IN HUSTON

10 Dec.2003

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: I would like to thank Mr. Najad Fares for allowing this opportunity to get together. I will not speak for long, but I would look to put certain points before you engage in useful dialogue.

    I believe that in the face of this much advanced technology and media and information. I believe that there is much more pressing need for contact. Because of the fact that information can travel so fast, allows also  an opportunity for misinformation.

      And I would like to tell you that in the Middle East we believe that the major reason for the difficulties we have in our relationships with the United States is misinformation, probably in both sides. Because there is a very definite and solid belief that American people are fair people, the objective people, they would not accept things to be bias or unfair if they really know the fact of what is going on. It is normal in these circumstances, therefore, that we see things differently, and we validate things differently.

    In fact, when I came here I asked my office to send me information about what is going on, because I find it very difficult to see the reality of what is going on in the Middle East, searching through media. I, actually, defend on Haarets when I came here to know what is going on (laughing…) here in the region, more than I defend on the American media. This is not to criticize, but just to know real  facts in order to adjust that facts and to try to go beyond this. You, probably want to have your breakfast, I already had my breakfast, please enjoy your breakfast.

    I would like to say that in the last two years we feel that the American reputation in the region has suffered a great deal. And what is happening seems to us, rightly or wrongly, that is not in the interest of the United States, and not in the interest of the world to do this. And we are really now in the region searching for ways to build a better communication, and to talk to each other to see how can we get out of this dilemma. To see how can we inform each other better. To see how can we see eye to eye.

    I would like to say a few things about the relationships of the United States with Syria. For example, Syria as a country in the Middle East, it stood against the war in Iraq. And it is very natural for us to stand against the war on Iraq. Iraq is an Arab country, and worth a new solution of the problem if anything creates more problem than solution.

     In our opposition  to war on Iraq we’re trying to be positive, we’re trying to suggest best ways for dealing with the United States, whether through the security council in which we are member, or through our relations with the American administration. We said we totally agree that Saddam Husein is a monster, the situation in Iraq is absolutely terrible. For twenty years our borders were blocked to Saddam Husein. He did explosives in our country, and he killed thousands in our country. So, I think we should be credible when we say we have a state in fighting that regime, but we differ on ways of . and we are trying to say that the really priority in the region is to address the Arab – Israeli conflict. And once that is addressed, it would be much easier to deal with Saddam. And this will weaken him, because he is playing on the conflict, and playing on the problems, and playing on the fears of people. Anyway, we did not succeed on the war to be avoided, but there is two allies in the war; there is the United States and the United Kingdom. And they are saying the same language; both the United States and the United Kingdom. Now the difference is that our relationship with the United Kingdom remains solid. Despite the fact that the United Kingdom entered the war with the United States against Iraq our relations remain solid. My personal opinion is that because the style and the way of thinking is different. The tone sometimes affect the results of discussions. The way in which things are put, you know, whether you are threatening a person, or whether you’re speaking to that person, you are perusing cooperation, or whether you are enforcing orders. It makes a huge difference the way you make things, or you do things, or you seek help or confrontation, or what so ever.

   On the other hand the United States increased its interests in the reform in Syrian, while you have to lock your borders, you have to get rid of Hamas, you have to get rid of Jihad, you have to dismantle Hezbollah which is in Lebanon and you are show on reform. I was just reading thing the other day  in the American paper that the kind of crunches the American people feel relaxed to get rid of any excessive, or to do any political change. You know, this was in American paper. The same thing applies to us. The kind of crunches people came to the reality and try in spite of any thing the kind of crunches slow down any changes that people would like to make. Although the reforms in Syria are taking place, but probably not in the way or in the style that any other country might want to perfume, and I spoke about this before. I think what we hear from the United States is that president Bashar started his office with a great hopes, we were hopping that he will be a reformist and he will change things, all what he did was to blame the old guard and nothing , but that is the usual rhetoric we hear. For somebody like me, who has been in the inner circle of what is going on in the country for the last fifteen years, I can say that what president Bashar has been doing in the last three years is solid reform, much more important than getting rid of the old guard, and then giving  the impression as it seems that he is doing something important. What he is doing is to try and bring in qualified young people into institutions and ministries, and allow and ask them to try and to restructure these institutions from the inside. Giving them the authority, the ability, the staff. Anyway that will build up these institutions. So, I think  that in the gradual time there will be a very natural removal of anything that is not consistence in this new way of thinking and work. And in my assessment that is much better way than setting somebody out of the sea leaving him and not knowing what to do. So, reforming the institution, the ministry, or whatever from the inside is something more important. And I can tell you within a year personally I feel huge difference. There are so many people everywhere like mine, we can talk to each other. We can communicate. We can recruit people, young people with languages. We can open relations with out side.

    To us this is happening, and I think it is our concern is not how the other see, our concern is what we are doing, and whether we are feeling this is right or wrong for us. And I believe this is normal. Everyone feels like this. We’re not acting in a show to convince others we are doing something good. We are trying to do what we believe is good for us. This is our country, and we believe that we are doing something good.

   However, we would love to maintain better relations with the United States. The United States is a great player. Is the greatest economic, military power in the world, and I think any country would love to make excellent relationships with the United States, particularly, now  we are neighbors. And we say, in Arabic we have a proverb which say “you have to chose your neighbor before your home”, (and we are a good neighbor, you know, laughing…).

     So, Syria is really trying its best, and in every political meeting between whether the Secretary of State and president Assad, or Mr. Bernz and president Assad, or Congress men and president Assad. And I hear the language that is coming from Damascus.  We want a good relation. We are trying our best for good relations. Not only that we believe that we have an interest, a joint interest in the Middle East. If the ultimate objective of the United States is to create peace and stability in the Middle East. No one is interested in that more than Syria.  And in fact, no one with humility, let me say, no country more capable than Syria to mobilize Arab people behind these objectives. But, it has to  be done differently, it has to be done in a different way.

   After September eleven Syria cooperated with the United States against terrorism. And in seven instances Syria saved American lives. But what we heard then from Washington is that Syria is a terrorist country. You know, things are mysterious to us really. When Secretary of States, Colin Paul, came to Syria, immediately after he became a secretary, they spoke about Hezbollah and the borders with Israel. And they agreed on things of the borders were quite for none until Israel started violating the borders. We cooperated with the borders of Iraq; none of the Iraqi officials was allowed to come to Syria. We exerted great efforts in order to be able to achieve that, because that was what the United States wanted. And now they arrested most of them. And the United States know that none of them went to Syria. We tried our best on the borders. And we even said to the United States, you know, we have long borders (five hundred miles borders), and we are not able to control these borders even when the explosives were being sent to us by Saddam and killing our people. So, we are trying our best but we cannot necessisarily control every  inch of the borders either you control the borders  or send us equipments to help us controlling the borders. For example, in this very issue, the British came and said to us we send you equipments, you will do this and to do that, while the American said you have to control your borders. We are doing that because we have an interest also; both in combating terrorism and in controlling borders and in making the Middle East a better region, more stable, more secure to have peace in the Middle East. We believe that the strategy we have in the Middle East, the American strategy has got the wrong title, we believe that. We believe that solving the Middle East conflict is step one to making the region stable and secure. You know, supporting Israel is no excuse for getting the wrong title, because Israel is, also, having an interest in stability and security. And what Sharon is  not in the interests of Israel. I think, I will conclude by this, we have to decide whether the language of force is the one that will be persuade or the language of dialogue and negotiations and peace. The policy of Sharon so far has been the use of force. That military force will solve everything. What we are saying is that there is an American initiative in which we waste for ten years we achieved eighty percent of what should be achieved. We are, you know, a short distant away from reaching peace agreement why not resume a peace negotiations, and achieve a peace agreement?? And that, believe me will reduce all problems in the Middle East. Because I think, if I can put it this way, there are two ways of presenting the Middle East; one way is that there are terrorist, there is Hamas, Jihad, Hezbollah, you know, these Arabs are so stupid, and they do not understand anything. They are back world, and they have no eminence, and we have to get rid of as many of them as we can. Transfer them there are no Palestine, you know, this is one way. The Arabs are weak, and the governments are not able to do anything. This is actually what is happening. The other way is to think that we all living in this region together; Jews, Muslims and Christians. We have lived in this region for thousands of years, and we can live together, but there is a political problem of occupation, of settlement, of building the wall, of killing the Palestinians. Two hundreds and fifty Palestinian children under the age of ten had been killed in the last two years, two hundreds and fifty. Three hundred thousands olive trees had been uprooted. Tow hundred thousands of houses have been destroyed. How would the Arab feel about this? There is no problem between Jews and Muslims, between Christians and Muslims. And what is this creating is hatred and anger on the part of people. What should we creating is dialogue, negotiation and love. I think that is not have been to be like this. I mean, if someone wants to say to me things have been to be so, no. In 1995, everyone was calling his children سلام  (peace). We are looking forward achieving peace and peace was around the corner. You know, after that there were so many initiative, but one of these initiatives passed the Arab initiative that had put on the table in 2002. That all Arab countries agreed to make peace with Israel, if Israel withdraws to the lines 1967 which is in our perspective is not a huge price it has to pay. I mean it is good for the Israeli, and this will be good for us. Yesterday, in Ha’arets Raeef wrote an article saying he cannot understand why Israeli government did not respond to president Assad in a New York time interview in which he said he would love to make peace, and he would love to resume peace negotiations. He said if the Israeli government want peace why did not it respond? Why the spokesman of the government said “we are not interested in what president Assad saying, and we are not interested in resuming peace”?  So, quite honestly, we find the voices coming from Israel understands the reality more like the twenty five pilots who refused to shell Palestinian children, the four directors who issued what Sharon is doing is really destructive to Israel and the Israelis.  We share these views. We believe that what is done is really destructive to all of us, and we really need a better strategy to strengthen peace lovers, peace makers, and to pursue real strategy for making peace, not just to say we need a Palestinian state and then we take the VITO and then to allow the Berlin wall to be build.

Question: do you see any optimistic view in achieving peace in the try between Palestinian and Israeli people?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: I did not read it, to be honest with you. But I think people to people are coming together to try and make something because they feel that the reality is so desperate, but we really need a comprehensive solution. I, really hope it is the first step to resuming negotiations on all sides. That is what Syria saying. And let peace be comprehensive, it cannot be injuring, really. But, if it is comprehensive, then, we can have normal relations, a real peace among people and then have a peace in the region. That is what we love to see, rather than just focusing on Passion.

In Syria, we were saying any initiative, or any energy that would open the way to peace, that would lead to peace we are with it. We want peace in the region. But not to have, you know, like Oslo, Passion and to have it abrogated again.

Question: Is the Palestinian negotiates boundaries differs from the1967 bounds in Geneva course? Is this agreeable to the other countries? Or does it have to go back to the exact 1967 boundaries?? The second question I would like to ask is: Is there any kind of communications between the two governments; the Syrian and the Israeli??

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  In my answer to your second question is no. there wasn’t a communication between the two countries. And what Syria did is to take the issue to Security Council, and by that we were trying to find a solution to this problem through the Security Council.

    Regarding for the second question: we cannot see, really, why occupation and settlement should be rewarded. Quite the contrary we feel that, as Arab people, the withdrawal of Israel to the lines of 1967 doesn’t deserve a great deal. And there is the Security Council resolutions, and there is the American initiative, and there is the Madrid peace assessment. So, I cannot see why shouldn’t we await all these and give up any territory. I was in Geneva in 2000 between president Clinton and president Assad. I think when you mention a little bit of the territory or the territory or five percent or twenty percent what the territory means is the only resource for water. That is the issue. I think the big issue of the peace is water, and it is not the amount of the territory, you can have eighty percent of the territory worth nothing, and two percent of the territory that have all the water, and that is what they want. So, that is the issue, and that is why we insist on the lines of 1967 because it is really it is the problem issue is the problem. We have no water in our country or what so other. There is no water, it is a rocky mountains that worth nothing.

Question: it seems to be the Palestinian community that is willing to make a certain different adjustments for peace?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  there is a big issue among the Palestinian, a big movement, you know. Water again among the Palestinian is an issue. I am very much doubted that they will agree, there is no solution without giving the Palestinian enough water. If they do not have the lines of 1967 in ten years they will be thirsty. They will not be able to live there, because they suggested solutions giving no water, what so other really to the Palestinian, and to put all the water in the hand of the Israeli, and many Palestinian groups would not accept that. I am quite familiar to that situation there.

Question:  it is the American hysterical defend that embassies in the Middle East can have to fight governments,…

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  in every appointment in the region with the communities to submity reports trying to tell the governments about how the image of the United States to be improved in the Middle East, and I read the report, and they visited me after worth. I think, the results of that report, there is demandelous job, really, in all Muslims countries, not only in Arab countries. And the results of that report was that eighty percent of the stand against the United States is due to United states policy rather than to United States, you know, public relations. So, there is no issue of public relations. It is twenty percent only that is due to public relations. But eighty percent is due to the policy of the United States. I am sure  many of you are saying that what can we do if the Arabs and the Israelis didn’t engage together, I think the Arab people would say at least the United States can  stop the Vito in order to support all what is done of settlement, of the wall building. So, while president Bush spoke about the Palestinian state and the Israeli state in June 2002, the policy in the United States in the region did not support with that to support what president Bush has said. So, really, it is not just a matter of public relations it is a matter of policy. I think in general, Muslims have the feeling that there is underestimation of the intelligence of people; You do things no body will notice. The people are intelligent, especially when they interest in that state. They have to observe every single thing.

Question: How would you approach the logic by focus on the American policy, is there something you feel it is better, how do you feel? (interrupted by Dr. Bouthaina).

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  I will give you some paper… I think what we see in Iraq is not what you see. There is one paper with me just to show you an example. It is an Arabic newspaper, it is Al-Hayat  published in London. This is just an example. These are Iraqi people with plastic bands over their heads, hands tied behind their back, and an American soldier. Look at it, what can we see? We see an Iraqi woman raped. We see houses being violated. We see women kidnapped. We see lack of orders. This is what we see in our world. But this is you do not see in here. The Independent three weeks ago, the London Independent,  published a foreign report on the situation on Iraq saying that Iraqi women are three times worse than they were under the authority of Saddam, because of the lack of security. I feel what needs to be done in Iraq is to accept that the United States can do it alone. It has to bring in Europe, and the Arab world with it, through the United Nations and find a resolution.

Question: Which European country do you think have the credibility in the region?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  all the European countries have the credibility in the region.

Question: in the six months preceded the in the attack progressive because we have almost important members, may be I would like to say that when I see a concord attack, action and reaction, when the call come from an American voice, there was fifty – fifty pro or against, I think it is a good idea or a bad idea I do not know. But when a call is overcoming to signify a thing like the relationship  with Saddam and the  perception of Saddam is more negative.

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  the perception of all Arabs is negative for Saddam, but I think the advise, I met some of these Arab – Americans who give advise, who are processors, you know. I think the advisers, some of those, really, are Arab self-sneakers who I met with few of them for hours, and they were saying that. It is going to be shining, it is going to be democracy, to trans, you know. And they are quite higher ranking has been adviser in the American administration. I think this is one of the problems that the United States would look to people who agrees with it rather than the people who speaks the truth of the situation. And I think this is the problem with Syria. Syria is a one country that tells the United States what is truly truth without, you know, trying to be nice about any thing. But the United States prefers countries who say ‘yes’ to anything. I think every one who wants to work together he has to face the reality in a much braver way, and to be honest with the others, and to speak the truth about what is happening, and then they will do much better service for each other.

Question: Egypt signed a peace treatment with Israel, Jordan signed peace treatment with Israel, and few years ago, you started negotiations with Israel, and you were extremely close, and I saw a problem in certain issues relating to the water was Syria to sign peace treatment with Israel with like results. Is Syria going  to sign a peace treatment with Israel if the Palestinians issued with like results??

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: Well, you see, all these questions, I think, were still not sound   about the region as the region. About the comprehensive solution. And although Egypt and Jordan, as you've said, have signed peace treatments with Israel I really believe that more as you know, I am sure that you know, that so many of the Egyptian people are against the peace with Israel unless it is comprehensive and so many writers and intellectuals would refuse to be in a good term with Israel unless peace is comprehensive. So, I think the best thing for Israel and for the Arab is to make a comprehensive peace, and I can not see why not. I cannot see why we shouldn’t have it. As you said we were extremely close. If you saw the memoir of Madlin Ulbright she said, and she was absolutely honest, that in Sheverdztown the Syrians were so for coming, so determined to make peace. It was Barak who backed down because he was worried about the poles in Israel, and about the situation there. So, I really feel the Arab people, although we have different countries and different governments, the Arabs people do feel that they are one nation. They have the same language, and they have the same destiny  whether they like it or not. I think it is good for Israel to have that feeling in making peace with all the Arab rather than in making more. So, we are looking for a comprehensive solution because we believe that this is really the only way to create a permanent and enduring peace in the region, and to allow people to get on their own lives and to bring prosperity to the region.

Question: about the Kurds in the region, and their relations with the situation??

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: The Kurds, you know, I don’t know which Kurds you mean: the Turkish, the Syria, or Iraqi. I really find this, you know, the Kurds in Syria are Syrian citizens. And I think if you want to think in the United States among ethnic or religious lines you will not have the United States. So, why should this logic be applied to the Middle East??!

Question: are the Kurds considered citizens in their countries really??

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: They are, of course they are. I am talking about the feeling in the Arab people, I am not talking about the nationality. Of course they are. Jordanian are Jordanians, Palestinians are Palestinians. Of course they are.

Question: will Syria try to keep the unity in the region?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  where?  Where?

Question: in Iraq

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: of course, of course it would be Syria and Turkey and Iran. We are all of course, because we want to keep the unity and the secretarial security in Iraq. And I think this will, you know, there are also Shiite in Saudi Arabia, and there are Shiite in Iraq, I think this will bring the region into disaster, into catastrophe.

Question: do you think that they may go back??

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  I think they must be encouraged to go back.

Question: I have a question from me Minister Shaaban: obviously relations between Syria and the United States are, there are issues, there are problems  between the two countries yet there are many positive steps have been taken. You talked about seven incidents were lives, American lives, were saved due to these services. Are there other examples of positive steps been taken between the two countries results in better relations???

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  well, I think Syria is trying its best. I mean when president Assad had the interview with the New York times, he said to them that despite the fact that the United States keeps saying that Syria is a terrorist country on the intelligence level we are still cooperating with the United States against terrorism. Because we are against terrorism, and we hate to see terrorism. And so a president Assad gave a very positive interview to the New York times in reaching out to American people that we are ready to build a good relation with the United States wherever it is possible. We just stress that dialogue is the way, and there is no other way to be followed in the region. And quite honestly we cannot see where the problem we have with the United States. We have a secular society, a multiconventional society, the position of women is, I think, as good as it is, probably, in the United States. I think Syria is a country that should have the best ground in common with the United States. The only thing is that the policy of this current Israeli government seems to harm the relations.

Questions: I’m actually interesting in that has happened terrible things that  is in Actions by Syria in cooperation terrorism, and I listened to the conversation, against and pro. Certain people were disgusting the things seems to happen new against Syria. So, do you think the Americans Accountability Act deserves or feeling as the Western problems the sensitive new?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  that is good, that is good. We are actually interested in that. But the Syrian Accountability Act, of course, gives that impaction.

Question: why is it the most affective offices within the Israeli policy may be on the Arab World coming from the help of larger project? why isn’t the effective secular progressive organizational groups in the Middle East do not intentionally work to liberize the society in terms of tolerance and politics? Why do not we have a one secular group in the Middle east??

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: Well, I do not know whether I agree with you or not, whether there is one secular group. It does not have to be a group, but in thousands of secular people who are liberal people, within the system. You know, you don’t really have to apply your system on our reality. You have to find how we work. We, probably, work differently from you do. Beside the fact that there is no organization that needs your eye, I am one of hundreds of Arab intellectuals who are writing and acting, who are active against terrorism, who are active against violence, who are active against war, who are finding many ways in trying to relate that to world agenda, to the European agenda, to the American agenda. Not only as writers, but also as activists.

Question: there is not one organization in the frequent of Hezbollah  as Hamas has given the inspective.

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  Well, Hezbollah, because Hezbollah is very popular in the Arab World, because it defeated the Israeli occupation from the Lebanese territories. This is something very important to Arab people to liberate their territory as it was important for all people in the world. Besides of that no matter what you think of Hezbollah, Hezbollah is one of the most moderest parties in the world. It is very reasonable, very logical. It is negotiating with Israel about prisoners, while it is at war with the Israeli. It is the party that believes in dialogue, that believes in negotiations, it is not a terrorist party.

Question: we wait also a great writer who is wonderful author columnists, and many of his articles have published in chronicle  very quickly, you looked to still young, a much more than secular, very distinguish. The voice of moderation were really in the United States can really drawn out into really moderate people. It is not some one who is not faithfully to be focusing on the voice of moderation can be drawn out. I can remember when I first met you unfortunate in North Huston there were many negative religious rides, there is a religious influence in my regime. There is a very fundamental Christian mean and dark, and I was very changed. Hatred was focused on moderation. Hatred has a new voice.

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: I really thank you  for this comment, because really this is very important point. You know, after September 11 the tendencies to try and to put all Muslims and all Arabs in one daft as terrorist, have really undermined the voices of moderations in our regions, and the Muslims world. I would like to give you just one example: two weeks ago, Maxim, the Foreign Office Secretary in Britain said to the Muslims community: “ the Muslims have to choose to be  with the British way of dialogue and the Muslims way of terrorism”. Which I found, really, unfair to speak about four millions Muslims to try and to describe them as terrorists. The second thing is against Broudi, that Selman Broudi has to go back to Italy and to this extremist way of thinking that trying to label certain religion or certain people of extremism or terrorism is really very dangerous for all moderate liberal voices in the world. And I truly believe now that the only solution in the world is for all the moderate voices in the United States, in the Arab world, in  Israel to get together and to have an agenda against this, you know, frame of thinking.

Question: I will go back to the beginning of the Accountability Act, there is there a special mechanism from Syria that actually trying to engage with Congress or  to penetrate to try to, you know,  reach or to inform them (lobby or… )? ?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  I think this is, you know, a sensitive course because although I am saying that the U.S. policy is undermining the voices of moderation, we haven’t been doing our job either, you know. As Arabs and as Syrians we have been reaching out to the American people, to American media, to tell them who we are, what we stand for, why this is happening. So, we haven’t done a big job and my visit now is to expatriates hocking to be our bridge to communicate our messages across with each other to invest in them as vehicles of really conveying the true voices from the region to the American people which I hope it will be good for our relations in the future. But I think that there are a lot of things that could be done. And we wouldn’t have got here if we did what we should it done.

Question: When U.S. goes to Iraq there is a lot of discussion about its policy, and may be the main reason for the war is the mass destructions. And what they hope to do is to establish more democracy which can be applied to many countries in the Middle East. And recently opened the door to more representations of other regimes, more democracy. Do you see that fair, or do you see it complex??

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban: Do you want me to be honest with you?

Question: of course I do.

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  I think, unfortunately,  what the war on Iraq did, and the chaos that prevailed after that, and still prevailing in Iraq had really created more relaxing among people, had really forced people to say let us focus what is that because otherwise we will get, we will get the Americans to bring more chaos into the region. It had really be counter productive. And I am saying that is extremely regrettable.

Question: in short term, or a long one?

Dr. Bouthaina Shaaban:  It depends, I think, on what the Americans want to do in Iraq. If after a while the America got grips  of what truly wanted to be done, if it really fix the situation in Iraq. Now, in fifty percent in Iraq there is total lack of security in Iraq. There is total lack of services, of water, of electricity, you know. If they by miracles fix the situation in Iraq in a day or two, and did what they did to Germany and Japan there is a very different story in the Arab World, and the impact will be very different as well. But I am saying to you what is the impression until today.

Question: in America we have the voice of  extremists, the dialogue of moderate and they are very challenged, and you are  so keen, so qualified…

    We would like to thank Mrs. Shaaban, we would like to thank everybody. Join me short notice, and also a very special thanks to Linda, and the very informative Minister Shaaban thank you…