His Excellency Vice President Mr. Abdel Halim Khaddam,
We greatly appreciate this opportunity you have given us at this particular time, which is under significant pressure. We also look forward to engaging with someone knowledgeable in the political, organizational, and ideological aspects, with an insight into thought and literature. We are very pleased at the Union of Arab Writers to have a meeting with His Excellency Mr. Abdel Halim Khaddam, Vice President of the Syrian Arab Republic, to speak with a magazine concerned with political thought in its broadest sense, focusing on aspects of national thought, the political situation, and its connections both regionally and internationally, as well as on the diplomatic side. We believe that Arab life needs some coverage in this area and look forward to future initiatives that will allow us to observe the experiences of Arab politicians and diplomats, opening a dialogue on the pages of this magazine for everyone. Today, we hope that Mr. Abdel Halim Khaddam will kindly answer the questions posed by the Political Thought magazine.
Khaddam: I am pleased that this meeting is taking place, and I am happy to contribute in any way to a magazine that aims to enhance national sentiment and clarify the horizons of national work. I am ready to answer all questions.
Our first question, if you please. The slogan “politics is the art of the possible” refers to both realism and pragmatism. What do you believe governs politics more: interests or principles, and where does the ethical and human boundary fit into this? Does it have weight in the political process in general?
Politics cannot be unrealistic. What is politics? It is the management of public affairs and issues that concern the country, and a politician is someone who contributes to managing these affairs or has an approach to managing them and works to achieve it.
Politics involves dealing with reality or working to create a new reality.
When a political approach has goals that are impossible to achieve, it is considered fanciful, and its proponents live outside their reality, wasting effort and failing to achieve their aims.
Here, we must distinguish between an approach with goals that are impossible to achieve because they are inherently unfeasible, and an approach with goals that are achievable but lack the necessary means. In such cases, politics is realistic, and the approach is practical if its proponents work to provide the means to transform the impossible into the possible.
We must also differentiate between the concept of realism in politics and the concept of making concessions under the guise of realism. The current inability to achieve a goal and then working to provide it is one thing, and yielding and compromising is another. This does not fall under the concept of realism in politics but rather under the concept of defeat.
Making a concession or taking a step back to prevent a greater harm to the country’s higher interests should not be considered as compromising, provided it is part of a phased approach to prepare for another stage and establish a new reality where what was conceded can be regained. Fundamentally, policies of concession always lead to a series of problems and sometimes wars because someone who has compromised the nation’s rights, whether out of necessity or not, will face a day when there will be no one in the country’s politics who accepts continued compromise or concession.
What may be a gain for one side and a loss for another could, in another phase, turn into a loss for the first and a gain for the second. This depends on the policies practiced by the second side in terms of preparation, planning, and mobilization.
The concept of principles and the concept of interests are interconnected and related to time and place.
Principles are the set of goals and foundations on which the state’s policy is based, while interests are the set of actions taken to achieve these goals.
There are no single principles that govern the policies of all countries because each country has its own interests.
For example, the goals of policy in Syria are to achieve Arab unity, liberate the occupied territories, and build a new Arab society that allows us to maintain our rights, preserve our dignity, and enhance our potential for progress and advancement.
Thus, our interests are linked to achieving these goals, and therefore, our policy is based on our principles.
Israel aims to continue aggression and expansion in Arab lands, based on religious beliefs. Its policies are linked to these principles and goals. Thus, as we see, there is a contradiction in the policies of two entities at the same time due to conflicting goals and interests. What is principled and ethical for Syria is not principled and ethical for Israel.
Similarly, within a single society, what may be principled and ethical at one stage may not be so at another, depending on changing circumstances, as each era has factors that affect the development of society and its policies.
Therefore, I can say that the issue of principles and ethics is not a universal matter but is related to the principles and goals that govern a particular society and the historical stage of that society.
The objective criterion in politics is the country’s interests. When politics deviates from the country’s interests to achieve the benefit of an individual, it becomes opportunistic. When it uses repression to achieve such deviation, it becomes repressive. When it compromises these interests in favor of foreign entities or weakens the country in the face of its enemies, it represents a form of national deviation.
Politics, as the management of public affairs, requires an approach based on a vision for the country’s existing and future interests. The absence of such an approach means that politics is random.
If we consider the situation of the Syrian Arab Republic as a country that adopts national issues and defends national principles and constants, these constants or principles, such as the issue of Palestine, are very costly for Syria given its specific geopolitical context. However, Syria makes significant sacrifices in its interests to uphold and implement these principles. If Syria were to prioritize its national interests over national principles, like any other country might, it would gain many things in terms of its interests but lose many things in terms of principle. This principle applies to many other areas as well.
In this matter, there are two situations: the first relates to an Arab country, and the second relates to a foreign country.
In the example you mentioned, the Palestinian issue involves an Arab country (Palestine) and an Arab people (the Palestinian people). It is not possible to say, “I will secure Syria’s interests and close the file.”
Syria is part of the Arab nation, and ensuring the interests of the part involves ensuring the interests of the whole. Harm to the part affects the whole, which is what distinguished Syria in its policy and what distinguished the leader of Syria, President Hafez al-Assad.
Some have attempted to say, “I will take my share or part of it and leave,” but has the conflict ended? Has it truly managed to distance itself from the influences and repercussions of this conflict?
Let’s look at what has happened in Palestine. For over two decades, a faction within the organization adopted a policy of “Palestinization” of the issue and hollowing it out of its national content. After the Madrid Conference, it preferred to engage in secret negotiations with Israel outside the peace process framework, leading to the Oslo Accords. Did this exclusivity bring peace to the Palestinians?
When the issue is related to the nation, the part does not have the right to act independently or in isolation, as it causes harm to itself and to the nation.
The second situation occurs when the interest of the part in its relationship with a foreign country does not harm the nation. In this case, achieving the part’s interest is also in the interest of the nation.
In issues of national concern, those in direct contact with the demands of the issue are naturally more alert and prepared. However, this does not mean that other countries not in direct contact have the right to say that the matter does not concern them, as harm will affect them regardless of proximity or distance.
I return to say that a gain for the part that harms other parts of the nation is not a gain but a significant harm.
It is known that our relations with the Iraqi government have been poor for a long time. When Iraq faced a conspiracy aiming to dismantle it, Syria promptly adopted a firm policy to protect Iraq. When Turkish forces invaded Iraq, Syria clearly opposed
Mr. Vice President, if we take a non-Arab example, successive American administrations often color moral and humanitarian issues with the hue of American interests. Sometimes, they use democracy or human rights as a pretext to achieve political goals that ultimately serve their interests. When democratic issues occasionally conflict with American interests, they overlook democracy and human rights, prioritizing their interests instead. Here, we see a facet of pragmatic politics where interests come above all else.
When can we politically judge a state’s or an administration’s actions as immoral and inhumane if it has secured its interests but severely damaged human relations? For example, Hitler’s interests during a period, despite the outcome of World War II. Similarly, if we consider a side issue, during Sadat’s era in Egypt, he argued that Egypt’s interests required distancing Egypt from the Arab nation and the Palestinian cause. In Nasser’s time, the stance was the opposite: bearing the national burden because he believed Egypt would grow with its nation, not at the expense of its nation. This is the crux of the matter, if you please.
Humanitarian and ethical considerations are not abstract issues in politics; they are, in the context of a state’s foreign policy, linked to interests and to rules of conduct specified by the United Nations Charter and international agreements between states, covering many issues that concern various peoples around the world.
In many cases, issues arise that have no relation to international agreements but conflict with general rules. Nevertheless, some states act in contradiction to these rules, justifying their actions with the theory of interests.
The United States lists Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism because Syria hosts Palestinian organizations. However, at the same time, the U.S. provides cover for Israel, which commits daily acts of hostility that violate the United Nations Charter, international agreements, and general international rules. The American position is driven by U.S. interests, which undermines the humanitarian and legal dimension of U.S. policy. Thus, U.S. policy is based on double standards in its international relations and its evaluation of events and facts: what serves its interests is considered humanitarian and ethical, while what contradicts its interests and aligns with international conduct rules is deemed unethical and inhumane.
However, there is an international standard established in the wake of the victory of certain powers in World War II. For example, there is an imbalance in the composition of the Security Council, where five members hold veto power. Four of these members represent only ten percent of the world’s population, while the rest of the world’s population does not have this veto right. Thus, the standards can sometimes be different and favor the powerful.
In international relations, positions are determined in light of the balance of power and the circumstances of each phase.
The outcomes of World War II led to a specific configuration of the Security Council, where the five major powers were granted veto rights while others were excluded from this privilege. This arrangement was a result of the balance of power at that time on the international stage.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the reasons that produced the current format of the Security Council have disappeared. In practice, the Security Council now reflects the current international situation characterized by a unipolar world, largely controlled by the United States.
When a new international power emerges with significant economic, military, and scientific capabilities that can create a certain balance on the international stage, the Security Council will be in a different position than it is now.
In the current international situation, it is difficult to achieve democracy in the Security Council due to the lack of balance and because the current situation grants the United States dominance within the Council and beyond, benefiting from its status as the preeminent military, economic, and scientific power and also from the influence of its political, economic, and security maneuvers on other nations. However, the current state of international affairs is transitional and unlikely to become permanent. The contradictions of interests, the pressures exerted by the United States even on its allies, the global economic situation, and the slowdown in growth in developing countries all contribute to the emergence of a new phase on the international stage, as evidenced by the calls from France, Russia, and China for a multipolar world.
A situation lacking justice and equality, where the interests of peoples are not considered, will lead to changes in many parts of the world, including the Arab world. Each phase carries within it the seeds of its own contradiction and dissolution, and the process is related to time and the interaction of factors that either accelerate or delay the emergence of the opposite and the realization of transformation.
If you please, let us move to the second question: How do you view the relationship between the political and the cultural aspects? How can the efforts of both sides of this relationship be combined to address the challenges our nation faces and the settlements it engages in? How do you envision this relationship when the nation contends with historical truths and real-world facts while facing challenges and engaging in negotiations, settlements, and peace relations?
The relationship between the political and the cultural is an organic one. While politics is the management of public affairs in a state, it is also a form of culture because politics or leading society requires a range of knowledge and sciences. Without this, politics becomes synonymous with ignorance, which is detrimental to the country’s issues and interests.
If we consider politics in its broadest sense, it encompasses all areas of life: education, economy, defense, security, and so on. All these areas require knowledge in their management and in setting a course for their administration.
This body of knowledge is what constitutes culture; in this sense, culture is the essence of politics.
It is difficult to separate what is political from what is cultural, though it is possible to distinguish between a politician and a cultural figure. The former is necessarily cultured, while the latter is not necessarily interested in politics. This is where the difference between a committed and a non-committed intellectual lies.
Culture, in its broadest sense, plays a crucial political role, especially when a nation faces existential challenges. Intellectual and psychological mobilization, drawing on history, reading the future, protecting people against cultural invasion and political pollution, and focusing on the core issues affecting the nation—all of these are fundamental roles of culture.
The role of the intellectual is significant, and in this sense, any intellectual who dedicates their thought, knowledge, and expertise to serve the country’s interests is, in effect, a politician. This can be described as committed culture and a committed intellectual.
Is there a broader scope or margin for intellectuals to act in issues like the national cause, such as our struggle with the Zionist enemy, where intellectuals may be more committed to historical rights and fundamental principles while politicians practice flexibility? Can there be understanding, cooperation, and coordination within this framework between principled cultural perspectives and tactical political approaches?
In the Arab-Israeli conflict, there is no clear separation between the political and the intellectual. It is not acceptable to claim that one is more committed to historical rights than the other because both work from the same premise: serving the interests of the country.
In the political arena, there is engagement with an existing and dynamic reality. Politics takes into account this reality but within the context of current and future public interests. The concept of political pragmatism does not imply accepting what contradicts historical facts and the supreme interests of the country. For example, the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser accepted the Rogers Plan proposed by U.S. Secretary of State in June 1970, and there were politicians and intellectuals who rejected this plan. Does this mean that Nasser compromised, and the rejecters were more committed to national and pan-Arab rights?
There are many such examples.
There should be no contradiction between the political stance and the cultural stance if both are based on the same principles, rules, and vision. However, one may have a broader margin in their respective field.
In the case of negotiations for peace, if negotiations harm the country’s interests and rights, that constitutes a national deviation. However, negotiating itself, within the framework of achieving national goals, is legitimate and correct. At the same time, intellectuals should not base their vision on condemning negotiations simply because, at some stage and under specific conditions, we might have seen negotiations as inappropriate.
Nevertheless, intellectuals should not be constrained in connecting historical facts with current realities and future visions. Political pragmatism should not overshadow cultural principles, as this would frame a flawed reality and weaken a future full of ambition and hope.
An example of this can be seen in the Arab situation:
From the perspective of historical and civilizational facts, Arabs are one nation, while in reality, they live in multiple states.
Politicians deal with the current reality, which does not mean negating historical facts. Intellectuals deal with historical facts to mobilize them into existing realities. However, if intellectuals treat the current reality as an ongoing truth and cement it, they would be making a significant error.
We should not view the issue of political settlement or the peace process from a perspective of self-flagellation or from any other narrow standpoint.
Since the establishment of Israel, the world has been convinced that it seeks peace while the Arabs want war. This perception has provided Israel with multifaceted support. The world did not take the Arab call for peace seriously until a later stage. This call gained traction after the formation of the current Israeli government, leading to a consensus among most international parties that Israel is obstructing the peace process, which has resulted in Israel’s isolation. If this isolation continues, it will have a significant impact on the Israeli state.
The idea of a political solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict did not start at the Fez Summit but began earlier, after the 1967 war when both Egypt and Jordan accepted Resolution 242, and after the October 1973 war when Syria accepted Resolution 338, which includes Resolution 242.
Arab cultural activities resisting normalization serve national interests, as Israel seeks to gain all the benefits of peace while maintaining occupation and aggressive policies. Unfortunately, some Arab politicians, under external pressures, have rushed to normalize relations under the misleading slogan that it serves the peace process. If the Zionist movement and many in Israel call for Greater Israel, no one has the right to prevent politicians or intellectuals from advocating for the historical rights of the Arab nation.
The peace process, within the framework of achieving our interests, should not be viewed with suspicion, as such a perspective lacks objectivity.
What has distinguished Syrian policy since November 1970 is dealing with reality within a comprehensive vision for the future.
Shrinking under the pretext of historical rights forms a strong barrier to moving towards those rights. We must always start from the conviction that liberating the land is far better than keeping it under occupation, provided that this liberation is not merely symbolic and does not lead to an actual expansion of the occupation.
There is a point that deserves a bit more attention: the international community and the world are currently opposed to wars, and no one inherently likes wars. However, it is noticeable that since World War II until today, wars in various forms have not ceased, and the human losses in this area are staggering. Israel itself continually engages in aggressive wars against the Arabs. Yet, American or Western public opinion attempts to cover up and alter the image of these wars, and Israel is never treated as an aggressor. No UN Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII have ever been applied to it. How can we reconcile a public opinion that rejects wars with ongoing practices of wars?
Israel is an anomaly on the international stage. It constantly violates the United Nations Charter, refuses to comply with its resolutions, and engages in aggression, yet it is protected from any international actions.
We need to return to the background upon which the Israeli state was founded, its role in the region, and its relationship with the United States.
While Libya, Iraq, and to a large extent Sudan are being isolated, doors remain open for Israel.
Simply put, Israel is the strategic reserve for the United States in the Middle East and beyond to the east.
During the Cold War, the West relied on alliances. With the fall of the military regime in Pakistan in the 1960s, the alliance was disrupted. The United States then relied primarily on its political, military, and security bases in Israel, the Shah’s Iran, and Turkey.
After the fall of the Shah and the rise of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the last allied fortress with the West in the region fell, leaving only Israel.
The United States does not trust its Arab and non-Arab allies to secure its interests and had to use its forces in the Second Gulf War to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Is it possible for the U.S. to maintain a state of military mobilization in the region to protect and guarantee its interests?
This is why Israel is important and why Arabs pay a significant price to protect interests taken from their resources, land, and sovereignty. Therefore, Israel will remain under American protection until a new international balance or a new Arab situation emerges, making the Israeli mission impossible and balancing U.S. policy.
Why Israel and not other countries in the region? Because Israel is the only country in the world that cannot do without American support, regardless of which party is in power, even if it were a communist one.
nationalism in the Arab world has become an objectionable or semi-objectionable stance towards nationalism and pan-Arab unity. What is your opinion on this?
In reality, nationalism is a deeply rooted condition in the Arab world for several reasons:
- Colonial Legacy: The fragmentation was entrenched under foreign colonial rule. For instance, France ruled all of North Africa, yet it kept the region fragmented under its control.
- Post-Independence Pressures: The countries that gained national independence faced the harsh realities of social, political, and economic conditions, as well as external pressures, leading to a series of national interests that affected the broader pan-Arab framework.
- Narrow Interests of Ruling Elites: The narrow interests of certain ruling elites in the Arab world since the emergence of the nation-state have led to a duality where national practices and slogans have often overshadowed the broader interests of the Arab nation.
- Economic, Cultural, and Social Structures: The economic, cultural, and social structures within each country have largely taken on a nationalistic character, creating conflicts of interest between different countries.
- Failure of Pan-Arab Movements: The failure of pan-Arab movements to establish a new Arab system that considers national realities while opening paths for broader national aspirations is evident. Notable examples of this failure include the collapse of the United Arab Republic, the Tripartite Pact between Syria, Egypt, and Iraq in April 1963, the failure to achieve unity between Syria and Iraq during the Ramadan and March revolutions, and the subsequent collapse of the Arab Republics Union and the national pact between Syria and Iraq.
I believe that one of the essential tasks facing Arab thinkers and intellectuals is to work on intellectual reformation in the Arab arena to push the issues of identity, belonging, and national interests to the forefront of political and cultural efforts. This is especially important after the evident failure of the nation-state system to provide even minimal protection or guarantee for its interests and the emergence of a clear anti-Arab policy aimed not only at fueling conflicts but also at dismantling the national unity of each Arab country.
The call to enhance national belonging is not only urgent for seeking a path from the national level to the broader homeland but also crucial for protecting each nation individually, especially in light of the current international situation and the alarming developments in the international arena, including economic, cultural, and social changes.
Honorable Deputy, there is a developing Arab Islamic dialogue and communication in the Arab world after a period of severance and conflicts that pitted Arabism against Islam and Islam against Arabism, weakening both movements and, consequently, the entire nation. What are the prospects of this new direction? Is it a temporary phase by both movements or a manifestation of a strategic choice? How can trust be enhanced between the two movements from your perspective after the historical rift?
The process of separation was not fundamentally part of the nation’s interests but resulted from specific circumstances at different stages.
The separation between Arabism and Islam is not new; it began at the start of this century under the Ottoman Empire and went through two phases:
- The First Phase: When the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic state, its Christian citizens were not treated as equals to Muslims except for those under Western consular protection. This situation led to national sensitivities among some Arab Christian intellectuals, who preferred the nation over foreign patronage and thus became early advocates of Arab independence from the Ottoman state.
- The Second Phase: This emerged under the control of the Committee of Union and Progress in Turkey, which attempted to impose Turkification on the Ottoman Empire’s peoples, including the Arabs. This spurred nationalist sentiments among several Arab intellectuals, including clergy, against the Turkist nationalism that prevailed under the Committee’s rule.
During this phase, Arab associations began to form, with most leaders influenced by Western nationalist concepts, which were secular due to the pains and tragedies left by religious wars in Europe.
The dream of Arab nationalists at that time and in subsequent phases was to establish a modern state and separate religion from the state, leading to a rift between nationalists and clergy, and subsequently between nationalists and Islamists. Cultural, political, and social factors intertwined, widening the gap.
Nationalists misunderstood Islam, failing to recognize that Arabism is identity and Islam is the civilization and message of the Arabs that they carried to other nations. As a result, nationalists lost their religious followers due to their inability to understand the relationship between Arabism and Islam.
Nationalists had the ambitions of the masses but erected a barrier between themselves and their followers by not linking Arabism with its history, civilization, and culture, whereas they should have established national links between their past, present, and future.
When I refer to nationalists, I do not wish to generalize, as generalization would be unjust to many facts and realities. Many nationalists understood the relationship between Arabism and Islam and advocated for it. However, they did not establish the intellectual and methodological foundation for the nationalist movement.
The first association founded on the principle of Arab unity, which laid out a methodology defining the borders of the Arab nation and the foundations for a unified state, was established in Egypt in 1936. Among its founders were Abdul Sattar al-Bassal, Abdul Rahman Azzam, Mansour Fahmy, Mohamed Ali Alawiya, and Asaad Dagher.
The charter of this association is considered one of the most important national documents in terms of its comprehensive national scope and geographic extension before the announcement of the principles of the Arab Ba’ath Party in 1947.
In a pamphlet from this association, the following was stated:
“The Arab state is a national, not a religious state. Religions are the individual’s means to their Creator.”
The pamphlet was distributed in Egypt, where religion was a fundamental element, and at a time when the secular state was understood as an atheistic, infidel state. Imagine the obstacles that arose because of that. Thus, the nationalist movement became primarily a cultural movement.
In my view, the nationalist movement lost the most important means of communicating its principles and program, which was the mosque, the main means of contact with the masses.
Just as the nationalist movement had its gaps, the Islamic movement made similar errors due to a lack of understanding of the relationship between Arabism and Islam or due to nationalist rigidity among some Islamic leaders who were not of Arab origin. They viewed the call for Arabism as surpassing others in the Arab world, even though the nationalist movement was far from being racist.
Those Islamists did not realize that Islam is the civilization and culture of the Arabs and that God honored the Arabs with Islam when He revealed the Quran in Arabic and chose them to be the first to spread the new religion and civilization across the earth.
Even if the steps taken by the nationalists and Islamists were very delayed, it is better that they come late than never.
I believe that both movements have realized the dangers of their marginal contradictions and their significant impact on the main contradiction with the nation’s enemies, which weakens the nation in facing current and future challenges.
Efforts should be directed against the main dangers, avoiding internal exhaustion and marginal disputes, and placing energies in their proper contexts.
No nationalist or Islamic faction should weaken the nation or divert its attention from its enemies, even within the framework of nationalism or Islam.
In the Ottoman Empire, Turanism was promoted by Western scholars who adopted Turkish names and infiltrated the Turanic ranks, and the Donmeh Jews also played a role in revitalizing Turanism at the expense of other nationalities, leading to a form of hostility towards other nationalities. This nationalism eventually exploded into a broader nationalist framework. To what extent was this truly a planned colonial action against Islam and the nationalities encompassed by Islam?
We need to view this issue objectively. The Ottoman Empire was established by the Turks, but it was an Islamic state regardless of the authoritarian system prevalent at that time in Europe and most countries worldwide.
The Ottoman Sultan was not authoritarian, just as the Russian Tsar was not democratic; these were the governance systems of the time.
However, it should be noted that the Ottoman Empire expanded westward, capturing Constantinople and making it its capital, and then continued its advance into Central Europe, spreading Islam there.
This state began to weaken over time, and Western ambitions increased. At the same time, the Zionist movement emerged and sought to purchase Palestine from Sultan Abdul Hamid, who firmly rejected the offer.
Western ambitions aligned with Zionist ambitions began working to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, with the Committee of Union and Progress being one of the tools, where Jews played a significant role in leading it and pushing it towards Turkifying non-Turkish peoples, thus contributing to the rise of nationalist sentiments among those peoples.
The West observed as each country pursued its ambitions until World War I, when the ailing empire fell, and the victors divided the spoils. This marked the beginning of a new phase of struggle for national independence on one side and resistance against the Zionist movement on the other.
Arab solidarity and the Arab national dream have both experienced regression and frustration, especially after the Gulf Wars I and II. How do you view the future of joint Arab action and the grand national dreams of liberation, unity, and freedom that have motivated generations of Arabs in the previous decades of this century?
The Arab reality is not reassuring. Arab disagreements rage between this state and that one, while foreign powers, particularly Zionist forces, focus on increasing fragmentation. For Israel and its agenda, ensuring its survival and success depends on the disintegration of the Arabs, amplifying their contradictions, and preoccupying them with issues unrelated to their core interests.
When a nation faces external or internal threats, the simplest approach is to restore the correct situation and abandon marginal contradictions to confront the main contradiction that threatens identity and land and signals a dark future.
When Arabs unite on the basis of protecting their core interests and transcending secondary issues, they can safeguard their interests and confront all the dangers threatening them.
The question every Arab, whether a responsible official or not, should ask is whether it is possible to confront international shifts, imminent dangers to Arabs, and ambitions on their land and resources under the continuation of the current Arab situation.
It is unfortunate to say that the periods of stability and cooperation in Arab relations were brief, but they were enough to draw lessons.
In the early seventies, there was a state of solidarity and cooperation in the Arab arena, during which Arabs managed to halt oil supplies to the United States and the Netherlands. Can they now control their resources?
It is painful that foreigners recognized the strength and effectiveness of Arab solidarity and the importance of Arab unity in the overall international situation, so they infiltrated where they could, leading to the loss of Arab solidarity. If Arabs do not recognize the gravity of the situation and restore their solidarity and cooperation, they will lose everything.
If we look at the Arab arena now, in light of the oppression and injustice faced by Arabs, there are indicators of awareness of the current situation. Most Arab governments have rejected American attempts to participate in the Doha Conference.
This is in the official domain, but in the popular domain, another picture emerges, showing a rising Arab awareness, with the Arab street being more alert than in previous years.
It is worth noting that if Arab governments do not sense the pulse of the Arab street and ignore it, a negative climate will prevail across the Arab world, with profound implications for regional stability.
In reality, Arab solidarity did not decline after the Gulf Wars but before that, though it is important to emphasize that the Gulf Wars had deeply negative impacts on Arab relations, benefiting all of Arab’s adversaries.
I believe that the overall international, regional, and Arab developments will result in a new situation in the Arab world based on a unity of destiny and interests. There is no avoiding this; otherwise, the alternative will be national disintegration and the absence of free national will, and such a situation will be costly.
It must be noted that grand aspirations will remain distant dreams unless they are coupled with daily struggle to turn ambition into reality.
We all need to be reformed so that those whose vision has been obscured by narrow, limited interests can see the reality, regain hope for the future, and find the right path to achieve the grand aspirations across the Arab world.
One of the most significant obstacles to preserving identity and realizing grand aspirations is neglecting the role of the masses in many parts of the great homeland, leading them to be bogged down by minor issues and hindering their ability to pursue major goals.
The colonial West resisted the Arab national project and opposed forms of unity, fragmenting manifestations of solidarity. Does the West today change its view and stance on the Arab national project with the emergence of Islamic revival and its confrontation? How do nationalists and Islamists view the West today?
We often blame foreign powers for our shortcomings, even though they play a significant role in many of our sufferings.
However, the role of foreign powers grows or shrinks in proportion to the strength or weakness of our own role. A nation determined to control its own destiny cannot be defeated or have its will broken by external forces.
The most dangerous enemies of the Arabs are the factors of division and fragmentation within them, and the dominance of secondary issues over overarching ones. These are all manifestations of diseases that have afflicted the body of the nation over centuries.
Historical facts and the reality of the situation confirm that the foreigner’s way to achieve its ambitions is to dismantle the Arabs and sow contradictions among them, making the conflicting parties serve foreign interests.
Those who view foreign presence as protection lose their will and chain themselves, while those who act in a way that provides justification for foreign intervention have opened the doors wide for foreign powers to take advantage of both themselves and their disputing brothers, leading to loss of individuals, national interests, and rights.
Will the West change its approach and distance itself from playing on the strings of Arab disagreements?
Objectively, the West is not unified on this issue, even though the policy of division was a fundamental aspect of its colonial strategies in the past.
Some in the West do, while others find that their interests and the current international situation necessitate maintaining good relations with the Arabs. They have shifted their political rhetoric from hostility to denouncing the injustices faced by the Arab nation, especially concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. Meanwhile, some work to deprive Arabs of their freedom and to dominate their homeland, decision-making, and sovereignty, with some pursuing their interests under the guise of ensuring their own, while others remain influenced by the colonial legacy and its residual animosity towards the Arabs.
What does the signing between Syria and the European Common Market entail for us? What are its benefits? What are its political implications considering the relationship between economics and politics?
There is an understanding between us and the European Union to initiate dialogue aimed at establishing a partnership between Syria and the EU. However, negotiations have not yet begun, so we do not know precisely what the requirements for this partnership will be. We seek this partnership because we believe it serves our interests. Therefore, it is too early to discuss the nature of this partnership and its requirements.
However, regarding our ability as a Syrian market, considering our production and the quality of production standards, are we qualified for a partnership with a European market that has advanced production and high standards? How can the picture of competition or communication look?
Competition is a fundamental condition for achieving excellence. In a school setting, competition improves students’ conditions, and in industry, it enhances production in terms of quality and price.
The best aspect of a market economy is the factor of competition, while the worst aspect is the absence of the state’s role, which is necessary for achieving political and social balance.
There needs to be a balance between certain elements in a market economy and the state’s responsibility to protect society.
Economic protection is essential for the growth of industries, but opening the door to competition is necessary for their sustainability. It should be noted that a partnership with the European Union will require a transitional phase to qualify our industries to be competitive and penetrate foreign markets; otherwise, the losses to the national economy could be substantial.
Arab countries suffer from direct blockades imposed by the United States through the United Nations Security Council, while some Arab nations experience indirect blockades due to pressure and restrictions that prevent them from acquiring what they need to develop their capabilities and defend themselves, such as Syria, for example. How can this situation be overcome both Arabically and internationally in light of the suffering on one hand and the magnitude of the challenges on the other?
The most dangerous blockade facing the Arabs is the blockade of themselves, due to their division and acceptance of what is imposed upon them, while Israel evades all the obligations imposed by the Security Council, international legitimacy, and international rules of conduct. There is not a single Arab country that does not suffer from some form of blockade, even those with close relations with the United States.
When Arab governments manage to overcome their differences and recognize that their strength lies in solidarity and mutual support, then all forms of blockade will automatically fall away.
The statements you’ve made have been discussed for a long time and decisions at the summit level have been made regarding them for a while, but they haven’t been implemented. How can we develop the Arab situation from a good slogan to good performance?
The Arab system itself has flaws that hinder the decisions of its institutions. The most significant flaw is the lack of controls and mechanisms for implementation. For example, at the Arab summit held in Cairo in June 1996, decisions were made regarding normalization with Israel in the event that the Israeli government did not change its approach. Of course, this decision did not permit holding an economic conference with Israel’s participation.
In reality, some Arab governments did not adhere to the decision, even though it was made unanimously, under the pretext of sovereignty. Sovereignty was used naively to cover a non-naive position, as the Arab League Charter states that decisions made unanimously are binding, while those made by majority are binding on the consenting parties.
In international law, a country that belongs to an international organization—such as the Arab League—is considered to have preemptively waived part of its sovereignty in favor of partnership.
What is striking is that when it comes to Arab commitment, the issue of sovereignty is highlighted, whereas when it concerns the interests of a foreign state, this concept is absent.
We observe a shrinking of the Arab national consciousness or a constriction in expressing its positions on national issues and what is happening in some Arab matters in general. What is your explanation for this? And what is the way to revive and restore, even if partially, that consciousness?
The term “shrinking” of consciousness is unrealistic because consciousness is an expression of existence and identity. In the Arab street, there is frustration rather than a true shrinking in sensing national responsibility. This frustration is caused by the scale of injustice, oppression, and aggression practiced against Arabs, and the scale of neglect in recognizing the dangers and the diversion to issues unrelated to national or collective destiny. Adding to this is the psychological warfare directed against the Arab citizen, which helps explain the frustration experienced in the Arab street.
Alongside external pressures, the factor of repression becomes evident, whether it is the repression by authorities in some Arab countries or the pressure from living conditions.
Political repression has led to the absence of popular engagement, which in turn has led to the absence of popular oversight and accountability. When popular oversight and accountability are absent, there are no limits to mistakes, and as mistakes increase, so do the pressures on the masses.
But sir, don’t you notice that the Arab street, specifically, used to act spontaneously in the 1950s and 1960s to express a national stance on certain issues and faced a lot of… for example, under the dictatorship of Shishakli, the Ba’athists faced gunfire.
The situation differed in all its political, economic, and social aspects, and the conditions in the 1950s varied between Arab countries depending on the nature of the political system in place. It is not possible to apply the same standards to all Arab regimes, as they differ in their social, cultural, economic, and political contexts.
In 1955, students in Syria protested and attacked the Ministers of Economy and Interior due to a wheat deal signed by the Syrian government with France at a time when the fighting in Algeria was intensifying. However, today, when state policies are fully aligned with the aspirations and ambitions of the people, the role of the street is different. It is required to be vigilant in protecting these policies.
Regarding the issue of the conflict with the Zionist enemy, some Arabs have made agreements with Israel, some of them have betrayed, while others, including Syria, remain steadfast in their national and national rights. In Syria, the role of the street is to support state policies that align with its beliefs and ambitions, whereas in other states, the role of the street is to struggle against the outcomes of agreements that have failed to uphold rights.
The truth is, if I may return to the point about the masses, the condition you described—does it represent an absence, a marginalization, or a resignation for the masses?
The condition is neither an absence nor a marginalization nor a resignation. It is a stage in the political, economic, and social development of the Arab world. This stage has its internal factors—economic, social, and political—as well as its external factors. There are phases in the history of nations, each phase being the product of the preceding one, and often we overcome these phases. It is impossible to claim that the current stage is eternal and continuous.
Sir, we are currently in a world dominated by a single superpower, but globalization with its economic, political, and cultural dimensions is also present. What is your view on globalization? How do you see its impact on the Arab world and the interests of its people? What about their issues in general?
The current international situation is a transitional phase in global life and reflects the existing powers. During the Cold War, the world was bipolar. Amid its tensions, various powers, movements, and international institutions emerged, sometimes benefiting from that situation and other times being threatened by its harms.
Naturally, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States found itself as the sole superpower with secondary powers connected to it. However, the United States does not have the inherent qualities to lead the world because, by reality and logic, it is governed by its own interests. Therefore, the interests of other parties are subject to ensuring the interests of the United States.
When interests dominate and international deterrence is absent, there are no limits to the use of power and its role in U.S. policy, leading to a world without controls or rules. This forces peoples to regain their ability to struggle to defend their existence and interests in the absence of an international system based on the right of peoples to self-determination and peaceful development without external interference or threats. If the world today operates without objective controls, is it moving towards political and economic globalization?
There are significant efforts by major industrial nations to achieve economic globalization and remove barriers to the flow of their products to other countries. This is due to several reasons:
- The enormous technical advancement and its uses in industry, which have led to a reduction in human labor.
- Increased production, creating large surpluses amidst shrinking markets.
- The weak capacities of developing countries to achieve acceptable growth, thus limiting their ability to purchase products from industrial countries.
- The entry of East Asian countries, India, and China into the global market with their products.
The Marrakesh Agreement on global trade established several rules for market liberalization and aimed for converging costs, which weakens the ability of developing countries to withstand and compete.
It is worth noting that the economic situation in industrial countries will lead to more disputes among these nations. The release of competition will be accompanied by other measures used by each major country to weaken others and create crises to force them out of the market. These developments will result in a complex economic situation where achieving economic globalization without serious collapses in most industrial countries becomes difficult, and maintaining international politics under the leadership of a single state is also challenging.
But those pushing for globalization do not wait for others to establish a balance. The other side of the issue is the dangers of this sweeping globalization on national, cultural, and non-cultural identities, as well as on the independence of nations.
If we look at the international stage at this point, what do we see?
An increase in local wars based on ethnic or religious grounds, as seen in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, and Afghanistan; the rise of nationalistic fervor, as in India; and the resurgence of tribal affiliations in some African countries.
The push towards globalization will inevitably lead to reactions in the opposite direction because those pursuing globalization will work to erode others’ identities as long as their own identity and interests are secured through military, economic, and scientific power and their own superiority.
This situation requires significant efforts to preserve identity and affirm national selfhood, especially as citizens in most countries are now recipients of news and ideas. To maintain national character, we must be the primary conveyors through media and all means of communication with the public.
Authenticity and History: On Cultural Penetration
There is, in fact, a genuine penetration of other cultures. As President Bush said after the end of the Gulf War, the coming century is one of the spread of American culture, American values, and American behavior patterns. This is more about Americanization than globalization in the world. In the U.S. budget for 1998, there was an allocation of 222 million dollars for what they call the Peace Corps, which is associated with the Oslo Peace Accords and similar agreements. The Peace Corps operates in cultural fields to create breaches specifically in the Arab world and in Arab culture. Among these groups are the Copenhagen Group, the Granada Group, and others. You also notice that, with this, along with the form of globalization and the encroachment on national constants, there is a proliferation of groups or a return of organizations like the Lions and Rotary within the framework of Freemasonry. All of this is coordinated, collaborated on, and funded. However, on the other hand, we find no unified Arab cultural policy or support for a cultural policy capable of standing up to this significant influx, which is indeed dangerous because there is a connection between the cultural, economic, and political aspects.
I agree with you about the cultural encroachment directed at the Arab citizen through various means, with the most important being visual, print, and audio media. In practice, the Americanization of culture in the world did not start recently; it began after the end of World War II, with cinema playing a significant role in that.
The natural response is to return to the roots, to Arab culture, and to Arab heritage, and to connect the past of the nation with its present in a way that enhances self-confidence and strengthens the community as well as the individual.
Sir, the Francophonie is currently an international institution with political and cultural dimensions, and possibly economic ones in the future. Do you anticipate conflicts of interest and goals between Francophonie and Anglophone institutions, and what are the implications of this for our region and our culture?
There is no Anglophone institution comparable to the Francophonie. The Francophonie is a framework that France established to promote cooperation between itself and its former colonies, aiming to secure its interests and maintain its culture in those countries. This framework has evolved to the point where it now has a Secretary-General, but it has not yet reached the status of an international institution, despite its members’ efforts to achieve economic cooperation among themselves.
On the other hand, the Commonwealth is a different matter. While the role of France is prominent in the Francophonie through its influence and economic assistance, Britain does not have a similar role or influence.
Moving to another question, after the Gulf War and the end of the Cold War, two phenomena emerged in the world: the dominance of a single superpower and globalization. What are the implications of unipolar dominance in international relations and its impact on the issues of peoples and national liberation? Could you elaborate on this?
The unipolar state is beginning to face resistance in the international arena. As previously mentioned, France, Russia, and China have called for a multipolar world. The dominance of the single superpower is undoubtedly waning and receding. With the increasing complexities of the economies in developed countries, contradictions will rise, and the world will soon approach a phase different from the current one dominated by a single superpower.
How do you view the Turkish-Israeli alliance under the supervision of the United States? What are its risks to the security of the region, the future of relations between its countries and their peoples, and what are the ways to resist and respond to it?
The Turkish-Israeli-American alliance in the region may be one of the most dangerous challenges facing the countries of the region and Central Asia at this stage.
This alliance is directed against the Arabs and Iran; it secures Israel’s interests and reinforces its leading role in the region, while also securing the interests of Turkey and the United States in the Central Asian republics.
The new relations between Turkey and Israel under the umbrella of the United States form a security system with political and economic dimensions to ensure the interests of these countries and American interests. Consequently, it poses a direct threat to Arab and Iranian national security, as well as the security of the Central Asian republics.
A painful aspect of this relationship is that Turkey, a Muslim country and neighbor with significant interests and relations with Arab states, is involved in this alliance.
Is it expected that Turkey could, to some extent, detach itself from its roles in NATO, of which the Turkish-Israeli alliance is part of the American strategy in this area?
The Turkish-Israeli alliance is not part of NATO.
Part of the American strategy for the region
Firstly, Turkey’s role in NATO has ended because NATO was originally established as a security system to counter the Soviets. Now, NATO has become a political system led by the United States, aimed at addressing potential future threats, foremost among them the possibility of Russia’s resurgence. The current role of Turkey in NATO has concluded. The Turkish-Israeli alliance is an Israeli-American interest. Therefore, this matter is not related to NATO, and many NATO countries do not wish to see such an alliance between Turkey and Israel.
How do you view the ways to develop the work of the Arab League and the Summit institution? Is there a need for an Arab summit currently? What is your perspective on the Arab Union project proposed for the agenda of the next summit from the previous summit conference?
There is no doubt that the Arab League needs a review. After fifty years, it is essential to take stock: where has it advanced, and where has it regressed? What has it achieved, and what has it failed to achieve? What are its strengths, and what are its weaknesses?
This issue was raised, in fact, before the Gulf War. There was a committee, and the Gulf War led to a situation that disrupted serious discussion on this matter. However, we hope that the appropriate time for such a review will come. Whether or not a summit conference is held depends on the circumstances.
Is it possible to establish Arab-Islamic relations that lead to a common economic market, effective political cooperation, and a distinct bloc based on Arab-Islamic commonalities, or commonalities within the Islamic world?
At the outset, we discussed realistic and unrealistic politics. Now, I believe we should focus on correcting Arab relations and establishing the Arab market and Arab economic partnerships, while exploring the possibility of economic dealings and cooperation with Islamic countries. For the Arab states, we are one nation facing the same risks, with the same destiny and future. We are still making significant efforts to reach the minimum threshold. Islamic countries also have their own problems, difficulties, and complexities. However, working on creating frameworks for economic cooperation can help these countries and assist us in removing many complications. The existing structures, widespread geography, and the nature of economic and political systems make it challenging to explore the Islamic market at present.
The Islamic Summit Conference will soon be held in Tehran. Can this summit resolve some of the Arab-Islamic and Islamic-Islamic disputes? How can the Islamic Summit Conference institution be activated and brought closer to practical implementation?
What happens in practice at these international conferences is that they take on a political solidarity aspect. At Islamic conferences, Arabs present their issues, which are understood and thus reflected in the decisions and statements, and then this or that Islamic state…
Holding the conference under these circumstances is a good opportunity to address many issues concerning the Islamic world. It is also a chance for meetings between heads of state to discuss bilateral issues on the sidelines of the conference. Of course, this depends on the willingness of the states to benefit from holding the conference and for their leaders to meet and resolve any issues that might exist between them. The question is whether this organization can be developed.
The organization has developed significantly. If we recall the first Islamic conference held due to the burning of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, it then evolved into conferences held for various occasions until it was agreed to turn it into an organization with its own system, laws, and charter. It has played a significant role. In reality, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has had a major role in supporting Arab issues in the international arena, including at the United Nations and within the Non-Aligned Movement.
Thus, seeking to develop it is beneficial. It is no longer just a political organization; there is the Islamic Media Organization, the Islamic Educational Organization, and Islamic banks. Several organizations have emerged alongside the main political organization, and progress is being made, albeit slowly. However, the current state of relations between Islamic countries is much better than in the past, and its future prospects are significant. It is in our interest as Arabs to strive to make this organization a good framework for the growth of relations among Islamic countries in all fields.
Do you expect an American strike against Iraq following the recent disagreement over the nationality of the members of the inspection teams, which was temporarily resolved? What is the expected Arab reaction to such an action? I noticed that America is still mobilizing forces.
This issue has been resolved for now, following the Russian initiative, Iraq’s acceptance, and the Geneva meeting. However, one should not rule out the possibility of a strike, as it is related to American interests in the region and Israeli interests. If a strike were to occur, it would be a highly dangerous action.
What does the continued mobilization of forces mean?
Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility of a future strike, but this mobilization might be part of a pressure strategy, specifically pressure on Iraq. In any case, the situation should be concerning for the Arabs.
The U.S. administration places Syria on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism due to its support for resistance against Israeli occupation. What is your response to this? What is your view on resistance and terrorism? How far have Syrian efforts progressed in organizing an international conference to distinguish between resistance and terrorism?
As I have pointed out elsewhere, when it comes to Israel, the United States has a different standard. In Afghanistan, the mujahideen organizations resisting the communist regime were national groups and received substantial aid, billions of dollars, from the United States and its allies. However, when it comes to Arabs and Israel, the perspective is different. We do not expect this country or that one to judge us. We do not wait for a certificate from any country. We are convinced that any people subjected to aggression and occupation have the right to defend themselves and fight for the liberation of their land. If we were to apply the standards proposed by some Western countries, we would need to rewrite Western history and prosecute Western leaders who resisted Nazi occupation. Why is it that a French person has the right to resist Nazi occupation, but an Arab does not have the right to resist Israeli occupation?
In our view, resistance is a legitimate right. Syria called for a conference to define and distinguish between terrorism and resistance. This conference did not take place because some international circles do not see an interest in it. Nevertheless, we have succeeded in all international conferences in emphasizing that resistance to occupation is not an act of terrorism.
Do you think that the national resistance in southern Lebanon, in this context, has gained the legitimacy of resistance and removed its designation as terrorism by U.S. recognition after the April Agreement and the formation of the committee?
Certainly, the negotiations that took place in April, which led to the April 26 Agreement, had Hezbollah as a key party. Second, the agreement explicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of resistance, as the text of the agreement states that both parties should avoid targeting civilian areas. The resistance has gained its legitimacy through its struggle.
The Doha Conference was held in Qatar amidst Arab boycott and anger and American determination to challenge Arab will. How do you view such conferences in light of the stalled peace process, the Israeli entity’s denial of its commitments, and U.S. bias towards Israel?
Syria’s position is clear. Since the launch of the American initiative and the agreement on the Madrid Conference, we have rejected all multi-lateral conferences. The economic conference on the Middle East and North Africa is multi-lateral. Our stance is not new. The Doha Conference is over and should be considered a thing of the past. It should not remain a point of contention in the Arab arena. It failed and ended; we no longer view it as an issue. Therefore, whether one supports or opposes the Doha Conference is irrelevant. The conference is over, and we should not project its failures onto the Arab scene. The conference will not be followed by another, as I believe.
The U.S. Congress is considered occupied by the Zionist lobby, and the United Nations Security Council is seen as occupied by the United States. What is your opinion on this statement based on the U.S. Congress’s positions on Jerusalem, Judaization, settlements, and negotiations, as well as the Security Council’s stance on Arab issues and its double standards?
“Occupied territory” is not a precise term, but there is indeed significant influence of the Zionist lobby in Congress. Additionally, as mentioned, there is a close, strategic alliance between the United States and Israel. From this relationship, we must understand and interpret the positions of Congress and others. The Security Council is influenced by the United States, as the U.S., being a permanent member, can block decisions. However, it is not necessarily capable of directing the Council to make any decision. The U.S. can prevent the Security Council from making certain decisions but cannot always compel it to make decisions, especially with Russia becoming more aware of its interests and China’s consistent policy on global issues, which often conflicts with U.S. policy. Even among non-permanent members, some are unaffected while others are influenced. It depends on each case, but in any event, the United States can prevent decisions from being made. This is evident in the prevention of resolutions regarding incidents like Qana. In matters concerning Israel, the U.S. can block resolutions but cannot necessarily secure decisions from the Security Council in favor of Israel.
The decisions made in favor of Israel, indirectly, in the Arab world include ongoing decisions in various forms, whether against resistance or the rights of the Palestinian Arab people.
In the Security Council, there are no decisions at all against resistance or any state; there are only decisions against Iraq and Libya. Even regarding Sudan, the United States could not issue a resolution. Instead, it resorted to unilateral measures like sanctions and boycotts.
The Zionist settlement project continues, evolving from Greater Israel to Greater Israel while maintaining the racist nature of Zionism. What are the features of the Arab revival project that opposes or counters the Zionist project, and what are its components and prospects for achieving it?
In reality, the Arab revival project is still in development. Syria has a vision for this project, and its policy is based on this vision. The revival project should encompass economic, political, cultural, and popular dimensions, and it is the responsibility of all Arab parties. So far, what is happening is only the official Arab decision within the framework of the peace process. However, alongside this, there is another popular project growing alongside the peace process, which includes resisting normalization, advocating for a common Arab market, popular mobilization in the Arab arena, and Arab public awareness. All these factors will promote and shape the Arab revival project, which will develop progressively. Each stage will impose a new step in this project.
The Madrid Framework, by imposing respect for the Zionists, leads to the establishment of a right and state for the Jews in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinians or part of them. Can there be peace in the region with Zionist sovereignty in Palestine and Palestinians remaining outside their land?
Firstly, this issue cannot be discussed in such a manner, and peace cannot be viewed from a perspective of whether it is accepted or not. Most Palestinian factions chose to accept the peace process; all Palestinian factions that participated in the Algiers Conference accepted the peace process, both internally and externally. However, can these parties force the Palestinian people to relinquish their rights? I believe this matter is decided by the Palestinian people, and no one can compel a people to forfeit their rights. The issue is not about sovereignty or lack thereof; it is about how the Palestinian people can restore their national unity that has been fragmented over this long process. How can they confront the Zionist project aimed at complete control over all Palestinian land, expanding settlements, displacement, and elimination? We must not jump to distant matters and ignore the existing dangers. Today, the most significant danger is settlement expansion, the ongoing situation in Palestinian territories, the Palestinian divide, and the implications of this divide—one side resisting and another weakening the resistance. I believe this is the most crucial issue because when the Palestinian people disintegrate and lose their identity and national dimension, all other issues become irrelevant. The current stage is about preserving the threatened Arab identity and also about preserving the Palestinian identity, which is under threat.
Do you think this can happen without the Oslo Accords being invalidated, which were declared a failure but have not been buried?
In reality, Oslo did not fail. Everything Israel wanted from Oslo is being achieved, unfortunately. I believe that even some Palestinian leaders who supported Oslo did not read the agreement, and if they did, they could not grasp what was in it. We all remember the press conference held between the President and President Mubarak immediately after the agreement, where our President was asked about the agreement. He said that each clause of the agreement required twenty other agreements. Of course, when there is ambiguity in the agreement, this ambiguity is always interpreted in favor of the stronger party.
Can the national dimension of the Palestinian cause be restored with the existence or continuation of Oslo?
In my opinion, the national dimension has not been lost for the Palestinian people but has been lost for some elements within the Palestinian arena who could not bear the burden of the struggle.
Where have the bilateral negotiations between Syria and the Zionist entity reached? Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel for these negotiations?
In reality, everything is at a standstill. It is at a standstill because, as we have repeatedly stated, we are ready to resume negotiations from where they left off, while the Israeli side wants to resume negotiations from where they stand, which is not possible. Is there anything on the horizon? It does not seem that there is anything on the horizon.
How is the Lebanese-Syrian relationship today? What are the future prospects, especially in light of the demand for the implementation of the Apostolic Exhortation and the impact of Albright’s visit and the opposition’s movement based on those factors?
Firstly, the situation in Lebanon is good, and the relations between the two countries are positive. There are no serious factors that can change the situation in Lebanon. Firstly, there is consensus in Lebanon regarding the stance on the Israeli occupation, which was not the case in the past. There was once contention in Lebanon regarding the country’s identity. Now, there is consensus on the relationship with Syria, and the disagreement is not about the relationship itself but about who is closer to Syria. Even the opposition members are ready for a very close relationship with Syria, but on the condition that Syria abandons the others. Of course, we do not deal with Lebanon on the basis that Syria is for this faction against that faction; we deal with the country as a whole. The Lebanese agree on fundamental and core issues, but there will still be differences in viewpoints even within institutions. The governance in Lebanon and the Lebanese government are not under the rule of one party but a strong coalition, and each faction has its perspective. They agree and disagree, but in the end, they are governed by agreements. Sometimes, one might think from reading Lebanese newspapers that everything is in turmoil, but the practical reality is different. Lebanon has managed over the past years to make significant progress. Before and during the civil war, Lebanon was divided, with each sect having its own area of control. There was a divisive project for Lebanon, but today no one in Lebanon is proposing the topic of division. Important developments have occurred. Of course, at each stage, people have their ambitions. The war ended, and people moved past it, now aiming for better conditions in their lives, which is a legitimate right. However, achieving these ambitions also requires objective conditions and requirements that need to be worked on. Thus, the Lebanese situation has developed positively.
The last question, Your Excellency, we have kept you quite a while.
Not at all.
Syria historically bears direct responsibility for national revival and the Arab-Israeli conflict. How can we activate the performance of the Arab citizen in general and the Arab citizen in Syria in particular, given the existing frustration, collapse in general Arab performance, numerous financial and spiritual crises, and the presence of corruption in some places?
Firstly, I want to talk about Syria. In my opinion, there is significant national awareness in Syria and a strong sense of responsibility. Today, the state and leadership in Syria are pursuing a political approach that is almost unique in the region. They bear a heavy burden and face difficult conditions. They would not be able to follow this policy if the people were in a different, unsuitable state. On the contrary, if the leadership in Syria had pursued a different approach, the popular situation and the ruling situation would have been in different realms. It is difficult for any state to pursue a course and bear the burdens of a policy fraught with risks if the front of that state is not cohesive and not aligned. This approach brings us burdens, and this burden affects the living conditions. Nevertheless, the national sentiment among people and their conviction in the soundness of the political approach make the priority of steadfastness take precedence over the priority of daily life. There may be errors in this or that area, but when mistakes are discovered, they are addressed. There are individuals with bad character in every society and at every stage, but certainly, those who are exposed are held accountable. If someone has not been held accountable, it does not set a standard or measure. But overall, considering Syria with its conditions and resources, surrounded by Israel to the south and Turkey to the north, amid an uncomfortable Arab situation and a complex international situation, the Syrian leadership maintains this national and pan-Arab approach. This would not have been possible without the collective conviction of the people in Syria.
Thank you very much. We have, in fact, benefited from and enjoyed this meeting, and we will convey it faithfully to our readers. This magazine, Political Thought, looks forward to significant assistance, deep understanding, and an open horizon to fulfill its mission, and we have high expectations from you in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Abdel Halim Khaddam, Vice President of the Syrian Arab Republic.
