TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/113092/11309936.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 10.7 KB | 260 lines

                                                                                THE MIDDLE EAST, Page 49

HAFEZ ASSAD: Land Before Peace


By Karsten Prager, John Stacks, Dean Fischer, William Dowell,
Lara Marlowe and Hafez Assad.


    Q. There is a perception abroad that a historic
opportunity exists for peace between Israel and the Arabs, and
in particular between Syria and Israel. Is that so, and do you
agree with Prime Minister Rabin's suggestion for a meeting?

    A. We seek peace, and peace requires long and arduous
discussions, discussions that cannot be carried out at summits.
Peace may bring such meetings, but such meetings cannot bring
peace. We are enemies who have been at war for more than 40
years. We have martyrs and devastated property; our lands are
occupied, and millions of our people are displaced. A meeting
of heads of state to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict might
lead to war instead of peace because when there are differences
at the [top] leadership level, there is nobody to mend things.


    Q. Egypt regained the Sinai from Israel in negotiations at
Camp David. Could Syria reach agreement with Israel on the
Golan Heights before all other issues in the Arab-Israeli
conflict are resolved?

    A. Peace with Egypt did not put an end to the conflict in
the region. Moreover, Egypt, and in particular Anwar Sadat,
paid a very high price. Any Arab leader who does what Sadat did
would pay no less. Separate deals do not achieve peace; they may
in fact lead to the opposite result. I am surprised that some
people would like to cut peace into pieces -- one piece now,
another later. What is the use of solving a problem in a way
that creates a larger problem? When we speak of a comprehensive
peace, we do not mean that everybody marches shoulder to
shoulder, like soldiers on parade. A little progress may take
place on one front, a little delay on another. All the Arab
parties understand that there are certain peculiarities
regarding each of the issues. As long as they are satisfied that
we are proceeding toward a comprehensive solution, progress on
one issue can be made more speedily than on others.


    Q. Since the Palestinians do not even agree among
themselves, how can everybody be satisfied?

    A. The total number of Arabs who want peace is greater
than that of those who don't. We Arabs share the same origins.
Our language, our history, our hopes are one. If the President
of Syria makes a mistake, Arab citizens in Algeria or Morocco
behave as if they have the same right as Syrian citizens to hold
him accountable.


    Q. If you don't offer the Israelis anything, how do you
expect them to agree to a comprehensive solution?

    A. Since 1948 the Israelis have been clamoring for peace.
Now we are offering them peace. What more could we possibly
give them? But peace must not be at the expense of our land.
How can the Arabs be motivated to seek peace if the price is to
give Israel our land? We have half a million displaced people
from the Golan. How can we convince them that we have to give a
part of the Golan to Israel? The United Nations charter
prohibits the occupation of the land of other people. There is
no moral, legal or political justification for the Arabs to
offer their land to Israel simply to obtain Israel's agreement
for peace. Otherwise, any state may feel it can swallow its
neighbor.


    Q. Isn't a compromise on the status of Jerusalem necessary?

    A. These matters are the concern of the Palestinian
negotiators. But everybody must know that this issue is a very
serious one. Jerusalem is a subject of concern to a billion
Muslims. Iranians and Pakistanis feel, for religious reasons,
that Jerusalem belongs to them in the same way we feel it
belongs to us and the Palestinians. Arab Christians feel the
same way. I do not mean to say that the issue of Jerusalem is
insoluble. Negotiations can create conditions that can lead to
solutions.


    Q. So you do not exclude compromise while proceeding
toward a comprehensive solution?

    A. There is no possibility of compromise with regard to
the Golan. Nobody in Syria could give up one inch of land in
the Golan. Every Syrian believes deep in his heart that whoever
yields a part of his land is a traitor -- and the fate of
traitors is well known.


    Q. Does the Sinai agreement allowing for the deployment of
multinational forces offer a model for the Golan?

    A. We have agreed that there must be security arrangements
acceptable to both sides. The Israelis themselves are convinced
that geography in itself does not provide security.


    Q. Isn't that a change from Israel's insistence on
occupying land for security?

    A. What they say in this respect is one thing; what their
convictions are is another. Our delegation has heard the
Israelis say that their occupation of the Golan has not brought
them security. Their real aim is to drive us away from their
settlements [in the Golan].


    Q. Are you encouraged by Rabin's attitude toward
negotiations?

    A. He talks more about peace thanYitzhak Shamir did. But
he talks about a partial withdrawal. If he sticks to this
logic, there will not be peace, because we cannot give up our
land. If he does not agree to complete withdrawal from the
Golan, I believe he will lose the support of the Israeli
political parties that demand it. There are even rabbis,
including the Chief Rabbi, who have said that the Golan is not
Israel's land.


    Q. Are you concerned about the attitude of President-elect
Clinton toward the Middle East peace process?

    A. No. I believe that any American President, once he is
objectively acquainted with the situation in the Middle East and
aware of American interests, will work for peace. The degree of
enthusiasm varies, but we expect that Clinton will be
supportive. We cherish the efforts of President Bush and
Secretary of State Baker, even though the American election
intervened and prevented their fruition. If President-elect
Clinton is as enthusiastic as they were, he will receive the
appreciation of the people of this region. If he is not so
enthusiastic, which we think is highly improbable, then
everything will come to a standstill.


    Q. You have recently bought Scud missiles from North
Korea, and more reportedly are on the way. What is the purpose
of acquiring these strategic weapons?

    A. What is so strange about this? We have had missiles for
the past 20 years. Since we are in a state of war, why
shouldn't we have them? Israel has chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons as well as missiles. Why don't you ask Israel
a similar question?


    Q. We will. But is Syria attempting to develop its
potential in these areas?

    A. We are not trying to do anything new. Everything we are
doing now we have been doing for 20 years. How could we live
without the sword?


    Q. So the answer is yes?

    A. I have said that we are not doing anything now which we
have not been doing for 20 years. We call for the elimination
of all weapons of mass destruction in Israel and Syria. If they
destroy what they have, and we destroy what we have, both of us
will feel secure. Otherwise, neither of us will feel secure.


    Q. Since Israel has many weapons of mass destruction, how
can the acquisition of missiles from North Korea and China make
you feel more secure?

    A. Do you mean to say that we will be secure if we are
disarmed? Should we be naked, without weapons, just waiting for
Israeli missiles to strike us?


    Q. Hizballah, the pro-Iranian Shi`ite Muslims in Lebanon,
have been firing rockets into Israel. Since you have disarmed
other militias in Lebanon, why haven't you disarmed Hizballah?

    A. This question should be directed to Hizballah. I am not
a member -- yet.


    Q. Iran is spending billions of dollars on new weapons.
How do you view this development?

    A. It is up to Iran to decide what it should have. An
understanding between the Arabs and Iran is in the interest of
regional security. We saw the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war: big
losses to Iran, Iraq and the gulf states. The Arabs and the
Iranians can make effective security arrangements that would
weaken or remove the prospects of war. That will bring about a
balance of power, and in that event, no harm will be done to the
people in the region, or to the interests of the U.S.


    Q. Is Iraq part of this power equation?

    A. Certainly. We are sorry for what is happening in Iraq.
Our problem is not with Iraq, but with its ruler. This is a
matter to be dealt with by the people of Iraq. Saddam Hussein
is not going to live forever.


    Q. Do you believe the Gulf War coalition should have
deposed Saddam?

    A. No. I do not approve of any country entering another to
appoint a ruler; that reminds us of colonialism. If a foreign
power had appointed an Iraqi leader, it would have destroyed the
will of the Iraqi people. It is true that Saddam Hussein has
imposed himself on Iraqis, but he is an Iraqi. The Iraqi people
have been struggling against him for a long time; I don't think
any other country in the world has seen so many of its citizens
leave as a result of a regime's cruelty.


    Q. Jordan's King Hussein and Egyptian President Mubarak
have expressed fear about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
Do you share their concern?

    A. I am worried, but I understand the background. I can
imagine that if I were younger and saw what has happened to the
Arab homeland, I might find myself part of this movement. With
the enthusiasm of youth, I would judge things hastily. I would
see that the Arabs are downtrodden, that their land is
occupied, that the Israelis appear victorious. Therefore young
people have come to the conclusion that Islam is their
salvation. The majority [of Arab leaders] are aware of this
reality, but they don't talk about it. Sadat visited me before
he went to Jerusalem. I advised him that his visit would
complicate things. I told him peace was coming, and collective
action was the best way to achieve it. But he had other
illusions. That was the reason for the eruption of
fundamentalism in Egypt. Sadat paid for it with his life. Yet
it has continued. Every state must arrest killers, but that is
not the solution. Only a collective stand that leads to peace
will make Arab citizens feel honorable and dignified. Otherwise,
fundamentalism will continue to grow.


    Q. Do you expect to see a comprehensive peace in your
lifetime?

    A. I am inclined to be optimistic. The prospects are
better because of the international climate and because of the
increased number of Israelis who want peace. If Israel gives up
its desire for expansion, I am sure we will succeed.