I'd have to agree with his idea that there aren't any intellectuals in this revolution and that he is indeed being attacked from beyond his borders. ...he also is correct that the U.S. influenced Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. ...feels almost like Oliver Stone wrote this.
Dummy dressed up in army fatigue and a mask depicting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is erected in the Salaheddine neighbourhood of Aleppo, the scene of heavy fighting on Jan.5, 2013.(english.alarabiya.net/AFP)
Translated by Al-Ibrahim (SANA)
I know that I have been away from the media for a long time, and I have
missed having direct contact with the citizens, but I have always been
following up with the daily occurrences and gathering the information so
that my speech can be built on what is said by the street.
I would like to salute you in the name of pan-Arabism which will
continue to be a symbol of our identity and our haven in difficult
times, as we will continue to be its heart beating with love and
affection. I would also like to greet you in the name of our home
country which will always be the source of our pride and dignity, as we
will remain faithful to its genuine values for which our fathers and
grandfathers sacrificed dearly to keep the country glorified and
independent. And I am proud of your steadfastness which will keep Syria
an invincible fortress in the face of all forms of penetration, and free
in resisting submission to foreign forces.
Today, I am addressing you ten months after the outbreak of the
unfortunate events which befell the country imposing new circumstances
on the Syrian arena. For all of us, these conditions represent a serious
test of our national commitment, and we cannot pass this test except by
our continuous work and honest intents based on our faith in God, the
genuine character of our people, and its solid nature which has been
polished over the ages and made brighter and more robust. Although those
events have made us pay, until now, heavy prices which made my heart
bleed, as it made the heart of every Syrian bleed, yet they require the
sons of Syria, regardless of their beliefs and doctrines, to be wise and
sensible, and to be guided by their deep national feelings. Only then
our entire country can achieve victory with our unity, our fraternity,
and our will to go beyond narrow horizons and momentary interests and
reach where our noble national issues lie. For this is our destination
and there lies the strength of our country and the glory of our history.
External Conspiring Is No Longer a Secret
External conspiring is no longer a secret because what is being plotted
in the pal talk rooms has started to be clearly revealed before the eyes
of the people. It is not possible anymore to deceive others except for
those who do not want to listen or see; as the tears shed by the dealers
of freedom and democracy for our own victims can no longer conceal the
role they played in the bloodshed which they tried to use for their own
purposes. At the beginning of the crisis, it was not easy to explain
what happened. Emotional reactions and the absence of rationality were
surpassing the facts. But now, the fog has lifted, and it is no longer
possible for the regional and international parties which wanted to
destabilize Syria to forge the facts and the events. Now the masks have
fallen off the faces of those parties, and we have become more capable
of deconstructing the virtual environment which they have created to
push Syrians towards illusion and then make them fall. That virtual
environment was created to lead to a psychological and moral defeat
which would eventually lead to the actual defeat. That unprecedented
media attack was meant to lead us to a state of fear, and this fear,
which could paralyze the will, would lead to defeat.
Over Sixty T.V. Channels in the World Are Devoted to Work against Syria
Over sixty T.V. channels in the world are devoted to work against Syria.
Some of them are devoted to working against the Syrian domestic
situation, and some others are working to distort the image of Syria
abroad. There are tens of internet websites, and tens of newspapers and
different media channels, which means that we are talking about hundreds
of media networks.
Their aim was to push us to a state of self-collapse in order to save
their efforts in waging many battles; and they failed in doing so, yet
they did not give in.
One of their attempts which you are aware of is what they did with me
personally in my interview with the American news channel. Usually I do
not watch myself on T.V whether in an interview or a speech. That time I
watched the interview and I was about to believe what I myself was
presented to have said. If they were capable of convincing me of the
lie, how can they not convince others! Fortunately, we had an original
version of the interview, and they did what they did because they
thought that we did not have an original version which we can present to
the citizens to compare with their version. Had that not been the case,
no one would have ever believed the professional fabrication which they
did even if I talk now for hours and try to tell you I did not say what
was misrepresented on that news channel.
Of course, they had one aim in mind. When they failed in causing a state
of collapse on the popular and institutional levels in Syria, they
wanted to target the top of the pyramid of the state in order to say to
the citizens, on the one hand, and, of course, to the West, on the other
hand, that this person lives in a cocoon and does not know what has
been going on. They also wanted to say to the citizens, especially those
in the state, that if the top figure in the pyramid is evading
responsibility and feeling that things are falling apart, then it is
normal for things to go out of control.
There were continuous rumors like saying that the president has left the
country, as to say that the president has given up on his
responsibilities. They did their best to circulate those rumors but we
say to them, ‘in your dreams, for I am not a person who surrenders his
responsibilities.’
When I sipped some water in my previous speech, they said the president
is nervous, but we never fish in troubled waters, neither in crises nor
in normal situations. Now they will use the previous statement to say
that the Syrian president is announcing that he will not relinquish his
post. In fact, they do not distinguish between the two notions of
‘office' and ‘responsibility’, and I did say in the year 2000 that I am
not after office and I do not run away from responsibility. An office
does not have any value. It is a sheer device and whoever seeks to
office does not get respect.
We are talking now about responsibility, and this responsibility derives
its importance from public support. This means that I acquire a
position with the support of the people; and when I leave it, it will be
with the will of this people. This is final, and regardless of what you
heard, I always based my external policy in all our positions on public
support and public will. What do we make of the interview with the
American channel in the media framework? There was repeated talk about
the good intention of many from within Syria and the outside world. Why
did we not allow the media to enter Syria? In fact, during the first
month or month and a half of the crisis, Arab and foreign media networks
were completely free to move inside Syria. However, all the media
fabrications, and the whole political and media campaign against Syria,
were built on that phase of forging and distortion; and there is a
difference between distorting the truth then giving it credibility as
being presented from the inside of Syria, on the one hand, and
distorting the truth from the outside of Syria where less credibility
tends to be given to such misrepresentation. That is why we took a
decision not to close the door to all media networks, but to be
selective in the access given to them in order to control the quality of
the information or the falsification which goes beyond the borders.
Victory Is Very Close As Long As We Are Able to Survive and Invest in Our Points of Strength
We were patient in an unprecedented battle in Syria's modern history; a
battle that made us stronger. If this battle carries significant risks
and decisive challenges, the victory is very close as long as we are
able to survive and invest in our points of strength which are many, and
to know weaknesses of opponents which are even more. Your public
awareness which is based on facts, not on hype, underestimation,
exaggerations or simplifications, had the most important role in
uncovering the scheme and restricting it in preparation for thwarting it
entirely. In our quest to dismantle that virtual environment and to
ensure the importance of the internal situation in confronting any
external interference, we took the initiative to talk transparently on
having a default here and a defect or delay there in some areas. I mean
in previous speeches when I was talking about mistakes, but we did not
mean at all to underestimate the importance of such external schemes. I
do not think that a reasonable person can deny today those schemes that
shifted acts of sabotage and terrorism to another level of crime which
targeted minds, highly qualified people and institutions. The aim of
which is to generalize the state of panic, to destroy morale and to make
you reach the state of despair which would open the way for what was
planned in the outside to become a reality, but this time with local
hands.
At the beginning, they searched for their desired revolution, but their
revolution was against them and against their vandals and their tools.
Since the early days, however, the people revolted against them, thus
precluding them and their henchmen. When they were shocked by your
unity, they tried to dismantle and fragment this unity through using the
hideous sectarian weapon after masking it with the cover of holy
religion. When they lost hope to achieve their goals, they shifted into
acts of sabotage and murder under different headings and covers such as
the utilization of some peaceful demonstrations and the exploitation of
wrong practices done by persons in the state. Thus, they started the
process of assassinations and attempted to isolate cities and dividing
the various parts of the country. They stole, looted and destroyed
public and private facilities and after experimenting with all possible
ways and means in today's world with all the regional and international
media and political support, they did not find a foothold for their
hoped-for revolution.
Arab Countries Are Not the Same in Their Policies towards Syria
Here comes the foreign role after they failed in all attempts; there was
no choice but the foreign intervention. When we say foreign, it usually
comes to our minds that it is the foreign outside. Unfortunately, this
foreign outside has become a mix of Arab and foreign, and sometimes, in
many cases, this Arab part is more hostile and worse than the foreign
one. I do not want to generalize; the image is not that bleak because
Arab countries are not the same in their policies. There are countries
which tried during this stage to play a morally objective role towards
what is happening in Syria. In contrast, there are countries that
basically do not care about what is happening in general. I mean they
stand on the fence in most cases, and there are countries that carry out
what they are asked to do. What is strange is that some Arab officials
are with us in heart and against us in politics. When we ask for
clarifications, it is said or the official says I am with you, but there
are external pressures. I mean this is a semi-official declaration of
losing sovereignty. It is not a surprise that the countries will one day
link their policies to the policies of foreign countries just like
linking local currency to foreign currencies, and thus giving away
sovereignty becomes a sovereign matter.
The truth is that this is the peak of deterioration for the Arab
situation, but any deterioration always precedes a renaissance; when we
move from the first independence which is the first liberation of land
from occupation to the second independence which is the independence of
the will. We will reach this independence when Arab peoples take the
lead in the Arab world in general. This is because the official policies
we see do not utterly reflect what we see on the public arenas in the
Arab world.
We do not see this Arab role, which we have suddenly seen now, when
there is a crisis or a dilemma in an Arab country. In contrast, we see
it in its best forms when there is trouble in a foreign country or a
superpower. Saving that state from its crisis is often at the expense of
another state or at the expense of Arab states, and often through the
destruction of an Arab country. This is what happened in Iraq and this
is what happened in Libya, and this is what we see now in the Arab role
towards Syria. After they failed in the Security Council when they could
not convince the world of their lies, there was a need for an Arab
cover and a need for having an Arab platform. Here comes this
initiative. The truth of this initiative and the monitors' issue is that
I am the one who proposed this issue in my meeting with the Arab League
delegation a few months ago. We said since the international
organizations came to Syria, reviewed the facts and they got a positive
reaction at least through reviewing things - we do not say things are
all positive; they see positive and negative things and we do not want
more than knowing the truth as it is – it is more worthy of the Arabs to
send a delegation to see what is happening in Syria. Of course, there
was not any interest in this proposal put forward by Syria, but suddenly
after several months, we see that this topic became the focus of global
attention. It was not sudden attention towards what we put forward at
all, but because the scheme has started from the outside under this
title.
In all cases we continued dialogue with various parties and the Foreign
Minister spoke in his press conferences on details I will not repeat
here. We were focusing on one thing only which is the sovereignty of
Syria. We were considering that the Arab citizen, the Arab official or
the Arab observer has feelings towards us; I mean we remain Arabs who
sympathize with each other no matter how bad the Arab situation is. Why
they started the Arab initiative? The same countries that claim concern
for the Syrian people were initially advising us to reform. Of course,
these countries do not have the least knowledge of democracy and have no
heritage in this area, but they were thinking that we will not be
moving towards reform and there will be a title for these countries to
use internationally that there is a conflict inside Syria between a
state that does not want reform and the people who want reform, freedom
or the like.
When we started reform, this thing was confusing for them, thus they
shifted to the issue of the Arab League or the Arab initiative. The
truth is that if we are to follow these countries, which give us advice,
we have to go backward at least a century and a half. What happened a
century and a half ago? We were part of the Ottoman Empire and we had
the first parliament which we are concerned with in one way or another.
The first parliament was opened in the year / 1877 / and if we put this
aside, the first parliament in Syria was in 1919; this means less than a
century ago. Therefore, imagine these countries that want to advise us
about democracy! Where were these countries at that time? Their status
is like the status of a smoking doctor who advises the patient to quit
smoking while putting a cigarette in his mouth.
Eventually, outrage of the Arab or public reaction in Syria towards the
issue of the Arab League was the result. In fact, I was not angry; why
to get angry with someone who does not know his decision. If someone
attacks us with a knife, we defend ourselves not by struggling with the
knife but with the person. The knife is just a tool. Our struggle is not
with these people but against those who stand behind them. The public
reaction was outrage, indignation and surprise; why did not the Arabs
stand with Syria rather than standing against Syria? I ask a question:
when did they stand with Syria?! I will not go back far in the past, but
let us just talk about the past few years. Let us start by the war on
Iraq, after the invasion, when Syria was threatened with bombing and
invasion. Who stood with Syria in 2005 when they exploited the
assassination of Hariri? Who stood alongside Syria in 2006? Who
supported our positions against the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in
2008? Who supported us in the IAEA in relation to the alleged nuclear
file? Arab states vote against us. These facts may be unknown to many
citizens. That is why we need to explain everything in these junctures
and situations.
Recently, Arab states voted against Syria with regard to the Human
Rights issue. In contrast, some non-Arab countries stand with Syria.
That is why we should not be surprised. I mean we should not be
surprised with the Arab League status because it is just a reflection of
the Arab situation. The Arab League is a mirror of our situation.
The Arab League mirrors our current miserable situation. If it has
failed in over six decades in taking a position in the Arab interest,
why are we surprised today if the general context is the same and hasn’t
changed except in the sense that it is pushing the Arab condition from
bad to worse and in that what was happening in secret is now happening
in public under the slogan of the nation’s interest.
Has the Arab league actually gained independence for its states, and
consequently for itself? Has it ever implemented its decisions and
removed the dust off its files and achieved only a fragment of the
aspirations of the Arab peoples? Or has it contributed directly to
sowing the seeds of sedition and disunity? Has it respected its charter
and defended its member states whose land, or the rights of whose
peoples, have been violated? Has it returned one olive tree uprooted by
Israel or prevented the demolition of one Palestinian house in occupied
Arab Palestine? Has it been able to prevent the partition of Sudan or
prevent the killing of over a million Iraqis or feed a single starved
Somali?
Today, we are not in the process of attacking the Arab League because we
are part of it, although we are in the age of decadence. Nor am I
talking about the Arab league because it or the Arab states have taken a
decision to suspend Syria’s membership in it. This does not concern us
in the least. I am talking about it because I have noticed the extent of
popular frustration which we need to put in its natural context. The
Arab League has been doomed for a long time. When we used to sit in Arab
summits listening to criticism and denunciation whose echo reverberated
in conference halls, we used to talk about this candidly, as Arab
officials; some felt ashamed and some behaved as if it was no concern of
theirs. So, being out of the Arab League, or suspending Syria’s
membership, and all this talk is not the issue. The issue is who wins
and who loses. Does Syria or the Arab League lose? For us, we and the
Arab states are losing as long as the Arab condition is bad. This is a
chronic situation, nothing new in it, and there are no winners. We have
been working for years to minimize the losses because it is not possible
to win. But suspending Syria’s membership raises a question: can the
body live without a heart? Who said that Syria is the throbbing heart of
Arabism? It wasn’t a Syrian, it was President Abdul Naser, and this is
still true.
Many Arabs have the same conviction. For Syria Arabism is not a slogan,
it is a practice. Who offered, more than Syria, and is still offering
and paying the price? Who, more than Syria, has offered to the
Palestinian cause in particular? Who, more than Syria, has given to the
process of Arabizing culture and education everywhere, in the mass
media? Syria is quite strict about Arabization, particularly in school
curricula. Who has offered more to Arabism and to Arabization and
insisted on Arab culture in their school curricula more than Syria does
in its schools and universities. The issue for us is not a slogan. If
some countries seek to suspend our Arabism in the League, we say to them
that they are suspending the Arab identity of the League itself. They
cannot suspend Syria’s Arab identity. On the contrary, the League
without Syria suspends its own Arab identity.
Arab League without Syria Means Suspending Arabism
If some believe they can get us out of the League, they cannot get us
out of our Arab identity, because the Arab identity is not a political
decision. It is heritage and history. Those countries, which you know,
have not acquired, and will not acquire, the Arab identity. If they
believe that with money they can buy some geography and rent and import
some history, we tell them that money does not make nations or create
civilizations. Consequently, and as I heard from many Syrians, and I
agree with them on this point, maybe in our present condition we are
freer in exercising our real and pure Arabism which Syrians have been
the best to express throughout history. That is why we say that with
this attempt they don’t focus on getting Syria out of the League, but
rather on suspending Arabism itself so that it becomes an Arab League
only in name. It will no longer be a league – bringing people together –
or Arab. It will be a mock-Arab body in order to be in line with their
policies and the role they are playing on the Arab arena. Otherwise, how
can we explain this unprecedented and unreasonable tact with the
Zionist enemy in everything it does and this decisiveness and toughness
with Syria?
We have been trying for years to activate the Israel-boycott office; and
we have been receiving excuses of the type that this is no longer
acceptable; but, within a few weeks, they activate a boycott against
Syria. This means that their objective is replacing Syria with Israel.
This is only a pattern; and we are not naïve. We have known this Arab
condition for a very long time. We have not clung to illusions. By
showing our patience regarding these practices, before and during this
crisis, we wanted to prove to all those who have their doubts about the
bad intentions, wrapped in beautiful and ornamented language, that their
intentions are bad and their objectives are vile. I think now this has
become abundantly clear to most people.
We Shall Never Close the Door to Any Arab
Endeavor As Long As It Respects Our Sovereignty, the Independence of Our
Decision and the Unity of Our People
We realize all that. But based on our genuine Arab character, and our
desire to restore the original idea of the Arab League, in which we are
supported by some sisterly countries keen on making the Arab League a
truly collective and Arab body, we haven’t closed the doors to any
solution or proposal; and we shall never close the door to any Arab
endeavor as long as it respects our sovereignty, the independence of our
decision and the unity of our people.
All these negative accumulations on the Arab arena, throughout decades,
in addition to the current situation, led some of our citizens to take
their anger out on Arabism which has been wrongly confused with the Arab
League or the performance of some pseudo-Arabs to the extent that they
denounced it.
Brothers and sisters,
The social structure of the Arab world, with its large diversity, is
based on two strong and integrated pillars: Arabism and Islam. Both of
them are great, rich and vital. Consequently, we cannot blame them for
the wrong human practices. Furthermore, the Muslim and Christian
diversity in our country is a major pillar of our Arabism and a
foundation of our strength. When we get angry with Arabism or abandon it
because of what some have done on this wide Arab arena we commit a
gross injustice. As we have refused to generalize the mistakes done by
some officials to the whole country, we shouldn’t generalize the
mistakes of some pseudo-Arabs to Arabism. What we are doing now is
similar to what the west did against Islam in the wake of 9/11.
We say that there is a great religion – Islam, and there are terrorists
taking cover under Islam. Who should we banish: religion or terrorism?
Do we denounce religion or terrorists? Do we fight those who trade in
Islam or fight terrorism? The answer is clear: It is not the fault of
Islam when there are terrorists who take cover under the mantle of
Islam.
Christianity is a religion of love and peace. What is the fault of
Christianity in the wars waged under its name and in the crimes
committed in the heart of America or in European countries by people who
claim to be committed to Christian values? The same applies to Arabism.
We should not link it to what some pseudo-Arabs are doing; otherwise we
head towards the greatest sin. There are things which have existed
through a historical process and we cannot respond to them by an act or a
decision. These things didn’t take place through a decision. There is a
historical context and there is a divine will behind religions and
nationality which we cannot face through reaction.
The first reaction was proposing the “Syria first” concept. It is
natural to put Syria first. Every person belongs to his country first
and foremost. One’s homeland cannot be in the second, third or fourth
place; but the context in which this concept was made was isolationist –
only Syria.
Every person belongs first to his city more than to other cities. He is
naturally connected to it. Everyone likes the village he grew up in more
than other villages, but this doesn’t prevent one from being patriotic
and like the whole of the homeland. Being Syrian doesn’t prevent us from
being Arabs; and being Arab doesn’t create any contradiction between
our Arab and Syrian identities.
That is why we should stress that point, that the relationship between
Arabism and patriotism is a close and vital one for the future, for our
interests and for everything. It is not about romanticism or principles.
It is about interests too. If we separate this fact from reaction, we
should always know that Arabism is an identity not a membership. Arabism
is an identity given by history not a certificate given by an
organization. Arabism is an honor that characterizes Arab peoples not a
stigma carried by some pseudo-Arabs on the Arab or world political
stage.
Some might wonder about all this talk about Arabism and Arabs while in
Syria there are only Arabs. My response is: who said that we are talking
about an Arab race? Had Arabism been only the Arab race, we wouldn’t
have had much to be proud of. The last thing in Arabism is race. Arabism
is a question of civilization, a question of common interests, common
will and common religions. It is about the things which bring about all
the different nationalities which live in this place. The strength of
this Arabism lies in its diversity not in its isolation and not in its
one colordness. Arabism hasn’t been built by the Arabs. Arabism has been
built by all those non-Arabs who contributed to building it and those
who belong to this rich society in which we live. Its strength lies in
its diversity. Had there been a group of non-Arabs who wanted to change
their traditions and customs and abandon them, we would oppose them on
the grounds that they weaken Arabism. The strength of our Arabism lies
in openness, diversity and in showing this diversity not integrating it
to look like one component. Arabism has been accused for decades of
chauvinism. This is not true. If there are chauvinistic individuals,
this doesn’t mean that Arabism is chauvinistic. It is a condition of
civilization.
All the above will not affect our vision of the internal situation in
Syria and how we deal with it. There is no doubt that the current events
and their repercussions have posed a huge number of questions and ideas
which aim at finding different solutions for the current situation
Syria is going through. If it is natural and self evident, but it cannot
be positive and effective except when it is based on the importance of
facing the problem not running away from it, or when it is based on
courage not panic and escaping forward.
We Cannot Carry out Internal Reform without Dealing with Facts
If we want to talk about the internal situation – and I think it is the
issue over which all Syrians’ concerns are focused - we should identify
issues clearly. There are numerous ideas, which might be good. But
unless they are put in the appropriate framework they remain useless and
sometimes harmful. Instead of having ideas moving in one strain
contradicting and fighting with each other, let’s draw some definitions
before we get into the details.
First, we cannot carry out internal reform without dealing with facts as
they are on the ground, whether we like them or not. We cannot just
hang on to a straw in the air. Neither the straw nor the air will carry
us. This means falling. Under the pressure of the crisis, some talk
about any solution and call for any solution. We shall not give ‘any’
solution. We shall only give ‘solutions’. Solutions mean that the
results are known beforehand. ‘Any solution’ will lead to the abyss. It
might lead to deepening the crisis. It might get us into an impasse. The
pressure of the crisis will not push us to adopt just ‘any’ plan. Even
though time is very important, but it is not more important than the
quality of the solution which we shall provide.
Today, we are dealing with two aspects of internal reform: the first is
political reform and the second is fighting terrorism which has spread
recently to different parts of Syria. In the reform process, there are
those who believe that what we are doing now is the way to get out of
the crisis or is the whole solution to the crisis. This is not true. We
are not doing it for this reason. The relationship between reform and
the crisis is limited. In the beginning, it had a larger role, when we
decided to separate those who claim reform for terrorist objectives and
those who genuinely want reform. This has happened. My vision from the
very beginning was that there is no relation between the two, but it
wasn’t easy to talk about it then because, as I said, things were not
clear for many Syrians as they have become clear now.
What is the relationship between the reform process and the outside
plot? Will the outside plots against Syria stop if we introduce the
reforms today? I’ll tell you something. We know a great deal about
discussions taking place outside Syria, particularly in the West about
the situation in Syria. None of those involved cares about neither the
number of the victims nor about reforms, neither about what has been
achieved nor what will be achieved. Everyone is talking about Syria’s
policies and whether Syria’s behavior has changed from the beginning of
the crisis till now.
The Outside Part of the Crisis Is against Reform That Makes Syria Stronger
On the other hand, there were those who came to bargain, saying if you
do 1, 2, 3, 4, at least the outside part of the crisis and its internal
tentacles will stop immediately. So, there is no relation between reform
and the outside part of the crisis, because this part is against reform
and because reform will make Syria stronger. If Syria is stronger, this
means strengthening Syrian policies, and we all know that Syrian
policies are not well liked in foreign circles. On the contrary, such
policies are loathed by many countries which want us to be mere lackeys.
The second point: what is the relationship between reform and terrorism?
If we carry out the reforms, will terrorists stop? Does this mean that
the terrorists who are killing and destroying are keen on the political
parties law, the local administration elections or things of that kind?
They are not. Terrorists don’t care. Reform will not prevent terrorists
from being terrorists. So, what is the component which concerns us?
The greatest part of the Syrian people want reform, and they have not
come out, haven’t broken the law, haven’t killed. This is the largest
part of the Syrian people, it is the part which wants reform. For us,
reform is the natural context. That is why we announced a phased reform
in the year 2000. In my swear-in speech I talked about modernization and
development. At that time, I was focused on state institutions. In
2005, we talked about political reform. Part of what we are doing now
was proposed in 2005 in the Bath party conference. At that time there
were no pressures in this regard. Pressure was different, in a different
direction. No one was talking about internal reform. We proposed it
because we thought of it as a natural context not a forced one. It
cannot be forced. It is a natural requirement for development. We cannot
develop without reform. Whether we were late or not is a different
question. Why we were late is a different question. But it remained a
natural need. Had reform been part of the crisis, it would fail; and if
reform were forced, it would fail. That’s why, in our discussion of
reform, let’s separate natural needs from the crisis.
If we start from the current crisis, reform will be abrupt and tied to
its current circumstances which are temporary. What about future
decades? Things will be different. We have to connect what is before the
crisis with what is after it regardless of it and then base our work on
the reform process. Of course this is not in the absolute. Sometimes,
we take into account what we are going through now in our reform
efforts. We don’t separate it completely from the timetable. Sometimes
we move quickly. Sometimes we assume that people’s reaction needs a move
in a certain direction. There are some impacts of the crisis; but we
don’t build our reforms on the crisis. If we do so, we justify foreign
powers’ intervention in our crisis under the title of reform. So, let’s
agree on separating the two and deal with the details on these grounds.
Now that we talked about the details, I proposed in my speech in this
auditorium last June about an action plan; and I talked mainly about the
legislative component in relation to laws and the constitution. At that
time, I offered a timeframe for the laws which have all been passed
within the timeframe identified at the time. Now, we hear many people
saying “we haven’t seen any tangible results”. I always like to talk
transparently, and I’ll address every subject separately.
The first law we passed was lifting the state of emergency. In such
circumstances that Syria is going through, can any state lift the state
of emergency. On the contrary, any state would have imposed the state of
emergency. Nevertheless, we didn’t do that. We insisted on lifting the
state of emergency. Some Syrians accused us of abandoning part of the
security of Syria because we lifted the state of emergency. Of course
this is inaccurate, because lifting the state of emergency or the state
of emergency itself doesn’t provide security. It is rather an
organizational issue. When there is a state of emergency, there are
certain measures and when it is lifted there is a different set of
measures. We haven’t abandoned security.
No state could accept to abandon security. The laws and the measures now
in place give us full authority to control security regardless of the
state of emergency law. But lifting the state of emergency needs
training for the relevant services, including the security and police
forces which deal with citizens. We all know that they are all over
Syria now; and some of them haven’t taken leave for months. So, it is
logical, reasonable or practical to train them now? This is impossible.
There will be no training in the current circumstances. Nevertheless, we
insist that the services stress some basic regulations in relation to
lifting the state of emergency. When there is an environment of
terrorism, destruction and law breaking, if there are errors they will
multiply tens of folds. That is why we are not dealing only with the
results but with the causes too. The results are the mistakes we see
being committed by some, but the causes are related to the state of
chaos in itself. We need to control the chaos in order to feel the
results. In other words, we cannot feel the true effects of lifting the
state of emergency while chaos prevails. And here I distinguish, of
course, between different levels of mistakes, on the one hand, and
killing, on the other.
There Is No Cover for Anyone; There Is No Order at Any Level of the State to Shoot at Any Citizen
There is no cover for anyone; but the issue of killing needs evidence.
Some people believe that none of those who committed acts of killing
have been arrested. That’s not true in relation to those working for the
state. A limited number of people have been arrested in relation to
murder and other crimes. I say limited because the evidence was limited
and connected with those people. The existence of evidence or searching
for evidence needs institutions; and institutions need appropriate
conditions; and the current conditions hamper the work of such
institutions. But I would like to stress that there is no cover for
anyone; and there is no order, I stress, no order at any level of the
state to shoot at any citizen. Shooting, under the law, is allowed only
in the case of self defence and in defence of citizens and in cases of
engaging an armed person. So, there is a specific case in the law. In
this regard, I stress the need to deal with causes and effects.
Concerning the political parties, the political parties law has been
issued. Some parties have applied and have been given licenses. The
first license was given to the first party a few weeks ago; and I
believe that yesterday or today there is a second party on the way which
met all the conditions. There are many other parties which are still
trying to meet the conditions and submit the necessary documents to be
licensed. Of course we didn’t feel the existence of these parties,
because political parties need time. But, in any case, after the
political parties law has been passed, we haven’t only given licenses,
but encouraged many groups to form parties. I don’t think that the state
is responsible in this regard. We will not form any parties, will not
appear in the media or conduct activities on behalf of anyone. So, there
are no obstacles in this regard and it is only a question of time.
The local administration law has been passed and elections have been
held. Of course they have been held in difficult circumstances; and it
is natural that they will not give the desired results because
participation, neither on the part of the candidates or the voters, was
not as they were supposed to be with a new law because of the security
conditions. There was a point of view saying that we should postpone
local administration elections to a later stage. But there was a
different opinion, which we adopted, saying that there should be change
because every change is positive, particularly that most citizens’
complaints were about the performance of local administration. We
embarked on that effort. But in any case, anything related to elections
will not give results if there is no broad participation on the part of
candidates and also on the part of voters, so that there is competition.
That is why you will not feel the results. In general, with anything
related to elections, part of the responsibility lies on the citizens
and not only on the state.
As for the media law, I think the government has completed last week the
preparation of executive instructions and have become ready for
implementation. There are requests ready for television, press and
others. The election law was issued and the aim of which is to frame all
these ideas that we hear on the political scene, and anyone who has an
idea should go to the ballot box which is the voice of law for
everything in this country; this is the core of the issue.
The important law is the law of fighting corruption. It is the only law
which has been delayed for several months. The first reason is related
to the fact that this law is very important and has many aspects.
Therefore, I asked the government to extensively consider it in
collaboration with various bodies and parties. It was put on the
internet and there were many posts and useful ideas. The government
finished this and sent it to the Syrian Presidency which sent it back
recently to the government. It is a good law which includes very
important points and a point related to the inspecting authority.
In the current law, the anti-corruption law, the inspection commission
was abolished, and the Anti-Corruption Commission replaced the
inspection commission, but the anti-corruption law is specialized in
corruption cases. This means that it deals only with small issue which
does not often list all cases of corruption. This commission deals with
corruption after its appearance, while the inspection commission was in
charge of broader functions, including organization of management,
raising proposals in the field of management and control of state action
in terms of administration as well as combating corruption. Thus, the
abolition of all these tasks and linking them only to one title which is
corruption is not good, especially that fighting corruption cannot be
done in isolation from the organization of the administration.
We cannot fight corruption alone because this is a great imbalance apart
from other points that are present. There are proposals on the
integration of the inspection commission with the Financial Control
Commission, but this issue is not important. The most important thing is
to know the relationship between inspection and Anti-Corruption
Commissions. If there is a cancellation of the inspection commission,
will the Anti-Corruption Commission include all the tasks of the two
bodies or should we leave the two commissions and specify different
tasks for each one of them, or should we coordinate between both of them
in respect of the issue of corruption? That is why this law was resent
to the government to resolve this point. After that, the law of fighting
corruption will be issued.
Anyway, if the law was passed in the best of conditions, it will be easy
for the state to fight corruption at the intermediate level and above,
but it is difficult to fight it from the intermediate level and below
without the contribution of the citizens and the media. This means that
prosecution will not be done even by this commission because it will
only receive information. Thus, we need to look for the information and
report them to this commission. This means that the success of this law
needs significant popular awareness.
Within the framework of the corruption topic, many people whom I meet
say we want the President to hold corrupt people accountable. Here, I
want to clarify that the President does not replace institutions; I
handle one or two issues when I see an error, but the institution holds
thousands of people accountable or address thousands of cases. When the
President replaces the institutions, this will not be reassuring even if
he is doing the right thing. Therefore, we have to work in order to
activate institutions.
I told them that I will take care of this law and the activation of
these institutions, and I want to see fighting corruption through normal
legal channels. At that time, we solved the problems of thousands, tens
of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of Syrians. I always
focus on institutional work. If I solved a problem, it is an individual
problem; I solve the problem of someone but not the problem of thousands
of people.
The other pillar in reform is the Constitution. The decree that provides
for establishing a committee to draft the constitution was issued. This
committee was given a deadline of four months and I think that it has
become in its final stages. This constitution will focus on a
fundamental and essential point which is the multi-party system and
political pluralism. They were talking only about article eight, but we
said that the entire Constitution should be amended because there is a
correlation among articles. The Constitution will focus on the fact that
the people is the source of authority, especially during elections, the
dedication of the institutions' role, the freedoms of the citizens and
other things and basic principles.
There was a question: why we had legal reform before changing the
Constitution? Logically, we must begin with the Constitution and then
laws come after that. This is true in terms of logic, but people's
pressure and questioning the credibility of the state that it wishes to
carry out real reform, have led us to work in parallel. Moreover,
issuing laws is faster in terms of time; it takes a few months and this
is less than needed by the Constitution. If logic contradicts reality,
we go with reality and in any case this is not an important issue. What
is really important is that when laws are passed and the Constitution is
drafted, we will be in a new phase which is not a transition. This is
related to the legislation aspect.
The More We Extend Participation in Government, the More Benefits We
Achieve in All Aspects and Generally for the Sake of the National
Feeling As for things that we can do as initiative, we heard a lot about
a national unity government. I always like to check terminology because
we should not take the term without knowing its content. We hear about
the national unity government in the states that have complete division
on the national level between parties, a civil war, war-lords
communities or princes of nationalities who are directly gathered at the
table or through representatives to form a government of national
unity. We do not have a national division. We have problems, we have a
split in certain cases, but we do not have a national division in the
sense that could be asked. I know they do not mean this, but I do not
use such an expression as 'national unity government'. For this reason
we do not have a government of national division. At any rate,
governments in Syria are always diversified governments which include
independents and various parties.
But now we have a new political map for the crisis and the new
Constitution. With the new parties' law, new political forces have
emerged and must be taken into consideration. Some may propose the
participation of all these political forces in the government. Some
others focus on the opposition. I say all political parties from the
center to the opposition to the pro-government forces and everyone
should contribute because the government is the homeland's government
not a government of a party or a state. The more we extend
participation, the more benefits we achieve in all aspects and generally
for the sake of the national feeling. Thus, expanding the government is
a good idea. I do not know what label we may use here because some call
it a national consensus and some others call it expansion
participation; this does not matter. What is important is that we
welcome the participation of all political forces. In fact, we started
dialogue recently even in general headlines with some political forces
to take their views in this participation and the answer was positive.
I want to go back to a point in the Constitution which is related to the
dates. When the Committee finishes the draft constitution within the
time limit, there will be several propositions either to be issued by
the President as a decree, or to be referred to parliament in order to
be issued by a law. I refused the first and the second and I stressed
the fact that there should be a referendum because the Constitution is
not the state's Constitution; it is an issue related to every Syrian
citizen. Therefore, we will resort to a referendum after the committee
finishes its work and presents the Constitution which will be put
through constitutional channels to reach a referendum. The referendum on
the Constitution could be done at the beginning of March.
Parliamentary elections are linked to the constitution, especially as
most of the political forces want to have these elections after having
the constitution. I was thinking as I said in my last speech that it
would be at the end of last year or the beginning of this year, but as a
response to their will, I say that elections are linked to the new
constitution because this would give much time for these powers to
establish and prepare themselves and their grassroots for the elections.
We said that we do not have any objection to this.
The timeframe is connected with the new constitution. What is the
constitutional grace period: two or three months? If it was two months,
and the referendum is held in March, the elections can be held in early
May. If the grace period is three months, the elections can be held in
early June. This depends on the new constitution.
Back to the subject of the national unity government, if we talk about
the participation of the opposition and say that all the parties will
take part in the government including the opposition, who do we mean by
‘opposition’? Any person can now call himself/herself ‘opposition’, and I
have met some such people and used to ask them, ‘who do you represent?’
The opposition stands for a public body, not for a person as an
opponent. Now we have opposition figures and currents, but the
opposition is usually an institutional body which is established by
elections. For the time being, we do not have elections; so how do we
define the opposition? Who takes part in that opposition, and what is
the volume of their participation? We still do not have the criteria for
all this. Before the next elections, we could still say that the
government will take a certain form after the elections. But we want to
accelerate the process and launch the contribution in the opposition
before the elections. In other words, we will adopt special, rather than
institutional, criteria.
We haven't accused people of being traitors. The criteria are clear
stating the establishment of a national opposition. What do we mean by
‘national government?’ We do not want an opposition that sits in
embassies and receive gestures from the outside where they will be told
not to have dialogue with the state or to delay the dialogue now because
things are over and it is a matter of weeks before the total collapse!
We do not want an opposition that sits with us and blackmails us under
the title of the crisis in order to achieve personal gains. We do not
want an opposition that wants to have a secret dialogue to avoid the
anger of others. If we take the existing national criteria and figures,
we can start to work on this government immediately now that we have
understood the subject, whether they call it a ‘national unity
government’ or ‘separation government’. What they choose to name it is
not important at all.
This means that we will start to work on this within a very short period
of time, but there is an important question: will the government be
political or technical? Some talked about having a micro political
government, but this does not work for several reasons. First, we are a
country with a big public sector which is not independent and where each
institution still depends on the ministry, the minister, the deputy
minister, the directors, and others.
Can a political figure lead a technical sector? This is not possible in
addition to the fact that the problems of the people are not limited to
the security issue. There are issues to do with the services which
everyone is complaining about at the time. Will a political government
be able to provide the people with diesel, gas, or medicine? This is
unrealistic in our current conditions. Let there be an inclusive
government which has a mixture of politicians and technocrats and which
represents the political forces, if they want to be represented, and
comprises the technical aspect where we do not lose this or that. I
believe that this is the best framework, but of course I always like to
have dialogue and discuss things with others in order to see the
negatives of every proposal. At the moment, I am raising titles which
were not agreed upon completely. I am only presenting the framework and
introducing preferences which we could change throughout the
discussions.
We Will Be Witnessing Changes, the Most Important Is to Focus in Future on the Young Generation
There was a question about dialogue. We launched the dialogue in July,
and we were supposed to start with the extensive dialogue and then move
to the central dialogue. However, different forces exerted pressure to
reverse the process and we agreed and finished the first phase of the
dialogue without the contribution of all the opposition forces. Only
part of them participated in the dialogue which was a very fruitful
dialogue with a wide participation from the different institutions in
the governorates.
Two months ago it was suggested to start the third phase of the dialogue
on the central level, and I can say that we, as a state, political
party, or authority, are ready to start tomorrow and have no problem in
that. However, some of the opposition forces are not ready. Part of them
wants to conduct a secret dialogue for certain personal gains, as I
mentioned earlier, and another part wants to wait and see how things go
so that they determine where to go. But we will not wait for those
forces to come and join in a celebratory dialogue which is conducted
just to show off. We are now having dialogue with other forces which are
ready to have a public dialogue and we are discussing the ideas which
were raised earlier. What I wanted to clarify is that the delay in the
dialogue is not caused by Syria.
We have even accepted to have dialogue under the Arab initiative which
was built on the idea of conducting dialogue with all the forces
including hostile forces which committed crimes of terrorism in the
seventies and the eighties of the last century. We said that we did not
have a problem in conducting dialogue with these forces if they wanted
to come to Syria, and we gave all the guarantees. In other words, we do
not have any restrictions to dialogue and we will show full openness
when see that everybody is ready for the dialogue and has a perspective
on that dialogue. We are ready to start dialogue right away.
There will always be a question as to whether we will witness changes
and transformation. Usually I do not talk about this as we tend to
change things whenever there is need for transformation. But it is clear
from my earlier speech that we will be witnessing changes. When we talk
about a new government and a new structure of the government, and when
the Country Command has been announcing for a week now that there will
be a national conference very soon, this means that we will be
witnessing changes, part of which already started few days ago. The most
important thing is for these changes to focus in the future on the
young generation which considers itself marginalized to a large extent,
although it is the generation which faced the crisis boldly; and we saw
how young people have been active in defending their country with all
the meaning of the word.
Syria Needs All Its Honest Sons Regardless of Their Political Attitudes
At any rate, Syria now needs all its honest sons, regardless of their
political attitudes. And when we talk about the coming phase, while we
are still at the beginning of the New Year, some talk about the new
Syria. But I say we do not have a ‘new Syria’ but a ‘renewed Syria’
because renewal is a continuous process and we are talking here about a
new phase, rather than a new Syria. We have to understand the
requirements of every phase; otherwise, all that we have said will be
futile. What we have dealt with comprises procedures and regulations
whose implementation does not succeed without the awareness needed for
any process of development and transition. I can give an answer to this
by saying that the previous ten months, with all their miseries, were
very helpful in this regard as they proved to the Syrian people that
they are capable with their awareness to present a model of a modern
country which is stages and centuries ahead of other countries. I was
talking about a hundred and fifty years, but actually we are capable of
becoming one thousand years ahead of those countries which try to give
us lessons about democracy, and I am confident that this future will
come. Even so, the more we are capable of spreading the state awareness
which we have witnessed, the better the situation. There is no doubt
that despite the presence of an overall awareness in Syria, there are
small holes of ignorance which might influence the general situation,
and we do not want such holes and certain cases of ignorance to
influence the process of development. We rather want to have a maximum
level of positives and a minimum level of negatives.
In summary, the points which are related to the issue of domestic reform
have become clear. After the Constitution is issued, we do not have
additional steps to make except for the procedures; and if there is a
shortcoming in the laws, we can, after the Constitution is issued,
re-study these laws as we will not stop at this stage of development.
Notes about also be taken about the laws and the practices as mistakes
might happen throughout the implementation, and the process of renewal
is a continuous process on the anatomical level.
Sisters and brothers,
What is taking place in Syria is part of what has been planned for the
region for tens of years, as the dream of partition is still haunting
the grandchildren of Sykes–Picot. But today their dream turns into a
nightmare, and if some believe that the time of conflict over Syria is
back, then they are mistaken because the conflict today is ‘against
Syria’ and not ‘over Syria’ or ‘on Syria’. And one thing we will never
allow them to achieve is defeating Syria as it means defeating
steadfastness and resistance and it also means the fall of the whole
region to the hands of great powers. Defeat is not necessarily military
and it might come true if they succeed in making us withdraw to
international conflicts and forget about our bigger issues on top of
which the Palestinian Issue. Their ultimate goal which they aspire to
achieve eventually is a Syria which is busy with internal marginal
conflicts and withdrawn to its false borders, rather than its natural,
historical, nationwide borders. They want to see a shrunk Syria which is
prone to demise and deterioration as a result of division and
partition, and their aim is to dismantle the cultural identity and
character of our people which has always protected us against defeats of
all kinds. Dismantling this identity leads to an actual defeat which
was not caused by repeated wars, but which could be caused by the
destroying the structure of a society that produced the systems of
social and cultural resistance. This was the system which raised their
concern more than any other system because it is the foundation and
incubator of any form of resistance. But they did not succeed in
destroying our identity or in shaking our belief that the resistance is
at the core of this identity which shall remain firm as it has always
been over history.
There Is No Compromise with Terrorism, No Compromise with Those Who Use
Arms to Cause Chaos and Division, No Compromise with Those Who Terrorize
Civilians, No Compromise with Those Who Conspire with Foreigners
against Their Country and against Their People
In cases of war or confrontation, states rearrange their priorities. Our
utmost priority now, which is unparalleled by any other priority, is
the restoration of the security we have enjoyed for decades, and which
has characterized our country, not only in the region but throughout the
world. This will only happen by striking these murderous terrorists
hard. There is no compromise with terrorism, no compromise with those
who use arms to cause chaos and division, no compromise with those who
terrorize civilians, no compromise with those who conspire with
foreigners against their country and against their people.
The battle against terrorism will not be the battle of the state or
state institutions alone. It is the battle of all of us. It is a
national battle; and it is everyone’s duty to take part in it. “Internal
sedition is more grievous that murder”, because it involves dismantling
and fragmenting society and ultimately destroying it. This is what we
shall not allow in order to keep Syria immune and impregnable.
Yet, the immune and impregnable state knows when and how to forgive, and
knows how to bring its children back to right path. It knows how to
take the hired guns out of the hands of those who have been misguided
and delusioned and return them to the process of building a modern state
while maintaining its authenticity and originality and the spring wells
of its Arab and identity. In as much as we need to strike the
terrorists in as much as we need to bring those who have gone astray
back to the right path. There are those who made mistakes and those who
have been misguided. After they started on their mistaken course, they
have been told that the state will take revenge against you, so you
cannot go back. The objective is to push them on the course of crime and
to the point of no return.
The state is like the mother who opens the way for her children to be
the best every day in order to maintain security and avoid bloodshed.
That is why, in this regard, we have passed one amnesty after another.
Some people believed that these amnesties led to more security failures.
But the fact is that in most cases the results were positive,
particularly when the amnesty was coordinated with local actors in every
city, village and governorate and in coordination with the parents whom
we met and talked to. They had enough wisdom to bring their children
back to the right path.
Of course there are cases which don’t succeed, but this is not the
general trend. That is why I believe that decisiveness is necessary but
continuing to show tolerance and forgiveness from time to time within
the framework of clear criteria and sound mechanisms is equally
important. I’ll explain this point because many people didn’t quite
understand what we think of when we issue an amnesty in such security
conditions. We conducted dialogue with everyone, except the criminals. I
met a number of these people, even in the last few days. When they saw
things moving in the direction of weapons and killing, a large number of
them changed completely and started to cooperate with the state which
he had opposed for objective or non-objective reasons. Some, however,
persisted on their wrong course and the Quarnic verse “they stumble in
their grave error” applies to them. There are those who lose their
physical eyesight but compensate and excel in the arts, literature,
science or other professions, but those who lose the ‘mind’s eye’ are
hopeless, for the real blindness is that of the mind not o the eyes.
Some of those really believe that they are revolutionaries. All right,
let’s see what they have done and what are their attributes. Would a
real revolutionary steal a car or rob a house or a facility? Can the
revolutionary be a thief? For us, the image of the revolutionary is a
bright, idealistic untainted one with something very special about it.
Those people have assassinated innocent people in and out of the state
system. Can a revolutionary be characterized by cowardice and treachery?
The prevented the schools from carrying out their tasks and functions
in society. They did the same in universities. Can a revolutionary be
against education? In some areas, teaching dropped to half, which means
our schools would send to society people who are half educated half
ignorant. Yet, we have another army fighting together with the armed
forces, security services and the police. They are those in the
education sector, particularly in schools in some areas where teaching
dropped by 50% and they are risking their lives in order to continue the
educational processes.
Until the end of 2011, the number of martyrs among teachers and
university professors was about 30 and over a thousand schools have been
vandalized, burned or destroyed.
On your behalf, I salute all the teachers, councilors, administrators
and caretakers in schools. Can a revolution be against education,
against national unity? Can revolutionaries use language which calls for
the disintegration of society? Can a revolutionary rise against
citizens depriving them of cooking gas which they need on a daily basis
in order to push them to hunger, or of heating fuel to make them catch
their death because of the cold, or medicine to push them to death
because of diseases or deprive them of their livelihood by burning
government and private factories and facilities to make the poor poorer
still?
This is not a revolution. Can a revolutionary work for the enemy – a
revolutionary and a traitor at the same time? This is impossible. Can
revolutionaries be without honor, moral values or religious principles?
Have we had real revolutionaries, in the sense we know, you and I and
the whole people would have moved with them. This is a fact.
The basic question which has been put to me with a great deal of
intensity is: when and how will it end? This is, of course, a difficult
question and we cannot give an answer without having all the facts.
There are things which we know and things we don’t. The first thing
which we don’t have full information about but we can draw deductions
about is the conspiracy. It will end when the Syrian people decide to
turn into a submissive people, when we submit and abandon all our
heritage: the heritage of the October war of liberation in 1973, when we
abandon our pan-Arab positions. We defended Lebanon in 1982, when it
was the springboard of resistance which led to the liberation of Lebanon
in 2000, when we stop supporting the resistance which we supported in
2006 and 2008 in Lebanon and Gaza, when we give free concessions
partially or fully in the peace process, particularly in our occupied
land in the Golan, when we abandon our pan-Arab positions towards the
Palestinian cause which we have adopted since 1948, when we accept to be
false witnesses to the systematic and unprecedented destruction of
al-Aqsa mosque.
I don’t know whether the Arab League would set up a committee to address
this issue. I don’t think they will, because it is an issue of concern
only to 1.3 billion people; so it is not worthy of their concern and
that is why they won’t do it – just for the sake of comparison.
The Syrian people will never be submissive for many reasons. First, the
principles to which he has been brought up; second, the models presented
to us of submissive leaders, submissive policies or submissive states
are not encouraging. In all circumstances and in the worst conditions,
Syria’s condition was better than the conditions off all those
countries, even those who appear to be in good shape now. The symptoms
haven’t appeared so far, but one day they will.
We Cannot Abandon Our Dignity That Is Stronger than Their Armies and More Precious than Their Wealth
All these things can be summed up in one word: Syrian dignity. We cannot
abandon our dignity because it is the most precious thing the Syrian
people possess. Our dignity is stronger than their armies and more
precious than their wealth.
The second point is related to the first: when will it stop? When the
smuggling of arms and money from outside stops. This related to the
first point. When we submit and give in we reach the second point. But
what I know fully is that the conspiracy will stop when we beat it. We
shouldn’t be reactive. It stops when we stop it. We can defeat it when
we do so politically on the outside; and inside the country, we beat it
when beat this dangerous arm of the conspiracy which is terrorism. The
second point is related to our wisdom and awareness. We beat the
conspiracy when we beat our own whims and passivity and return to reason
and go back to the state of pure love which we had in Syria. Thank God,
this is still the general state in the country, but I am talking about a
few areas.
There is no doubt that Syria is strong, but strength is not an absolute.
The immunity of the strong and healthy person might drop, and when that
happens he might get ill, but death and collapse are not inevitable.
Immunity gets weaker when there is chaos. The events and the chaos which
happened in Syria weakened this immunity. When that happened, terrorism
struck. Consequently, whoever contributes to chaos now is a partner in
terrorism and in shedding Syrian blood. We cannot separate the first
from the second. We cannot fight terrorism without fighting chaos, for
both of them are linked. This should be clear. Immunity drops when
national awareness gets weaker.
Here, I am talking about those with god will and good intentions. Those
with bad intentions do not concern us. In the beginning, we used to tell
those with good intentions that there is a foreign conspiracy. They
would respond by saying this is just shifting responsibility to others.
We used to tell them there are weapons, and they would respond by
saying, these are all fabrications of state media. Now things have
become clear, albeit belatedly. This terrorism cannot appear like that
suddenly. There are stages which started from the beginning. There was
small-size terrorism using small arms and in small areas. Then it grew
to reach this stage and this level.
We were late, and they were late in understanding this. This was a major
obstacle, but our being late doesn’t mean that we reached the point of
no return. The important thing now is to stand united. When we have
national causes, there should be no differences. When we differ, we go
to the ballot box. We chose our government, our parliament. This is a
different issue. But when there are foreign threats, the states which
respect themselves stand united. In this case there is no grey color.
Those who stand in the middle in national causes are traitors to their
country. There is no choice. We must stand united: all of us are
responsible. We should all contribute with words, acts, in any way or
form.
The second point, when we talk about differences, we should distinguish
between mistake made by individuals and mistakes made institutions. I
said this before. Institutions do not commit mistakes except when they
adopt mistaken policies. This is a different issue. We have two
policies: the first is to proceed in the reform process and the second
is to fight terrorism. Can anyone say that this a mistaken policy: I am
against reform and support terrorism. This is impossible. I am talking
about the Syrian arena. When we put these things aside, what this means
is that we stand united with state institutions. We help them, we help
the army, we morally embrace the army and the security.
If we go back to the 1970s and 1980s, when the devils’ brothers, who
covered themselves with Islam, carried out their terrorist acts in
Syria. In the beginning there were many Syrians who were misguided. They
believed that they were genuinely defending Islam. They didn’t take any
position. When things became clear decisive acts were taken and it was
quick when the people stood with the state at that time. Of course the
killing and the assassinations went on for six years. We don’t want to
wait all that long. Things are clear for all of us. If we stood together
and embraced members of the security and other relevant systems, I
believe the results will be quick and decisive, because terrorism
strikes, and every time it strikes it makes reform more costly and more
difficult.
The question is a race between the terrorists and reform. Terrorism and
those standing behind it don’t want reform and want to reach a stage
where we say there is no time for reform. Let’s deal with terrorism. In
that case they would have an excuse to ask for intervention in Syria.
All of us have recently felt, through television, radio and the
internet, that people are worried and upset and all of them are calling
for decisive action.
Of course, this issue is already settled for us because dealing with
terrorism must be in the strongest legal means. We are keen of the law
because we are keen at same time on the blood of innocent people. We do
not want the price of the fight against terrorism to be the blood of
innocent people, but the problem is that they began to hit innocent
people. Now, the Syrian people are being killed and political belonging
has nothing to do with the person killed even if he is an opponent to
the state. They are killing the Syrian people; they are punishing the
Syrian people because the Syrian people refused to abandon his morals,
refused to become a mercenary and refused to sell his conscience. Thus,
it was necessary to punish the Syrian people everywhere.
Therefore, we have to be united and we have to resolve this issue. As I
said, the main pillar is how the citizen stands with the state. In some
cases when the army entered a city (which controlled by the terrorists),
some people from the region's population formed teams to protect the
army’s flanks in order to enter the city. Some other people in other
regions formed observing patrols to prevent terrorists from carrying out
acts of murder and sabotage or sedition in some areas. In other areas,
they were delivering their information to the army. Thus, we have many
ways. I think we should start now a direct dialogue among the concerned
authorities in the country, in different regions and different
activities to see how we can achieve security on all Syrian territories.
I want just to talk about one point linked to the issue of the national
reconciliation because it was raised in this context. I mean if we stand
together, where to get then? There are those who proposed at the
beginning of the crisis the idea of having a national reconciliation.
The national reconciliation at the end of the crisis means that everyone
forgives everyone; I mean to say that everyone has committed a mistake
against everyone and there are many mistakes. Everyone forgives everyone
because revenge does not lead to a positive result. Revenge does not
build a country. Revenge does not return the blood spilled and, of
course, chaos destroys the homeland as we are witnessing now. Only
tolerance builds nations and achieves the flourishing future.
This means that national reconciliation stems from this feeling existing
among the citizens, because some people at the beginning of the crisis
has proposed national reconciliation. National reconciliation needs a
general feeling among citizens that we are closer to the end of the
crisis and that we stand undivided in one place. The most important
point is who are the parties of such reconciliation? The national
reconciliation is among parties, who are the parties? The parties are
not specified. Thus, we reach a national reconciliation through national
awareness not through a decision taken by the President who shall issue
a law and a general amnesty, etc. The state may absolve a party, but
what about other parties? It is a national situation that is followed by
laws and legislations, etc. Thus, we do need to get to that stage but
in a timely manner. Now, as a result of the public awareness which has
emerged recently, I see that we can move in this direction with putting
an end for terrorism on the Syrian arena.
In order to succeed in all these procedures, reforms, confrontations and
complex conditions, we must be cautious of the psychologically defeated
people who are seeking to spread the spirit of defeat and frustration
among citizens, whether from their psychological reasons or their
self-interest considerations. If this bunch of few people decided to
contribute to the defeat of the homeland in the virtual squares, the
overwhelmingly majority of people have decided to achieve victory in the
real squares. National battles have its own squares and men where there
is no place for the shaking hands and the frightened hearts. As for
their embargo, it will not terrorize and will not be able to humiliate
our people because it is not the Syrian who sells his honor and dignity
for money. This is not out of verbal rhetoric but out of the fact that
we are the ones who fed many Arab countries during many lean years.
I am talking about the lean years which prevailed three or four year
ago. Four countries, as well as the Syrian people, ate Syrian wheat, and
we are the ones who developed their industry in the eighties although
we did not have any foreign currency reserves. We did not even have a
small amount of reserves and, during that time, we could hardly pay the
salaries and we hardly had enough wheat for our bread. So we say to the
generation who does not remember that stage, and who was probably not
born during that phase, do not allow the fear to control your heart as a
result of the media war which is targeting you. Syria has undergone
much more difficult conditions during which even the security situation
was much more difficult. Yet, we bypassed those conditions and were
victorious. With all their negatives and misfortunes, crises give
opportunities to genuine people to achieve something, and today we are
more capable of transforming all that to gains by our self-dependence.
If we think scientifically and collectively away from selfishness, this
will help us compensate for our loss in the short term and turn them
into gains in the long term.
The most important thing is not to have a monopolizing group which makes
use of crises to collect their fortunes at the expense of the food and
blood of the people. This is an important point. Of course, it is the
responsibility of the state to fight this situation and we always
instruct institutions to control this issue, but we also know that,
under the conditions of disorder, deficiency infiltrates even through
institutions, which is yet another obstacle ahead of us. This is a fact
but with our cooperation we can find a solution for this issue.
Under these conditions, and regardless of the crisis, we have to
concentrate on small and medium enterprises and on handicrafts. First,
we need to establish a wide base for job opportunities and to have more
social justice. We always talk about the volume of growth but we do not
identify the dimensions of the pyramid or the pyramid’s base which
benefits from this growth. Such industries in addition to handicrafts
create great social justice and, at the same time, they do not fall
under the influence of external blockade and are not highly influenced
by the security conditions. Recently, we have started to focus to a
large extent on handicrafts as supporting them in this stage is very
necessary.
In agriculture we, in Syria, have made very good steps despite the
difficulties, and we have continued to pay attention to the conditions
of farmers and workers. But I think that paying attentions to
craftspeople and similar professions was not as it should have been.
A great part of the psychological war is launched now against Syria.
When they failed in the sectarian issue, they also failed in the
national issue. They failed in all the issues which have a political
aspect. Then they moved to the economic aspect. Of course, the stock
market rates and the exchange rates of the Lira do have an effect, and
do we know that when the value of the Lira decreases, prices increase.
But this is not the only criteria. There is another criterion which is
more important. What is the volume of production in Syria? Production in
Syria was generally weak, and over the last few years when we opened
our economy we turned to consumption. Even products which exist in Syria
are bought from non-Syrian producers. This has very badly damaged the
economy. Therefore, we have to concentrate on the level of production in
Syria, and we are capable even during this crisis to increase this
production. We must know that we have many points of strength. For
example, the volume of foreign debt in Syria is very limited, our
relations with different countries have been ongoing, and we have olives
(I believe that we were the fifth olive producer on the level of the
world, and some say that we have even jumped to the third or fourth
level, which I am not sure of).
For us, as a small country, to occupy the fifth position in producing
olives and olive oil among hundreds of countries is a very positive
thing. We also have a strong presence as a wheat producer, as I said
earlier. The land is there, the farmers are there, and the rainfall is
there. This means that we have real points of strength but we have to
regulate the economic process and we can kick things off even while
under the influence of this crisis.
If They Want to Besiege Syria, They Will End up Besieging a Whole Region
They are trying to depict Syria as an isolated country, trying to stress
this over and over again. But our points of strength lie in our
strategic position. If they want to besiege Syria, they will end up
besieging a whole region. As for our relations with the West, they talk
about an international community. This international community is a
group of big colonial countries which view the whole world as an arena
full of slaves who serve their interests.
For us, the West is important and we cannot deny this truth. But the
West today is not like the West a decade ago. The world is changing and
there are emerging powers. There are alternatives. It is important but
it is not the oxygen which we breathe. If the West closes its doors, we
can still breathe. It is not the life buoy without which we drown. We
can swim on our own and along our friends and brothers, and there is
plenty of them. That is why we decided in 2005 to move eastwards. At
that time, we knew that the West will never change. The West is still
colonial in one way or another. It is changing from an old colonizer to a
modern colonizer and from a modern colonizer during the Sykes-Picot
agreement to a contemporary colonizer. It has different forms and shapes
but it will never change, which means that we have to turn to the East.
We, as a state, started this procedure several years ago, and my visits
during the recent years fell under that initiative in one way or
another. But this is not sufficient. The private sector must also open
channels with those countries.
Most countries of the world have good relations with Syria, and they
insisted on having good relations with us even under the conditions of
the current crisis and the Western pressures on them. All this does not
mean that we will not pay a price or there will not be loss as a result
of the blockade, on one hand, and the political and security situation,
on another. However, we can have achievements which could reduce the
effects of the damages. At this stage, there fundamental points which
make all these achievements closely related to the security situation
including incidents of highway robbery, and the issues of gas and
diesel. For example, we might have to cancel a train shipment and
transport the diesel, fuel, or gas by vehicles, which makes the cost
higher and the transported amount smaller; and this does not fulfill the
citizens’ needs of consumption or the consumption needs of electricity
power stations or other systems. Our entire livelihood is now linked to
controlling the security situation. That is why I reiterated the
importance of this so that we can all cooperate in putting an end to it,
and so that, we, as a state, do not break our commitments towards our
citizens. Security, economy, and all other issues are indispensable
things for the Syrian citizen.
Despite all those complex circumstances, I am greatly confident of the
future. My confidence is inspired by you, and by your throats which
hailed glory, dignity, and defiance when millions of you filled tens of
cities and squares along the country. I say to you I, as you have always
known me, am one of you. When we do not face up to the challenges, we
do not deserve the name of Syria; and when we do not dare to defend it
or cannot defend it against its enemies, we do not deserve to live on
its soil. Our people has proven its genuineness and sincerity when the
bloody media machine fell short of destroying its unity and when the
starvation attempts did not make it kneel and could not taint its honour
and dignity. A people with such sophist feelings of belonging to their
home country, with such high morals which face the most dangerous
crises, and with such strong faith in its ability to overcome those
decisive moments in its history will not allow a small group of frauds
or delusional people to make it stray from the road of truth and
righteousness; and it will not allow groups that sold themselves to the
devil of pernicious desires and dubious interests to destroy what it has
built over a long history of effort and sacrifice.
Our Martyrs’ Blood Is behind the Steadfastness of Our Country
My confidence in that is inspired by you and the men of our armed
forces, the men of living conscience and strong resolve. They are the
ones who truly express the feelings of the people, safeguard its values
and aspirations, and give all sacrifices in order for the people to
enjoy security. On your behalf, and on the behalf of every honourable
citizen, I would like to greet them as they stand ready to protect the
honor of their country, and the integrity of its soil and people. As for
our martyrs’ blood which is behind the steadfastness of our country, it
will always be the lightship that will light the road of our next
generations to build the future Syria. Because when their blood waters
the land, it will make it bear the fruits of a more secure tomorrow,
unity and freedom for us all. As for the strength of their families who
lost their dearest people, it has made us firmer and more determined and
persistent in following on the same road which was taken by their
brothers, fathers, and sons in defense of their country and its values,
no matter how expensive the price is and to be as an example for all of
us on how an individual dies in order for the country to live.
I would like to salute you, the sons of this great people, with all your
intellectual, and political doctrines, you who strongly and
unyieldingly defend the values of solidarity and love that unify our
people against the feelings of malice and hatred which some try to
invoke spreading their poisons all over the country, and you who work
relentlessly in order to develop our country, regain its security,
enhance its unity, and protect its sovereignty. And glory to our proud
people who reject defeat in the age of collapse and who say to their
enemies, ‘never will we be defeated!’ For you, our proud people, we are
persistent, and with your support, we continue to resist and win, and we
will insha’ Allah win, and the peace and mercy of God be upon you all.
