Syria and the United States: The Road Ahead

Speaker:  Karen Elliott House

Moderator:  Buthaina Shaaban

director of media relations, Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

April 28, 2003

New York, NY

Karen Elliott House: [KEH]: Good morning, and thank you all for coming. It’s our privilege today to have Dr. Shaaban, the Director of Media Relations at the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She’s a journalist, politician, writer, sometime translator for the President. And we’re going to try to focus initially here on the impact of the aftermath of the U.S. “victory” I guess is the right word in Iraq, the impact of that on, (Laughter), on the neighbors. And then the impact on U.S.-Syrian relations and the impact on the Middle East. I see Bernie Gwertzman out there, some things never change. Bernie. (Laughs) We used to go together with Secretary Vance, to Syria and other places.

Would you like to start by making a few comments on the way Syria views the occupation, victory, whichever word you wish to call it, in Iraq, and how that changes, in your mind, the dynamic of the Middle East?

Bouthania Shaaban [BS]: Okay, thank you. Good morning, everyone. I would like to thank Richard Murphy for extending this invitation to me, to come to the Council on Foreign Relations, I’d like to thank Karen Elliott for hosting me and I’d like to thank all of you for taking the trouble to come here, and I hope it will be worth our while to have this exchange. As you all know, Syria stood against the war in Iraq, it voted for the resolution 1441 upon a promise that this resolution will avert a military action on Iraq, but after that, Syria tried very hard to try and save Iraq a military action basically because Syria knows as a country in this region that war brings death and destruction, and that the people who pay the price for the war are the ordinary people.

It wasn’t because of any love for the Iraqi regime. In fact, if I may mention that very briefly, Syria was the only country in the Arab world who stood against the Iraqi regime war on Iran, or stood against the Iraqi regime war on Kuwait, and who had its borders closed for 20 years with Iraq and who never had an embassy in Iraq. So the history of the Syrian relation with the Iraqi regime is quite well known history, and that’s why when we heard the allegations after the war, that some of the Iraqi regime symbols might be coming to Damascus, I said to one of the journalists, they would rather go to Washington before they come to Damascus. (Scattered Laughter)

We have a longer list than the 53 that is announced by the American administration, but unfortunately there’s a lot of misinformation and rumors that are circulated and we need to work hard in order to get to the truth of a situation. During the war, you saw very different things from what we saw, about what was happening in Iraq. While we were able to see the Secretary of Defense and General Myers, and General Brooks doing their press briefings, you were not able to see what was happening in Iraq. We saw maps behind the Secretary of Defense and General Meyers, and a cross showing, referring to Baghdad or Najaf or Karbala. I’m sure it means very different things to Americans from what it means to Arabs and Muslims.

When I see a cross over Baghdad, you know, I feel very differently but that is another town, is another capital that has a great history that Najaf and Karbala are holy places that mean a lot to us. And lots of people were crying when they would see these precision bombs falling on Baghdad or on Karbala. When we saw the museum in Baghdad first hit by a bomb and then the museum in Tikrit, was one of the first targets, people in the region started wondering why? Why target a museum? You know, people in the region started to feel that it is the identity of the country that is a target, it is the history of the country.

And if I may be extremely transparent with you, because I’m really coming here all this way, want to give you an insight of what people feel and think. We could talk about everything, we could have a dialogue about everything, but I am going to be dead honest, although it’s not easy sometimes to face that with complete honesty. We saw children whose hands amputated, woman killed, you know, the child—smile at us, whose both hands were amputated and was crying because his mother didn’t return to see him in hospital. His mother, father and all family were killed. My child couldn’t sleep that night. I have a seven year old boy, who couldn’t sleep because the mother of Alya Basnai couldn’t turn to hospital.

What I want to say is that war is terrible. We live through many wars and we know that wars are terrible. We saw victims and you saw victors, and I think the best thing we could do together is to engage in a dialogue. Now that the military victory is achieved in Iraq, Syria feels there is a complicated, difficult job to be done, both in Iraq and in the region, and we believe the U.S. would be wise to get the feel of people in the region, probably the advice of people in the region about what needs to be done.

Before the war I felt that the region is being talked about and presented as if it is vacant of people. We’re going to do this in Iraq and then we turn into Syria, and then we turn into Iran and reshape the region. You know, as if there are no people there. This is extremely humiliating for people of the region. For people who are the descendants of the oldest civilization in the world. Now they are talking about the Shi’ite also as if they have no opinion in Iraq. Iran is going to influence the Shi’ite, Syria is going to influence the Shi’ite, we have to pressure Iran, we have to pressure Syria, not to interfere in Iraq. This argument takes out of the equation a very important point, which are the Shi’ites in Iraq, who are very thoughtful, extremely organized, extremely intellectual.

You know, we have something in Arabic that used to say, “Cairo writes, Beirut publishes, and Baghdad reads.” The Iraqis are known to be the best intellectuals in the Arab world, they are the most thoughtful, the most dignified, the most sophisticated. And therefore the Iraqi people are going to decide what they are going to do in Iraq. It’s neither Syria nor Iran that’s going to decide what’s going to happen in Iraq.

Karen Elliott House: Can I just ask you on that point, are you saying the Iraqis do not want democracy?

Bouthania Shaaban: Yeah, no…(Overlap)

Karen Elliott House: Does Syria want Iraq to be a democracy?

Bouthania Shaaban: What I heard the Shi’ites saying in their demonstration is that we saw what the United States has come here to do. It protected the Oil Ministry, but they didn’t protect the Baghdad Museum. Baghdad Museum, 170 thousand pieces were looted from Baghdad Museum. This is, you know, this is a tragedy, this is a catastrophe. In—library, the only copy of the Koran written in the hands of Ali ben Avatana were burned. This is a huge loss, no reconstruction can bring that back. So that’s why I’m saying it’s a very different image, what the U.S. believes it’s doing in Iraq, what the Iraqis see the U.S. doing in Iraq, what the Arabs and Muslims see the U.S. as doing in Iraq.

I think the Iraqis want democracy, I have to say I could see that the Iraqi people are very happy to get rid of the regime, everybody in the Arab and Muslim world is very happy to get rid of the regime, no two people could differ about the nature of that regime. But I think now is the challenge. Now what the U.S. is going to do, how it’s going to behave. The impression in the region is that the U.S. was ill prepared for the post-military victory, because there was a huge vacuum, can you imagine a city without electricity for three weeks? Hospitals without power. You know, people are living in absolute chaos now in Iraq.

And let us hope that something good will come out of something evil, and that the U.S. will be able to manage to conduct a democratic process in which the Iraqi would choose their own government, and I think this would be good for Iraq and for the region. But again, to give a statement, we will not allow, you know, a Shi’ite government compared to Iran, what is democracy? To allow what you want, or to allow the people to choose?

Karen Elliott House: If Syria had a choice, would you prefer a Shi’ite theocracy over a democracy?

Bouthania Shaaban: I think Syria would be prepared to work with any government that the Iraqi people choose. We have been working with Iran for the last ten years, we have very good relationship with Iran. There’s no problem be us and Iran. It is the government represents what the people want. We can work with these governments and there be no problem. Whatever the Iraqi choose, Syria would be able to work with them. And by the way, the position of women in Iran is much better than the position of women in many western countries, really. I mean, what…the dress code that you see, or the—you hear, doesn’t necessarily present then reality.

I’ve been to Iran quite a few times and Iranians have real power. They wear the chadoor, but they have real power in institutions, in universities, in the market place, everywhere. So I think the…I think what I would like to say is that reality is always complicated. It’s not a single facet, it’s not black and white, it’s not either a theocracy or a democracy. It could be a democratic theocracy, how about that? (Laughs) You know, the reality is complicated and we have to attend to the nuances of what is happening in the region. But the tone and the approach, if I may say so, of the U.S. is really inviting a lot of resentment. So it doesn’t carry the respect for people, and it doesn’t present a balanced argument.

Like if I take my country Syria as an example, you know, what is said about Syria is baffling to me. Really is baffling. They say, it’s the same regime, Ba”ath regime in Iraq, Ba”ath regime in Syria. What I would say is saying it’s the same regime is just like saying Damascus, Maryland is Damascus in Syria.

Karen Elliott House: I would say on your behalf, that it is nice to see a Syrian who’s prepared to come and engage. In my 20 plus years of being a diplomatic correspondent and foreign editor, you can go all over the Arab world and it’s very hard to get Arab officials to talk to you, a lot of the time, because their view seems to be…if you were smart, you’ll see it our way, and if you’re not, forget it. (Laughter)

Bouthania Shaaban: I think…(Overlap)

Karen Elliott House: Can I just shift you to ...

Bouthania Shaaban: Can I comment on that, Karen? Because I think this is really an important point, that Karen is raising. That, you know, for the last 20 years probably we are, Syria and the Arabs to a great extent responsible for the lack of understanding that I have just hinted to. It’s a cultural thing. It’s not that the views are right or wrong. You know, in Arab culture, people believe that if you have the right to something, you don’t need to talk about it. Everybody should know that this…you’re right, that it’s not wrong, you don’t need to market it, you don’t need to promote it, you don’t need to talk about it, you know, you just…people would know. The real…the modern age is different, and so other people and Syria in particular haven’t really been reaching out to media. Even when I want to say something, they say, why should you say it? Everybody should know.

We stood with—resolution, we support peace in the region, we did this, we did that, and we…the assumption is that everybody should know that you are peace loving country, you’re doing the right thing, so there is something in that, and that would be hard.

Karen Elliott House: Can we shift a moment to the broader Middle East peace process, which is obviously going to rise on the ...

Bouthania Shaaban: Sure.

Karen Elliott House:…U.S. administration’s visibility. Syria has fundamentally always played the spoiler role. You can’t…you don’t want Palestinians to make peace unless you get your occupied territory back. Is that still the Syrian position?

Bouthania Shaaban: It never was. (Laughs) It never was the Syrian position. I think every…the U.S. administration acknowledged in 1990 that it was Syria who made the—peace conference possible. And since 1974, I could say that Syria has been calling for a peace settlement. I remember on the first day of 1973 war, the—and Assad, while our forces were making headway towards Israel, stood there and said we are not warmongers. We hate to be…to engage in war, we’re only defending our rights and our people and we’d love to do it in a more peaceful fashion, and he was so…talking to Syrians now. The Syrian position on the Middle East peace process is that we want a comprehensive and enduring settlement.

You know, when Camp David was signed between Arafat and Rabin, when the Oslo Agreement was signed, the late—Assad stood against these agreements. He didn’t do anything against them, but he just said, these agreements are not going to work, because they do not respond to the rights of Palestinians. But we’re not going to do anything to spoil them. Now President Ashad has passed away, but this agreement did not work. The only difference between President Assad and those who are working in peace is that he wanted to make peace that would last for generations to come. He said to Senator Specter, I want a peace that would live generations after I die. That all people in the region would defend that peace.

I was his interpreter for ten years, throughout the peace process, and I can say that with all honesty. So this is really a difference in perspective, let us say, between the U.S. and Syria. The U.S. loves—opportunities, quick solution, quick fix, you know, we want that today. There’s no time tomorrow, we have to do this, we have to do that. Syria views things differently. Syria wants an enduring peace that would last, a comprehensive…(Overlap)

Karen Elliott House:…definition of enduring is ...

Bouthania Shaaban: The line of…(Overlap)

Karen Elliott House:…‘67 border?

Bouthania Shaaban: That’s it. Resolutions 242, 338, you know, and the terms of peace. That’s all. And if I could say so, I believe this is as good for the Israelis as it is for the Arabs. I think if this kind of peace had been—and we’re so close to reaching it and shut us down, any people needn’t have died. Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs, you know? One more death is too many. And you will hear…(Overlap)

Karen Elliott House: But isn’t it a bit like…if people had cooperated to see Saddam as what he was, there might never have been a need for war. And if the Arabs had been willing to accept the existence of Israel within ’67 borders, there might never have been Israel outside of ’67 borders?

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, the Arabs, at least for the last ten years, have been ready to accept Israel within the 1967 borders, and had been calling for this. You know that in March last year all Arab countries put in the initiative to make peace with Israel, all Arab countries, open embassies, if Israel withdraws to the line of June four, 1967 border, which in my opinion is a very small price for a long lasting, enduring, comprehensive peace in the Middle East, in which co-existence will prevail.

Karen Elliott House: I’m going to ask you one last thing and then let the audience, we were told that we could go on till nine o’clock, but I think she’d rather hear your questions, as had I.

Bouthania Shaaban: Yes, sure.

Karen Elliott House: Terrorism is going to become a big…is, but will become a bigger focus in Israel, as the road map unfolds. Is Syria prepared to act more strongly against Crominus(?), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, which have an agenda, it appears, to…derail Palestinian-Israeli peace efforts?

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, I don’t know what derailing Israeli peace efforts. I think the only ...

Karen Elliott House: Well, simply because the Israelis say as along as there’s terrorism, we’re not going to be yielding.

Bouthania Shaaban: No, we go to the chicken and egg plan, really. Who is starting terrorism? And what is terrorism? I don’t know whether anyone could accept that Israel is acting in self defense on an occupied territory. These—are occupied by Israel, and the only two times in which…in the history of the Arab-Israeli peace forces…or conflict I want to say, where there were suicide bombing are two examples, 1982 when Sharon was in office, and now during the Intifada, when Sharon is in office. I don’t think it’s too much to say that Sharon is bad for the Israelis as he is bad for the Arabs and for the peace process, and for the region, because his strategy is to defeat the Palestinians, to defeat the will of the Palestinians, to surrender. His strategy is not one of peace. I think what we need in the Middle East is a strategy for peace. Hezbollah was not in existence before 1982, before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

And once we reach a peace settlement, a real peace settlement, there will be no Hezbollah, no Hamas, no jihad, no killing, no destruction. So what we…what Syria is arguing for is an enduring, comprehensive peace settlement. You know, many Arab countries would condemn, including the Palestinians, every suicide bombing that is happening. What Syria says is that it’s not going to be useful, either to the Israelis or to the Arabs to keep distributing the blame everywhere and condemning here and there. It’s not business Syria agrees on this or disagrees on that, it’s not because of this. It’s because it sees the solution as something different. The solution is end occupation, to end settlement, to reach a comprehensive peace solution in which all the Middle East could live in security and stability.

And in the Middle East, Jews, Christians and Muslims have always been living together throughout history. There was no problem. It’s only bad governments that try to—each other and—religions of each other. While we live together in Syria…Syria really is like the United States, it’s a melting pot of all religions, of all ethnicities. The one impolite question you will never hear in Syria is what is your religion? Nobody would ever ask this question. So why couldn’t countries in the Middle East live in peace and security and allow all people and all children to live without war, without killing and without death?

Karen Elliott House: We’re going to take your questions, and it’s my responsibility to remind you, which I should have at the beginning of this, but you knew that this is on the record. And when you want to ask a question, please state your name and affiliation so we know who is addressing Doctor Shaaban. Over here.

JL: Thank you, Karen. Jeff Laurenti, with the United Nations Association. Ms. Shaaban, you seem to take for granted that the U.S. is in fact going to do the reconstruction of Iraq on its own, and that all of the kind of rhetoric around the United Nations or the U.N. role is not going to happen. I wonder if you could tell us what you think will be the kinds of hazards for the U.S. in attempting to implement a reconstruction, political and economic of Iraq, and if I heard correctly, does this mean that your delegation at the U.N., I see Ambassador Webber here, will not be pushing a U.N. role? What would the U.N. be able to do differently anyway?

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you very much. I really don’t know what is the U.S. agenda in Iraq, whether it wants to do it on its own, but the impression we got is that the U.S. would like to go it alone, and we feel that it would be good for Iraq, good for the region, to engage the U.N., to engage the neighbors, to conduct a dialogue with their neighbors and talk to them through diplomatic channels, rather than giving statements about Syria and Iran and France and, you know, all the countries. We believe it would be good for the United States to give a good example in Iraq, and to redeem what has happened so far, and to really give an example of democracy and modernization and freedom for people to choose their governments.

We believe it would be good to engage the U.N., of course we try our best, but I think it’s the United States at the end who is going to decide whether they’re going to do that or not. But we believe it would be very good for the U.S. and very good for the region, and perhaps it could be the beginning of a correct solution for the entire region.

Karen Elliott House: Yes, sir.

GS: George Schwab, the International Committee on American Foreign Policy, thank you very much for your remarks. I’m just wondering, I have basically two questions. Number one, there are some of the terrorist organizations operating from…with the support of Syria, operating in Lebanon and on the West Bank who say, or who assert that they will never accept Israel, and that they intend to throw the Israelis into the Mediterranean, number one. And the second question that I have is, what are Syria’s policies in regards to Lebanon? Will Syria remain in Lebanon or—because I speak to many Lebanese friends and they’re very, very upset with your policy there.

Bouthania Shaaban: Okay, thank you. As for what you refer to as terrorist organizations, I think the avowed aim of these organizations is to end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. I don’t think any organization now is saying they want to throw Israel into the sea. I read an article that’s saying, nobody has ever said this in the Arab world. Somebody else somewhere said this for their own political objectives. If you…if we don’t believe all this, let us give it a try. There is an Arab initiative on the table, that all Arab countries would make peace with Israel, if it would go the line of June four, 1967 borders. They would all open embassies, they would all have normal relations with Israel. It is on the table. Let us really give it a try. Accept that initiative, and give it a try and see what happens. I’m sure that everything will go well if this were to be accepted.

You know—really kill the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, you don’t see the pictures we see. Every day seven Palestinians killed, six Palestinians killed, 178 children under the age of ten has been killed in the last two years, in the West Bank and Gaza. Certainly those are not terrorists, these are children who were going to school or going out of their homes and they were killed. So we feel that it is about time to end violence and counterviolence, bloodshed and the solution is a political solution, rather than getting at Hamas or Jihad or Hezbollah or whatever, the solution is a political settlement for the entire region. That’s what Syria sees and that’s what Syria is prepared to play a very positive and constructive role in ensuring that it happens. And I’m sure it would.

As for Lebanon, we do have ties—agreement, and two months ago without anybody saying any word, the Syrian redeployed part of its troops according to a schedule program in which Syria will be deploying all its troops in Lebanon. The Lebanese Your Excellency hears here I think constitute, you know, very small minority with a political agenda, that would have broadly—It was Syria who had to end the civil war in Lebanon, and it will be Syria who will help Lebanon stay well and good country. We have very good relations with Lebanon and our troops will be redeployed very shortly in Lebanon.

Karen Elliott House: Do you think the Arab world would accept American occupation of Iraq as long as Syrian occupation of Lebanon? (Laughter)

Bouthania Shaaban: I don’t think anybody in the Arab world accept that Syria occupies Lebanon. I don’t think so. And it’s a different relationship, you know…(Laughter) It is. No, it is. We are Arabs. You know, the Americans went all the way there to occupy Iraq, but we do not occupy Lebanon. (Laughter) We do not occupy Lebanon. We have the type agreement and our troops are being redeployed and there is a scheduled time in which all the Syrian troops will be redeployed in Lebanon.

Karen Elliott House: Yes, sir.

GP: Guy Wyser-Pratte, Wyser-Pratte Company. Why didn’t Syrian television cover what was going on in Baghdad, as the regime was coming down?

Bouthania Shaaban: I think it was a mistake, I think they should have done. I don’t know why the Minister of Information didn’t, while we could see that on all satellite channel in our sitting room. I think he should have done, and I think he got the blame for not doing it.

Bouthania Shaaban: Al Jazeera, every satellite channel. Abu Dahbi, Dubai, you know, Al Arabia every satellite channel covers it, and all the Syrian people saw it. It was not a secret. I don’t know why he decided not to show it, and I got a lot of…he got a lot of blame for not doing it. It wasn’t a smart thing to do. People make mistakes in Syria, you know? (Laughter)

Karen Elliott House: Yes, ma’am.

PD: My name is Paula DiPerna, I’m with the Century Foundation, working group on homeland security. I wonder if you could comment on the nature of relations or dialogue going on now between the U.S. government and the Syrian, if you’re aware of any and at what level and about what?

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you. Yes, I think there is a dialogue that is going on that hasn’t stopped really between Syria and the United States. And although after the war we heard many statements targeting Syria, but we heard let us say different statements coming from Washington. The Syrian government appreciated the statements coming from President Bush and Secretary of State, who were—Syria as wanting it to cooperate and expressed their belief that it will cooperate, we were engaged in that kind of dialogue, and the American ambassador is a regular visitor of the Syrian Foreign Ministry. So the dialogue really has never stopped. We dissent on Iraq, but so did many countries in the world dissent with the U.S. on the war on Iraq. And we see that no reason why we shouldn’t engage and keep our engagements on the common ground that we have with the U.S. Syria is an important country, it likes to be engaged, it likes to continue the dialogue and I believe there is the same—on the side of the State Department here and we look forward Secretary of State visit to Damascus next week.

Karen Elliott House: Yes, sir.

WA: Wilder Abbott. It’s been suggested that Secretary of State Powell will visit Syria in the near future. What would you hope and expect to come from such a meeting?

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you. We hope to be able to conduct a good discussion about Iraq and about the post-war Iraq and what is the U.S. going to do? Whether it’s going to get the U.N. or the neighbors or Europe to help in the reconstruction of Iraq. We hope to speak about the peace process and to say that it’s up to the Palestinians to do whatever they like with the road map, but Syria remains to be ready to be engaged in the peace process tomorrow, if Israel is engaged, on the terms of preference that we all agreed on many years ago. We hope to conduct a good discussion about Syrian-American relations and to engage about the region, in a long term basis, to speak about all the issues in the region and tell the U.S. what we think, what could be done, and how Syria could be an active partner in the region.

Karen Elliott House: Yes, sir?

HL: Herbert Levin. Could you tell us precisely what it is that separates the governments of Syria and Israel in terms of return of the Golan and therefore normalization of relations between Syria and Israel?

Bouthania Shaaban: Okay, thank you. You know, this is such a painful topic for me, because we went to Shepherd and we were so close, and I think once you read the memoirs of people who were there, probably the first one would be Secretary Albright and Dennis Ross, I believe you will see that they…I believe you will see that Syria was so forthcoming and wanted to strike that deal. Unfortunately, didn’t happen. In my opinion, the lost opportunity was Shepardstown rather than Geneva summit, because Geneva summit between President Clinton and President Assad was really totally unprepared. It was not, we didn’t pin many hopes on that. The late President Assad said we want all our Golan back, you know, to the line of June 1967. In Geneva, they told President Assad they he can get 90 percent of the Golan back, which he wasn’t interested in at all. I think it’s a few meters basically I believe it is a water issue. The real crux of that is the water issue. It is not how many square meters. There are rivers and water coming from the Golan, and Syria is, you know everybody in the region is in shortage of water. And, Syria wants certain arrangements on the water issue. Within our territory, of course, but I think this has been the most difficult issue, the water issue, I believe. That’s my personal conjecture. I think what happened in Shepardstown is that on the side of Barak he came there, and suddenly he got nervous. Again, that’s my personal assessment. I lived every minute of it. The polls became very bad. He started to get nervous. He was worried about next election, and it didn’t make it. I think if he had made it, he would have been re-elected, and the Middle East would have been much better, and many lives would have been saved. Let us hope it will happen one day.

Karen Elliott House: The gentleman over here?

MG: Thank you, I’m Marty Gross from Sandlewood. You spoke earlier about misperceptions that you think that we have of you. I guess it’s good that you wouldn’t walk away with misperceptions that you have of us, but my question is that over the years we heard a number of spokespeople from the Arab world talk about one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. Other people say they, under not set of circumstances can they understand adults giving children to blow themselves up as well as others. My question for you is, how do you think we think about that issue differently after 9/11.

Bouthania Shaaban: That is a very interesting question, thank you. I really believe, you know, 9/11 is so different from what is happening in the Middle East. And, in New York and two tall buildings, somebody came from no where, and this is an act of terrorism, there is no doubt about it. But, I can’t see how in the western mind, could that be linked with people who are living in their homes, and their territories, with an occupying force, and their children are being killed because they want to live in freedom. The Palestinians, and the occupied territories—they don’t want anything to live in freedom. And, I think the link that was made, somebody has made that link, between 9/11 and between what’s happened in the occupied territory, it’s such an unfortunate link, and so misleading, really. This is an occupied territory. According to all UN resolutions, everybody recognizes that. So we are all against terrorism. We are all against killing innocent civilians, so why not sit down and put a solution towards that? That’s what we think. We think you make the link, and we think the link shouldn’t be made. Because the Palestinian territory is an occupied territory.

Karen Elliott House: Are we all against terrorism?

Bouthania Shaaban: Absolutely. Absolutely. Give me one example in which Syria isn’t. In fact, the US acknowledged Syrian efforts, Secretary Powell acknowledged Syrian efforts, Congressman, in cooperating with the US after 9/11 on the question of terrorism. And, Syria was able to save American lives in the Middle East, because it cooperated extremely well with the United States against terrorism. Three years before 9/11 Syrian soldiers were killed fighting against Al Queda. I don’t think Bin Laden would hate the US more than he hates Syria. You know we are against terrorism. We are against killing any civilian anywhere for political purposes.

Karen Elliott House: Including in the occupied territories?

Bouthania Shaaban: Including in the occupied territory.

Karen Elliott House: Then why isn’t it your government’s duty to do more to stop it?

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, I explained this. Because my government believes that condemning this act, or stopping this one would not help. The Palestinian have a right, and they will fight one generation after the other in order to get their rights. So, my government believes that the best thing to do ...

Karen Elliott House: So, they’re freedom fighters is the point?

Bouthania Shaaban: Absolutely, absolutely.

Karen Elliott House: Okay.

JZ: I’m Jim Zirin from Sydley, Austin, Brown and Wood, uh, Madame Shaaban, thank you. Your country, like our country has a president who is the son of a former president.

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you. I like that.

JZ: I wonder if you would care to comment on whether present foreign policy initiatives differ at all from those that found their expression in the past under President Hassad Al Assad?

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you. Well, it depends on which issues. I think our foreign policy to my best judgment continues to be the same regarding the peace process, and regarding the situation in the region. Of course these are different times, and there are different issues that are arising. The situation in Iraq, the war on Iraq. But, the perception that was prevailing about President Assad, that the late President Assad, that he’s intransigent, and he doesn’t want to make solutions is not the correct conception. And, as I said, I was there with him for ten years. And, I remember when Senator Specter visited President Assad after peace agreement was signed between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and said to him look, the picture of Arafat is all over newspapers. If you sign a peace agreement with Israel, and you are Hassad Assad, your picture will be in every newspaper in the world. And, the late president said to him, I really don’t care much about my picture being in every newspaper in the world. But, I would like all people of the region to defend the peace agreement I will sign. And, I think this remains the approach of Syria. They would like an enduring and comprehensive solution. As I said, there are new situations in which our foreign policy is formulated, like the case of Iraq, but I think within the same lines, to be a peaceful country, constructive country in the region. To try and help secure a good settlement for all people of the region. And, that continues to be the foreign policy of Syria. Of course to try and maintain a good relationship with the United States. I really believe that we have every reason to have good relationship with the United States. We are a very good partner in the region. And, we understand the region. And, our objectives do not really differ. If the United States wants democracy and modernization, we’re all for it.

Karen Elliott House: Mr. Peterson?

PGP: We’re going to have to get two of you. You tell some moving stories of innocent children and others being killed.

Bouthania Shaaban: That’s right.

PGP: At the same time we’ve read reports for many years that Saddam Hussein was killing and torturing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

Bouthania Shaaban: Absolutely.

PGP: Since we share, apparently, a common pleasure at his removal from power, how would you have proposed getting rid of Saddam without the use of force that inevitably involves the killing of some innocent civilians?

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you. Well, I really have no idea how Saddam would have been moved. And, we are not saying that the war was wrong in that aspect of it. I can’t answer your question. I can tell you that Syria is very happy that we don’t have the Iraq regime anymore. But, how could it have been done? I don’t know. But, we can always argue that there have, some things could have been handled in a better way. You could always argue for that. Even with secretaries of state. Because what happened in Iraq is really disastrous. Market place where homes were bombed. We’re not saying, of course they will say these are mistakes. You know that happened. But, I don’t know whether a mistake of losing 170 thousand pieces is a small mistake or a big mistake. You know there are many areas in which we wouldn’t differ. And, of course the last person in the world I would ever defend is Saddam Hussein. My husband came from Iraq, and he has never been to Iraq since 1972. And, two of his brothers were killed by Saddam. And, I know what Saddam is all about. I know very well what Saddam is all about. All Syrians know.

Karen Elliott House: I think Mr. Peterson’s point, if I may be presumptuous enough to explain you ...

PGP: You’re always smart.

Karen Elliott House: No, it’s if you have a guy who is torturing and murdering his own people, and we saw on TV here guys who had their ears cut off, sort of the Scarlet Letter of Iraq for opposing the regime, it takes ...

Bouthania Shaaban: Military action to take him out?

Karen Elliott House: It took military action.

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, what Syria proposed about four years ago in the Arab League was to lift sanctions off Iraq. You might find this very funny, but just listen to it for a moment. And, do you know who opposed that? It was the Iraqi foreign minister. I think the sanctions helped the regime in Iraq. Syria argued then, if sanctions were to be lifted, the rotten core of the regime would collapse. And, the regime was the one, it might not have happened, you’re nodding there, you know, I’m not betting my life on that. But, you know, we are saying this was one of the theories. Lift the sanctions. Help the people of Iraq. The sanctions really work against the people rather than against the regime. And, when Syria wanted at least Arab sanctions to be lifted, it was the Iraqi regime who stood against lifting the sanctions. And, Syria was trying to be also creative in finding ways to help the Iraqi people rather than the regime. I think what we have to talk about here is a measure of trust that we do agree on objectives. And, even if we differ on ...

LC: Thank you very much, Karen. And, thank you so much for your presentation today. I’m Lee Cullum with the Dallas Morning News. I wonder if you could give us your assessment of the new government in the Palestinian authority? How much authority does Arafat maintain? What about Massoud? How much leeway will he have in really directing the negotiations, and the future of that unhappy land? Thank you.

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, I must admit I’m bewildered by what happened with the Palestinian Authority. I really am not qualified to give an assessment. Let us hope that, you know, from my perspective, to spend so much time worrying about Abu Masoud, or Arafat, or anybody else while people on both sides are being killed, was not the very fortunate focus. In my opinion the focus should have been somewhere else. But, things happen, and now Abu Masoud is there. I hope that they will be able to start a peace negotiation, and reach a peace settlement, and it will be good for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, and it would enable them to reach a solution. I really can’t tell you because I’m not terribly informed about the complicated dynamics within the Palestinian Authority, and their relationship with Israel. I’m just not, sadly, informed about it.

Karen Elliott House: Mr. Siegman and then the gentleman in the corner over there.

HS: Henry Siegman Council on Foreign Relations. I’m encouraged to ask you this question because of your earlier gracious confession that even Syria occasionally makes mistakes.

Bouthania Shaaban: Sure.

HS: How do you reconcile your image of Syria as a tolerant melting pot where Jews aren’t even asked what their religion is, with the statement that President Assad made to the Pope when they met? And, what impact did that statement about the Jews being historically a treacherous people have on, do you imagine, have on the Jews in Syria?

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you. Well, again, President Assad never mentioned the Jews in his statement. The embassy could provide you Mr. Siegman, with a copy of the statement. He was talking about agony, the historic pain that the people felt. And, if some people wanted to interpret it, and President Assad, during his visit to London, he was asked the same question by the editor of the Jewish Chronicle in London. And, the president asked him, have you read my statement? He said no, I’ve read about it. He said, well, just bring the statement and read it. And, you will see that I never mentioned the Jews. I said that the Prophet was tortured. He was tortured not only by the Jews, by the Muslims as well, by many other people. So, the assumption that was drawn from the statement is the wrong assumption. President Assad would never say such a thing about Jews. We genuinely never say such a thing. The statement is there. We would be ready to provide you with it. He never mentioned Jews in his statement. It’s unfortunate that the mis-information that was circulated, and everybody seems to believe. And, I think this is the core of misunderstanding that happens so often, that mis-information travels fast, at the expense of the truth.

MH: Mel Heinemen, Lazard Freres and Company. Last night on national television the Syrian Foreign Minister stated, unconditionally, at least I thought, that the US went to war in Iraq so that it would be able to award lucrative contracts after the war was over. Is that what you believe? Or, is that what the Syria government believes?

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, I don’t think that’s what Minister Sherod(?) believes either. I think, I saw that interview. And, I think that Mike Wallace, with full respect, was so provocative, and he made the minister irritated, that he gave an answer that I don’t think he believes in. I think that…(Laughter) this is true. I think the minister knows that the situation is a lot more complicated than this. There is the contract business, but there are other issues as well.

Karen Elliott House: It would be good if much of the Arab world could understand that. It is not just about oil. Mort, and then ...

MZ: I’m Mort Zuckerman with US News and World Report. I do have a question to ask you, since everything that seems to be of concern to many of the people in the western audience about what Syria says, including what the Foreign Minister says, since I interviewed the Foreign Minister, and I have to tell you, he made some of the most anti Semitic statements I’ve ever heard ...

Bouthania Shaaban: Some of the anti?

MZ: Yes, anti Semitic statements. And, I was with him for four hours, and this was not for public television. So, with all due respect, I’m not sure what he said, and ...

Bouthania Shaaban: When was that, can I ask?

MZ: 1990. And, let me just ask you this, are you suggesting then that when you talk about a society that is tolerant and open, and you sort of talk out in favor of democracy, how do you reconcile that with the events of Hamma and Allepo? Are these misunderstandings on the part of the west, these events never really happened? Is that what we’re supposed to believe?

Bouthania Shaaban: No, I’m not saying that.

MZ: So, is that then consistent with your version of a democracy and an open society?

Bouthania Shaaban: Okay, well first of all I don’t know how the minister could be anti Semitic while he’s a Semite. I don’t know how he could be against himself, really. (Groans) And, what happened in Hamma, at that time, the west was calling them freedom fighters. Now I think you all call them fundamentalists and terrorists. That’s what you call them. They are the same people who were killing us, killing university professors. I was a university professor at that time. I couldn’t go to my university. The first victim of those people was the director of Damascus University, Mohammed Lafabill(?) That was the first victim. They were getting at the best intellectuals, the best army officers, the best doctors in Syria, killing people everywhere. What would you do in the United States, if you had such people?

MZ: We don’t bomb them.

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, when Los Angeles event happened, the military went down to the streets. A much minor event than what happens in Syria. The army went down to the streets when this happened. I think countries do try to keep their national unity, and their country, and they do try to get rid of violence. And, that was a terrible violence that our society was exposed to, and the government behaved in a way to preserve the society, and it did.

Karen Elliott House: Mrs. Coleman, right here?

IC: Isobel Coleman with the Council on Foreign Relations. Could you please comment as candidly as possible on the role that Middle East governments themselves play in misinformation provided to their own people. You’ve talked a lot about misinformation and misunderstandings, but I think a huge part of that does generate from the Middle East governments themselves, and what they’re telling their own people.

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, this is a very long question. If I want to go over what they tell their own people, I’m sure there is a lot of misinformation in the Arab world, just as there is anywhere else. And, I could say that I really don’t know in which direction you want me to comment? I mean, on the political level? On the economic level? On the social level? There’s a lot of misinformation obviously everywhere. And, I don’t exempt the Arab governments from that. I don’t exempt any government from that. And, I think they try to do their political agenda. But, one thing that probably could be of interest to this respectful audience is that perhaps the Syrian government, and I’m not saying this because I’m a Syrian. The Syrian is the most candid, or has the best unified position with its people during the war on Iraq. It was the only Arab country that stood against the war while the people were truly against the war. In other Arab countries, you find the governments trying to flirt with the US by taking a more neutral stance. While, if you go just one level down, you find the entire population against the war. In many Arab countries. So, at least in that sense, there was one voice between the people and the government in Syria. And, that’s why it has more credibility, this time—Syria doesn’t say what the US would like to hear. Syria says what it believes. I think many Arab governments say to the US what they would like to hear. And, that’s why the US keeps being surprised in the Middle East. I think it would be good to try and listen to what is, rather than to what they would like to hear.

Karen Elliott House: This probably has to be the last question. The gentleman right here.

AH: Allan Hyman, Columbia Presbyterian. You referred to Prime Minister Barak’s misfortune in having to face an open election at Shepardstown. And, President Bush has the same misfortune next year. Your leaders don’t have that problem.

Bouthania Shaaban: Good for them. (Laughter)

AH: What do you tell young people in the Arab world, hundreds of millions of them, that they do not have the opportunity, despite their wonderful cultural background, to ever truly elect their own leaders? What do you tell them?

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, fortunately I am not in a position that I have to tell them anything.

Karen Elliott House: You teach literature and not government?

Bouthania Shaaban: No, I don’t know what to say, to answer that question. I don’t know whether electing a leader is the only measure of democracy? Is it the only one? Or, are there other measures? It is the only one? Well, I think we differ on that. I think there are other measures as well. This is one of the measures, certainly, but I think there are other measures as well, that we could work on, and we could implement, and we could feel happy with.

Karen Elliott House: And, that was so swift, we will go to the last, the gentleman here who is the last questioner.

RD: Russell DaSilva from Lovells. You mentioned that Syria’s position on the Palestinian Israeli conflict is that you’re looking for a comprehensive and lasting solution. I would assume that is everyone’s first choice. Does Syria have a second choice? Is there an interim solution? Is there a solution in steps, in stages, that Syria would support?

Bouthania Shaaban: Well, I think once we are engaged in a dialogue, you know, I think it’s all open to negotiations. We believe that we have lost too long a time. You know, we work for nine years on the Middle East peace process, and we were really hoping to achieve something before too long. Now, if the dialogue says that we will go into stages, I think this would be up to the government to decide. But, within that vision of achieving an enduring and comprehensive peace as the final goal of negotiations, or of a process, I think the Syrian government would be willing to engage. But, within that vision, not to have just interim agreements, and then leave it for ten years. And, if you are engaged in the process, you know, the problems now, at least on the Syrian track are so small, and so specific, because we’ve spent so much time working out all the details of security arrangements, of the phases of withdrawal, or normal relations, whatever. You know we had thousands of pages covering every single point, that I can’t see the stages anymore. I think if the political will is there, I think everything could be worked out in a pretty short time.

Karen Elliott House: I’d like to thank Dr. Shaaban, and thank all of you.

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you very much.

Karen Elliott House: And thank the Council for sponsoring this, because we clearly have a lot of work to do in this part of the world, as this conversation demonstrates.

Bouthania Shaaban: Thank you very