribute in some way—sometimes trivial, sometimes meaningful. In the meaningful sense, there’s a feeling among the Lebanese that if you clarify the political relationship, they find some kind of salvation in the Syrian relationship. No one believes that if there isn’t a Syrian presence, but they also find an excuse in the Syrian presence not to work, and for their societies not to be self-reliant.
Does this mean you don’t want the Lebanese to come to you?
“We don’t want for Lebanon or any Arab country what we don’t want for Syria. We have our experience. Since 1970, after President Hafez al-Assad took over the leadership of the country, Syria embarked on its own experience. Through stability achieved in Syria, it managed to build a strong state with prosperity. We succeeded in all aspects of political, economic, cultural, and service life, and in all areas. We want this for Lebanon and for every Arab country. Therefore, when we built our experience, the Syrians built it because they believe that the country can’t face its enemies, narrow the gap between it and the developed world, or provide the requirements for defense and resilience without action. We didn’t leave a minute without it being employed in the process of preparation and construction in all aspects of life. This is what we want for our brothers in Lebanon. As for what is said here and there, it’s a kind of evasion of responsibility. Syria didn’t and doesn’t intervene in Lebanon’s internal affairs. The main issue being discussed in coordination between the two countries is the issue of peace, peaceful negotiations, and the general stance in the region, supported by both Syria and Lebanon. As for these statements that so-and-so went and so-and-so came, we welcome any Arab brother who comes to Syria. We feel joy and satisfaction when we meet our Lebanese, Egyptian, Iraqi, Tunisian, and Algerian brothers.”
The role of Lebanon is important.
“But the Lebanese issue has a special importance for you, and clarifying some matters, some say that you may be annoyed by the many consultations by several Lebanese officials to Damascus, and others say that you may be annoyed by their scarcity. What do you say?”
“I believe and state clearly that this talk isn’t accurate. There are issues we consult on related to Syria and Lebanon and the situation in the region. As for Lebanese issues, we’ve only occasionally intervened when the matter affects the stability of the country. We provide advice to our brothers and nothing more or less, as internal matters do not concern us at all.”
Trust in Lebanon.
“How do you explain that you speak about Lebanon’s future with greater optimism than some of its own people do, and this phenomenon is characterized by greater external confidence in it than internal confidence?”
“Lebanon remained exposed to war and bloody attrition for 17 years, which left a state of psychological anxiety that leads to apprehension. However, the responsibility of Lebanon’s intellectual, cultural, political, and social leaderships is to remove from the minds of the Lebanese the psychological effects left by war, and to make them understand that their country is now in great shape and they are on the verge of good and happy days. Despite the Israeli occupation and continuous Israeli attacks, and the circumstances of the civil war as I mentioned, there’s a great deal of external confidence in Lebanon. Therefore, it’s necessary for the Lebanese to have more confidence in their country than non-Lebanese, and I believe that the Lebanese people and public opinion have confidence in the country’s future. However, everyone must also remove any concerns and clarify to the Lebanese that these worries are no longer based on realistic or factual foundations.”
Syria with everyone.
“Is Syria standing with all the Lebanese or with a specific faction of the Lebanese without the others?”
“Syria is with all the Lebanese without exception. It views Lebanon as a fraternal country, and the nature of the relations between the two countries is different from Syria’s relations with any other Arab country. At a certain stage, there was a minister in Syria who had a brother who was a minister in Lebanon. There’s no family in Lebanon that doesn’t have an extension in Syria, and vice versa. This makes the Syrians interested in the Lebanese situation. This is what prompted President Assad to make his historic decision to work on stopping the civil war in Lebanon. Let’s remember when the Syrian forces entered in 1976, did they enter to support a particular faction as some anti-Lebanon elements assume? Syria is with this faction against that faction. We entered Lebanon not only based on the request of the Lebanese state but as Kamal Jumblatt, Pierre Gemayel, and the late President Franjieh came with determination, urging intervention. A delegation of deputies from Zahle entered, including President Elias Harawi and Al-Hawa. We entered and lifted the siege on Zahle, Marjayoun was besieged, and Qatna was besieged. Syrian forces entered to preserve the national fabric in Lebanon, not to tear it apart. Nobody can imagine that they can use Syria to do something that could harm Lebanon’s national unity.”
“Syria has proved for a long time that it won’t support anyone, but it will stand against any party that tries to tear this apart. It also advocated the Taif Accord, which opened doors for a new political experience for the Lebanese. From here, some Lebanese, not as politicians but as a society, feel what’s called frustration. It’s an inaccurate word because it implies laziness. However, the Taif experience requires completing some matters economically, politically, intellectually, and security-wise so that the Lebanese can participate in a new experience.
Some in Lebanon say that this experience isn’t ‘straightened’.”
“Of course, because everyone wants to implement it in their own way.”
Frustration is unjust to the Lebanese.
Are there any obstacles to its implementation?
- “First, the word ‘frustration’ is not accurate and is unjust to the Lebanese. The Lebanese were frustrated during the war, and they cannot be frustrated during peace. Is there any factor that can claim that the situation during the civil war was better than it is now? People get frustrated when they move backward, not when they move forward. Additionally, the Lebanese state, with all its institutions, has adhered to the Taif Agreement and implemented it. The constitution was amended, parliamentary elections were held twice, and governing bodies in Lebanon were formed according to the Lebanese constitution. If the intention is to have a mosaic governance that encompasses all factions, that’s something different and not within the framework of the Taif Agreement. Under the Taif Agreement, Lebanon is a democratic country with productive institutions. Elections were held, and a parliamentary council emerged, leading to the formation of a government. If there are individuals who did not wish to participate in the elections or boycotted them, what’s the fault of the Taif Agreement or the democratic institutions in the country? In every country around the world, there are no governance institutions that enjoy unanimous national consensus.”
It has been said that there is a small piece of advice to the Lebanese that the topic of early elections is not currently under consideration, and there is also the topic of extension. How do you view the issue of presidential elections in Lebanon?
- “In any country, including Lebanon, there are supporters and opposition. Having supporters implies the presence of opposition. The state needs opposition because it needs a watchdog and an incentive for action. It’s natural to have opposition in Lebanon. However, the important thing is that everyone works within the framework of the highest national interests, and their differences should not revolve around national goals. Instead, they should concern the path to protecting and achieving these goals.”
So, their disputes should not be about personal interests?
- “Correct.”
Some of those affected by Lebanese-Syrian relations say that after every Syrian step towards Lebanese-Syrian integration or assimilation, the concern of “swallowing up” arises. Is this topic being discussed or justified, or do you have reassurances for those who raise this issue?
- “Those who spread such rumors about ‘swallowing up’ are the number one enemies of Lebanon. If Syria had ambitions in Lebanon, it would not have made such significant sacrifices to preserve Lebanon’s unity, independence, and sovereignty. While some were seeking assistance from Israel to divide the country, Syria was working to thwart that plan and preserve the country’s unity. The Lebanese state presented us with the concept of economic integration because it is in the interest of Lebanon first, second, and third, and also in the interest of Syria. Syria achieved significant economic growth in agriculture, industry, and services. In fact, it is a model of development in the region, and Syria’s interest in Lebanon is based on stability, security, and economic progress.”
