William Lara interviews President Bashar al-Assad. TeleSUR and Axis of Logic
Editor's comment:
The following article includes TeleSUR's interview of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad with videos and a transcript. But first we report on
William Parra, a journalist working for TeleSUR and his camerman,
William Moreno who came under fire by the US-backed terrorists on
September 16 in Damascas. Parra was singled out by a terrorist sniper
and shot in the leg. He was rescued from the terrorists by the regular
Syrian Army and transported to a hospital where his wounds were treated.
TeleSUR issued a statement that both men were clearly identified as
journalists. If Parra or Moreno would have been injured by an explosion or
shrapnel in the war zone it would have been one thing; but shot by a
sniper with a scope-mounted rifle while they were boldly labeled as
PRESS
has obvious implications. Moreover, if these courageous reporters had
been shot by the Syrian Army it would have immediately received great
attention by the government-controlled media in the United States and
Europe. This attack by terrorists however has received little to no
coverage by the western media. Parra went back to work after having been treated for his wounds and interviewed President Bashar al-Assad.
TeleSUR is an international television channel reaching the whole of Latin America, powered by the
Simon Bolivar Satellite and based in Venezuela.
We include two video excerpts of the interview with English subtitles below followed by the full transcript.
- Les Blough in Venezuela
"US advocates peace but legitimizes violence"
Following is the full text of the interview:
TeleSUR: Welcome TeleSUR
viewers to this special program covering the events in Syria. Our
distinguished guest has managed to capture the attention of the whole
world – President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. President, thank you for giving
this interview to TeleSUR, which we hope will provide an opportunity for
our viewers in Latin America to understand your perspective and your
views. Welcome to the program.
President Assad: I would
like to welcome you and TeleSUR in Syria and to extend my good wishes to
you on your recovery from your leg injury. I believe that my interview
with a journalist who has witnessed terrorism first hand will be
pragmatic and rich. Once again, I welcome you as a journalist whose
blood has been mixed with the blood of soldiers from the Syrian Arab
Army.
TeleSUR: Thank you.
Indeed, there are many common factors between us, including this blood.
You mentioned terrorism - a car bomb exploded in Damascus yesterday,
killing and injuring many civilians. What is the terrorist’s message
particularly in these circumstances facing Syria and the world? And how
do you see the current efforts to confront terrorism in Syria?
President Assad: These
terrorists have only one message, which is the dark ideology they carry
in their minds; for them, all those who do not think like them do not
deserve to live. Every so often, they carry out these acts of terror to
either attract people to their cause or to frustrate them. In other
words, they want people to lose hope - and when you lose hope, life has
no meaning. So in one way or another you become closer to them. From
another perspective, these terrorist operations are financed, planned
and instigated by people outside Syria with the aim of pushing Syrians
towards complete despair, making them believe that there is no hope in
their homeland and that the Syria which has existed for centuries no
longer exists. Loss of hope pushes people towards defeat, which in turn
makes them stop defending their country. What you saw yesterday was only
one of hundreds of attempts in that direction; in fact they have all
had the opposite effect - Syrians today are more committed than ever
before to defending their country.
Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis American policy has been based on lies
TeleSUR: Mr. President,
yesterday we heard US President Barack Obama speech reflecting on what
the United States has done in different parts of the world, he spoke
specifically about the situation in Syria; Syria was also a major issue
at the United Nations. President Obama, more or less agreed on the need
for a political solution in Syria, however, he called on the United
Nations or the Security Council to pass a tough resolution against Syria
and against your government if you do not continue to fulfill
requirements of the chemical weapons agreement. He also stressed that,
as far as the United States is concerned, your government was
responsible for the chemical weapons attack against civilians.
President Assad: His
speech yesterday was more of the same – full of allegations based on
fabrications and lies. In general, most statements made by American
officials, whether in the current or previous administrations, do not
have the least bit of credibility. Their statements are often similar
and repetitive, and as such we do not feel it is necessary to comment.
Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, American policy,
whether knowingly or unknowingly, has been based on lies. I believe that
they were aware of most of these lies, which increased in intensity,
and the administration played a direct role in these fabrications after
the chemical weapons issue was raised on August 21st. The administration
has not provided any evidence to support its claims, which implies that
it was lying to the American people. From the beginning, we challenged
them to present their evidence, which they didn’t; when they failed to
convince the American people of their allegations, they couldn’t retreat
and so became more determined.
As for their talk about invoking Chapter Seven, this does not
concern us in Syria. First since independence, it is well known that
Syria has always committed to all agreements it signs. Second, today
there is balance in the Security Council which prevents the United
States - as was the case in the past, from using the Security Council as
an instrument to achieve its special agendas, including toppling
regimes and destroying states as was the case in 1990s. As I said, these
American allegations are nonsense and have no realistic or logical
foundation.
The actions of the US, through wars and interventions, completely contradict their interests
TeleSUR: Back to
President Obama’s speech, we saw that he was confused and didn’t know
what he wanted. Sometimes he speaks about the use of force and sometimes
he speaks about a political solution. He says that the Israeli
aggression against Syria is in defense of American interests in the
region. What are America’s interests in the region, and what is it
looking for in Syria? Taking into account what’s happening at the
Security Council concerning Syria, are you able to rule out an American
aggression against Syria?
President Assad: With
regards to the contradiction you mentioned, this has become the hallmark
of every statement made by every American official, be it the
President, his Secretary of State or others. For instance, they say that
Syria’s military capabilities do not pose any concern to the American
army should it decide to carry out any military action or aggression
against Syria; however, at the same time, they say that Syria is a
threat to American national security. This is just one of many examples
in this regard.
As for the possibility of an American aggression, if you look
back at the wars waged by the United States and American policies - at
least since the early 1950s, you find that it has always been a policy
of one aggression after another - starting with Korea, then Vietnam,
Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq; this is the American policy. We
also cannot forget American policy in South America where it instigated
military coups and caused the deaths of millions; tens of governments
were toppled as a result of American policy. For decades this has been
their policy, which continues today - unchanged, it is also unlikely to
change in light of the current American domestic situation. So the
possibility of aggression is always there, this time the pretext is
chemical weapons, next time it will be something else.
The more important element in all of this is that for decades,
the United States has been superseding the Security Council, superseding
the UN Charter, superseding the sovereignty of states and superseding
all human and moral conventions. So, maybe all of us in the world need
to keep this possibility in our minds - and this what we are doing in
Syria. Is there a possibility of aggression? It might not be now, but
nobody knows when it could happen. It remains a possibility, and we
shouldn’t rule it out.
As for the interests of the United States, I believe that for
decades, the actions of the United States, through wars and
interventions, completely contradict their interests. It is a superpower
and as such has political, economic, military and other interests. It
can achieve these interests through mutual respect, good relations,
trust, credibility and promoting science and knowledge instead of
spreading terrorism, destruction and fear. There’s no doubt that as a
superpower it has interests. Most of the big powers have interests
around the world, but these interests need to be based on achieving
stability in the world first. You cannot have any interests in an
unstable region full of wars and terrorism. So yes, it has interests,
but everything the United States is doing and all its policies,
contradict its interests and the interests of the American people.
Violence destroys any chance for political action
TeleSUR: As Your
Excellency said, the speech of the American President is in line with
this great degree of contradiction, which characterizes the American
empire. Yesterday he talked about a political and peaceful solution for
the Syrian crisis; nevertheless he left the door open for you to step
down. He literally said that the time has come for Russia and Iran to
know that President Assad remaining in power means giving extremist
groups a wider space to step up their activities. What do you think of
what Obama said, and do you consider it likely that you will step down?
President Assad: As for your
first point, this is another example of American contradictions; it’s
like saying that we are seeking war and peace on the same issue and we
are using the same roadmap to resolve the matter. This logic means
promoting violence in the world and legitimizing violence as a means to
reach a political solution. This is illogical. There is nothing in
common between violence and political action. Violence destroys any
chance for political action. We reject this logic, which the United
States has recently tried to promote in order to justify aggression on
Syria.
As to the question of stepping down, American officials - or some
of their European allies, have been raising this issue for over a year.
It doesn’t concern us for a simple reason: Syria has been independent
for generations - for more than five decades, the United States has not
toppled a president in Syria and has not brought any official to a
position of power. So the United States cannot presume now that it has
the right to decide, on behalf of the Syrian people who is in power and
who isn’t. This issue is decided upon one hundred percent by the wishes
of the Syrian people; even friendly countries have no say in this
matter. This is determined by the desires of the Syrian people, which
are solely expressed through the ballot box. When the Syrian people
don’t want you, you should leave immediately; and the opposite is true.
Regardless of what the United States says or does in this regard, it has
no role whatsoever. That’s why these statements are of no significance
to us.
The world is better when the United States stops interfering
TeleSUR: Let’s finish
this discussion about Obama with what he said: “the world is better now
thanks to the United States.” How do you think that the world is better
thanks to the United States?
President Assad: Let’s
talk about facts. Has Iraq become better with the American presence? Has
Afghanistan become better? Is the situation in Libya better? Is the
situation in Tunisia better? Is the situation in Syria better? In which
country is the situation better? Was Vietnam better when the Americans
interfered or when it was left alone to become independent and develop
on its own? Look at the situation in South America: is it better now or
when the United States used to interfere? The truth is that the world is
better when the United States stops interfering – we don’t want it to
help anyone. He (Obama) said yesterday “we cannot solve the problems of
the whole world” - well, I say that it is better if the United States
does not solve the problems of the world. In every place it tried to do
something, the situation went from bad to worse. What we want from the
United States is for it not to interfere in the affairs of other
countries, then, the world will certainly be better.
However, if he meant that the spread of terrorism everywhere is
better, this confirms what some Americans are saying in the American
media - that the Obama policy is based on supporting extremism and
terrorism. If this is the case, then what he said in this regard was
accurate - that the world is better because of the spread of terrorism
throughout the world.
The Iranian position towards the Syrian crisis is very objective
TeleSUR: Did you found
anything new in Obama’s position towards President Rohani when he quoted
President Rohani as saying that there is no military solution to the
Syrian crisis, and that the chemical weapons were passed to the armed
groups fighting in Syria by Western countries? And how do you see
President Rohani’s position when he calls for the cessation of financing
and arming of the opposition?
President Assad: The
Iranian position towards the Syrian crisis is very objective because
they know the reality of what is happening in Syria. At the same time,
they understand that this is one region, and consequently if there is a
fire in Syria, it is bound to spread to neighboring countries and later
to countries further away, including Iran. Iran bases its policies on
these foundations and also on the grounds that it is the Syrian people’s
right to solve their own problems.
As to American remarks on the Iranian position: first, as I said
before, regardless of whether American statements are positive or
negative, whether they praise, criticize, condemn or denounce - nobody
believes them. In the same token, the Iranians are not naive to be
deceived by the American position; Iran’s experience is similar to
Syria’s experience with successive American administrations, at least
since the Islamic Revolution in Iran. That’s why what concerns us is not
the American remarks, what is important for us is the essence of
Iranian policy towards Syria; and once again I stress that in essence it
is objective and achieves stability for our region, if different
parties in Syria have adopted the Iranian vision.
TeleSUR: In fact, in
Iranian statements at the United Nations, there was a proposal about
Iran’s relations with the United States to the effect that a meeting
will be held between the Iranian president and the American
administration. Such meetings have not taken place for a long time. How
do you see the rapprochement? Is the United States really engaging Iran,
or is it just an attempt to push Syria’s friends away from it? Or is
this position another way of saying that the United States has no choice
but negotiations rather than the use of force to protect its interests?
President Assad: First,
unfortunately even the United States’ closest allies do not trust them;
so the Iranian-American rapprochement does not mean that Iran trusts the
United States. Our relations with the United States have been through
various stages of ups and downs, but trust has never existed at any of
these stages. However, in politics, you need to try all methods and
means and to knock on all doors in order to reduce tension in the world.
So, communication and dialogue are necessary in relations between
states. We believe that the rapprochement between Iran and the United
States, whether regarding the Iranian nuclear program or regarding
anything else, is positive and good for the region, if the United States
has a real and genuine desire to deal with mutual respect with Iran,
not to interfere in its domestic affairs, and not to prevent it from
acquiring nuclear technology.
On the other hand, I can’t imagine that the United States has
abandoned its principle of resorting to military force. I think the
opposite is true; when the United States saw that it had competitors on
the international arena - or let’s say partners, if not competitors, in
the form of great and emerging powers in the world, - it started to
resort more to the principle of force, although this same administration
was elected on the basis of rejecting the Bush doctrine of using force;
now, it returns to the same doctrine. I believe that they are trying to
co-opt the Iranian position as they tried to do with Syria a few years
ago, but the Iranians are fully aware of this game.
TeleSUR: Mr. President,
going back to Syria and the chemical weapons issue. What are the real
guarantees provided by your government that the list you submitted on
your chemical arsenal is truly representative of the weapons you
possess? And what are the guarantees you provide to the UN investigators
in order that they do their job, inspect the sites and put the chemical
weapons under international control?
President Assad: Our
relationship on this issue will be with the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Syria is not required to provide
guarantees to the world or to the organization, it is required to deal
with specific mechanisms or to abide by specific mechanisms stipulated
in the chemical weapons convention. And as I said before, Syria is
committed to all agreements it signs.
Syria has recently sent the required data to the OPCW. Shortly,
OPCW’s experts will visit Syria to familiarize themselves with the
status of these weapons. As a government, we do not have any serious
obstacles. However, there is always the possibility that the terrorists
will obstruct the work of the investigators in order to prevent them
from reaching the identified sites, either because they have their own
motives or because they are acting on instructions from the states that
support and finance them. Either way, we expect that their objective is
to blame the Syrian government for not cooperating with the
investigators. But as far as we are concerned as a government, we have
no problem with agreeing to the mechanisms provided by in this
agreement.
It was the Syrian government who invited the investigators to come to Syria last March
TeleSUR: The
international investigators will return to Damascus today to identify
other places where there were allegations that chemical weapons were
used, in addition to the August 21st incident. What are your
government’s guarantees that the investigators will do their job freely
and independently?
President Assad: This group
hasn’t come to Syria on the initiative of the United Nations or any
other country. It was the Syrian government who invited the
investigators to come to Syria last March, when the terrorists used
toxic gases in an Aleppo suburb in the north. In fact, it was the United
States that created obstacles in order to prevent them from coming. We
invited them, since we have an interest in their visit in order to
determine the truth about the use of chemical agents in Syria. So, it is
illogical for us to invite them and create obstacles to prevent them
from doing their work. Even when the mission left Syria a few weeks ago,
we had wanted them to complete their visits to the areas where chemical
weapons had allegedly been used; it was the United States that insisted
on them leaving before they had completed their mission. Now that they
have returned, the Syrian government certainly supports their mission.
And as I already mentioned, there are no obstacles except when the
terrorists obstruct the work of the mission, particularly in the places
where terrorists exist in large numbers.
TeleSUR: Despite the
allegations that it was the Syrian government who used chemical weapons,
the Russian government provided the United Nations with evidence that
it was the armed groups who used the chemical weapons. What evidence do
you have? And what is the Russian and Syrian government doing in order
to prove that it was the terrorist groups and not the Syrian government
who used chemical weapons?
President Assad: Of
course we have both evidence and indicators. As for the evidence, when
toxic gasses were used in Khan al-Assal, we took samples from the soil,
blood samples from the victims, and also pieces from the projectiles
used to carry the toxic material to that region. Later on, during
operations carried out by the Syrian Army, a number of hiding places
were discovered housing different sized containers filled with chemical
agents - and in some cases toxic materials, as well as the instruments
required to manufacture them. We provided the evidence to the Russian
government before the UN mission came to Syria. We also have the
confessions of the terrorists who brought some chemical agents from
neighboring countries into Syria. These confessions were broadcast on
television about a week ago.
Why the Syrian government did not use these materials?. First,
the Syrian forces were making progress: they did not use them a year
ago, when the terrorists were much stronger, so why should they use them
now? The Syrian forces did not use them in remote areas where there are
a much larger number of terrorists than in Damascus suburbs, so why
should they use them here? You can’t use these materials in residential
areas where they likely to kill tens of thousands and not only several
hundreds or a thousand. You cannot use them in places close to your own
forces - Syrian soldiers, because the soldiers themselves will be
killed. So, logically, practically, militarily, they can’t be used in
such conditions.
In any case, when you have a crime, one of the first questions a
detective asks is who has an interest in using these weapons, or who has
an interest in this crime. It is very clear that the terrorists have an
interest in this crime, particularly when these allegations coincide
with the investigating team’s mission to Syria. Can you really believe
that the Syrian government invites an investigation mission, only to use
chemical weapons so that the mission can investigate their use? This is
unbelievable, totally illogical. All the indicators show that the
Syrian government did not use them, and all tangible evidence shows that
it was the terrorists who used the chemical weapons near Damascus.
TeleSUR: In this context, what was the role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar in bringing these chemical weapons to the armed groups?
President Assad: To be
precise, we have no evidence that they passed chemical weapons to these
groups. But it is well-known that these countries have been supporting
the terrorists since the beginning of the crisis in Syria. They have,
without exception, provided them with all kinds of sophisticated
weapons; this is certain and well-documented. So, it is to be expected -
that when these countries openly and publically support these groups
and provide them with all kinds of weaponry, it is to be expected - that
they are accused, especially Saudi Arabia, of delivering these types of
materials to the terrorists to be used against the Syrian Army.
This is all the more so, since these terrorist groups have failed
to present to their masters outside Syria with any real achievements
militarily on the ground. Of course, they have been able to destroy a
lot in Syria; they have destroyed the infrastructure, they have affected
the economy, and they have affected the life of civilians in a very
negative way. We have no doubt that these terrorist groups have caused a
great deal of suffering, but I’m referring here to military achievement
in line with the objectives that were given to them. In this regard,
they failed miserably, so they had to resort to a different kind of
weapon. By using these weapons, they would either defeat the Syrian Army
or apply political pressure to reach an agreement on foreign
intervention so that the United States and its allies can launch an
aggression against Syria and weaken the Syrian Army. Of course, the
second option is the more likely scenario.
Israel is an aggressive state. It was created based on expansion
TeleSUR: There is a
chessboard under the table. It’s known that there are agreements done
under the table, and someone is moving the pieces under the table, and
that someone is Israel. Israel has a role in what is happening in Syria.
Why are they talking about chemical weapons in Syria and nuclear
weapons in Iran while not talking about the Israeli nuclear weapons?
President Assad: Israel
is an aggressive state. It was created based on expansion. It occupies
other people’s land and kills the people surrounding it. It has killed
numerous Palestinians for over six decades. It killed numerous Lebanese
and many Egyptians, Syrians and others using assassinations, bombing,
terrorism and other methods. Today it plays the same role by supporting
the terrorists directly in the areas adjacent to the Syrian front, i.e.
near the occupied Golan, where it provides them with logistic and
medical support and also with information, weapons and ammunition.
TeleSUR: There are also reports that Israel has oil interests in some Syrian regions?
President Assad: This has
been reported, particularly concerning oil on the Eastern Mediterranean
coast, but these are mere analysis and we have no concrete information.
As for Israeli nuclear weapons, as you said, nobody talks about them
because Israel, the aggressive state, the rogue state, enjoys full
support from the United States in all its policies. It covers up all its
crimes. As long as this process of covering up continues inside the
United States, in the Security Council and the United Nations, in the
international organizations, including the IAEA, it’s no longer
surprising that any weapon anywhere in the world can be discussed, but
not Israeli weapons. This is the prevailing logic in the world, the
logic of hegemony, of colonialism, the logic of force.
Dialogue is inevitable among Syrians, all Syrian parties about the future of Syria
TeleSUR: Mr. President,
while they are trying to reach a political solution for the crisis at an
international level, what are you doing inside Syria in order to reduce
the tension? Are there any attempts to engage the different parties in
Syria? Is there any hope of an internal solution in Syria leading to the
Geneva conference?
President Assad: No matter
how intense the terrorist operations become, and how bad the situation
is, we should continue to initiate political action to solve any
problem. We believe in this and have pursued it from the very beginning,
despite the recent escalation of terrorist acts. Political action
requires, first of all, putting an end to smuggling terrorists from
neighboring countries and stopping the support for these terrorists with
weapons, money, and all the logistical support necessary to help them
carry out their terrorist operations.
At the same time, dialogue is inevitable among Syrians, all
Syrian parties about the future of Syria. This dialogue should start
with the political system in the country: which system do the Syrians
want, and consequently address the laws and regulations that stem from
that system. There are many other elements and details: when the Syrians
at the table reach a certain conclusion, it should be presented to the
Syrian people for approval through a popular referendum. Now, the Geneva
conference is an important venue, and it provides an opportunity for
dialogue among the different Syrian constituents. Of course, we do not
assume that the terrorists who carried out acts of killing will attend,
neither do we accept that dialogue can be conducted with entities which
called for foreign intervention. By law, and judging by the popular
sentiment in Syria, those who called for foreign intervention are
traitors and cannot be accepted by anyone.
As for the principle of the Geneva conference, it is an important
and necessary step towards paving the way for dialogue between Syrian
constituents. But the Geneva conference cannot replace internal Syrian
dialogue, and certainly it does not replace the opinion of the people,
which should be determined through a referendum. These are the broad
lines of our vision for political action to solve the Syrian crisis; all
these elements will not achieve any real results on the ground if
support for terrorism is not stopped.
TeleSUR: You stressed
that you’ll not negotiate with the armed groups and the terrorists in
Geneva. Who are the parties with whom you will negotiate? How can this
dialogue be achieved on the international level, and what is the
timeframe for achieving a political solution for the Syrian crisis?
The parties outside Syria do not represent the Syrian people
President Assad: I can
answer the part of the question that is related to the parties inside
Syria, which represent the Syrian people. There are different types of
parties – opposition parties, parties in the middle, or parties
supporting the state. With regards to the parties outside Syria, we need
to ask the states that support them because these states, - the United
States, France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others –
have propped up these individuals who do not represent the Syrian
people. If these states tell them to go to Geneva, they will go; they
will say and do as they are told. If we want to have an answer to this
part of the question, we need to ask those states whether they intend to
send these individuals or not, because they do not represent the Syrian
people, neither the Syrian people nor the Syrian government will be
sending them. This is why I have said that by dialogue, I mean engaging
with the various opposition groups, basically, based in Syria as well as
other influencers and movements that do not necessarily belong to the
opposition.
TeleSUR: I cannot finish
this interview without mentioning the leader Hugo Chavez who visited
Syria and went with you to Maaloula, which only a few days ago suffered
an attack carried out by extremists. When he was in Maaloula, President
Chavez said “Nothing human or humanitarian can be used to justify an
attack and an aggression against Syria. How can we not support the
Syrian government? How can we not support the government of President
Bashar al-Assad?” How can they support armed groups?” Could you please
give us your impressions and your recollections of President Chavez’s
visit to Syria? And what do you think of the position of Venezuela and
the ALBA countries in defending freedom and defending Syria and the
rights of the Syrian people?
President Assad: We have
always said that the developing world, of which we are both a part of,
has been through a number of stages in its pursuit of independence. The
first stage was with the evacuation of foreign forces from our occupied
countries, which most countries have been able to achieve through their
independence. The second stage, which is more important, is the
independence of political, economic and military decisions - the
independence of national decision-making so to speak. This was achieved
in Latin and Central America in the past two decades. There were two
symbols for this independence: President Castro - five decades ago, and
President Chavez. When we remember President Chavez, we remember this
second stage because the endeavors we are facing in our region, in the
Middle East, are similar to those that you went through earlier in Latin
America.
When you achieved independent national decision-making, the
situation in South America, and even Central America, became much better
and political stability started to yield economic benefits. When you
started economic development, some countries emerged as industrial
powers and have become important economic powers. This is the natural
outcome of independence. To date in the Arab region, we have barely
achieved minimum independent political decision-making and in a limited
number of countries. The conflict with the West now is in part related
to this point, in other words, gaining independent national
decision-making. I believe that South America in general, Venezuela and
President Chavez, and before him President Castro, are important role
models to be followed on the road towards independence and freedom
sought by nations trying to shrug off Western hegemony in the form of
long decades of direct colonization and, today, indirect colonization.
There are many similarities in temperament, in emotions and in
the warmth felt by citizens of the same nation in your country and in
ours. There are also similarities in our histories. President Chavez and
President Castro aside, there are many presidents in Latin America
today walking the same line of President Chavez.
But, I would also like to especially mention my friend and
brother President Maduro whom I know through a number of meetings,
during my visit to Venezuela and his visits to Syria. We are very happy
that the Venezuelan people decided to choose this person to represent
and enforce the political line taken by the President Chavez. He is a
resilient and proud leader who has a clear understanding of our region; I
am sure that he will continue to lead Venezuela to the path of
independence. We all know that the United States and some of its allies
had great hopes that Venezuela will return to America’s embrace in the
absence of President Chavez. With President Maduro at the helm, these
dreams have evaporated. I believe that as Arab states, we should follow
the path of Latin America if we want to make a mark in the world, to be
independent and advanced.
We are defending the future of our children and the future of the whole region
TeleSUR: Thank you very
much, Mr. President for everything you have said, give us one last
message to Latin America: will Syria remain steadfast? Will she triumph?
President Assad: Had we
had other choices but to stand fast, I would have shared them with you,
but we have no other choice but to stand fast because the political
future of this region is tied to what is happening in Syria. We are not
only defending Syria, or just our interests and principles, we are
defending the future of our children and the future of the whole region -
and this region is the heart of the world. An unstable Middle East
undermines the stability of the world, even remote parts of the world.
We cannot refer today far away regions like Latin America, North America
or East Asia; the world today is a small village, and what’s happening
in Syria will affect the surrounding region. What happens in this region
will affect the remotest part of the world. I don’t want to say that we
want the peoples of Latin America to support our causes, because they
always support Arab causes with no less warmth and objectivity than our
own people who live in this region and belong to these causes. We hope
to enhance this relationship between us in order to enlarge the space of
independence and reduce the space of colonization represented by the
West and the United States in particular.
TeleSUR: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. This was a special interview with His Excellency
President Bashar al-Assad. Thank you to our friends in TeleSUR and in
Latin America for staying with us. Be sure that our objective at TeleSUR
is to bring people together.
President Assad: Thank you.
Kenya terror attack: Putting the Westgate siege in context
The Shabak statement doesn’t offer any information on how he was
identified. It does note the Iranians promised Mansuri a $1-million
payment for his services though it offered no proof such payments were
actually proferred.
The Shabak statement says it didn’t pick up Mansuri the first few
times he visited. Personally, I find it hard to believe the Shabak
couldn’t detect someone entering Israel under an assumed name. But even
if true, I never believe he posed a threat to anyone. In short, this
incident is nothing like the Israeli-MeK assassination campaign and
sabotage of Iranian missile facilities, which are crimes of state
terrorism for which the Mossad and its leadership should be tried before
an international court. Israel’s spying and terror is far more lethal
than anything Iran has mounted (even including bombs allegedly exploded
in Dehli and Thailand).
