An Interview with President Assad

“All we wish is to see the U.S. play its role in a fair and responsible way”

Less than two years ago, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Syria’s air force was decimated and its army routed. Today, thanks to massive rearmament by the Soviet Union, a faltering U.S. foreign policy and above all the adroit leadership of President Hafez Assad, Syria has emerged as the leading powerbroker in the Middle East. Having forced Lebanon to renounce its U.S.-sponsored agreement with Israel, Assad not only scored a major diplomatic triumph but established himself as the man to see for a Middle East settlement. This is even if, in trying to stabilize Lebanon, he may have overreached himself, as the breakup in the reconciliation talks last week suggests.

After suffering a serious heart ailment in November, Assad, 53, has slowly eased back into a normal working day. Three weeks ago he reshuffled his Cabinet, a move that some analysts interpreted as an attempt to balance power among potential successors. Though slightly wan, he remains forceful and engaging. In his modest office in Damascus last week, the Syrian President received Time Inc. Editor in Chief Henry Grunwald, TIME Managing Editor Ray Cave and Chief of Correspondents Richard Duncan for the first interview he has granted a U.S. publication since the suicidal bombing of the Marine headquarters in Beirut last October. He insisted that Syrian forces will not withdraw from Lebanon until asked to do so by a new Lebanese government of reconciliation (which, of course, would have to be dominated by Syria). He clearly still wants American involvement in the region, though mostly to restrain Israel. His recent success does not seem to have made him any more flexible. In tough and uncompromising language, Assad described U.S. policy as totally at odds with reality and hostage of the pro-Israel lobby in America. His remarks, including his scathing comments about U.S. politicians and voters, may shock many Americans, but they aptly illustrate why the problems in the Middle East are so intractable. Excerpts:

Q. Mr. President, is there a role for the U.S. to play in the Middle East? If so, what should that role be?

A. Certainly there is a role for the U.S. to play in the area. There is also one for the Soviet Union. No reasonable man can ignore the roles of these two superpowers. All that we wish is to see the U.S. play its role in a fair, unbiased and responsible way in accordance with its responsibilities as a superpower. We say this because we always perceive a continued and complete bias by the U.S. toward Israel. This bias, from our point of view, contradicts the interests of American citizens and does not serve the cause of peace.

Needless to say, there are tens, even hundreds of examples to prove this. It is enough to say that the U.S. gives Israel about $3 billion a year. This means that each Israeli gets $1,000 a year from the pockets of American citizens. Now you should know that in 90% of Third World countries, per capita income is much less than this figure. Moreover, we have to take into consideration that a big part of this money is in the form of sophisticated weapons which in turn are used to kill our citizens and to occupy our land.

Q. U.S. aid to Israel is bigger now than it was in 1975. Have you and other Arab leaders not asked yourselves why this aid increased and why you have not really affected American public opinion?

A. We have asked ourselves this question many tunes. One of the main reasons is that we do not have voters in the U.S. to elect a President. However, there have been American Presidents who have dealt with Middle East problems in the light of American interests rather than in the light of Israeli interests as imposed by the Zionist lobby in the U.S. Everybody remembers President Eisenhower and credits him with such a stand.

When I say that the main reason is Jewish votes that presidential candidates endeavor to win, this does not mean that I can justify the attitude of American Administrations. Candidates anywhere in the world conduct campaigns on the basis of the interests of the whole country and not just the interests of a certain group, especially when such a group works for the sake of another country and at the expense of the interests of its own. Nobody is un aware of the fact that the Zionist lobby in the U.S. works foremost for Israel and not for the interests of the U.S. Therefore, an American President who heeds the ambitions of such a group is not primarily concerned with the interests of the U.S.

Q. But if you had recognized Israel as a fact, would you not have had a greater influence on American opinion?

A. Why are we asked to give everything? Why not stop the flow of billions of dollars to Israel? Why not stop shipments of American weapons to Israel? Why is it not required to tell the American Jew that he should only be an American Jew, in the same way as an American Christian is only that, an American Muslim only that? Our view is that the American, whether he is Jewish, Christian or Muslim, should be an American. Only then will the U.S. have an objective view [of the Middle East] and work for genuine peace.

Peace is not mere words. Peace is not wishful thinking. It has a tangible foundation. Had the U.S. really wanted to bring about peace, it would not have given such tremendous aid to Israel, because this has tipped the balance in the area. Do you believe that peace can be achieved while Israel continues to behave like a big power in the region? Any such belief is lacking in logic and objectivity.

Let us look at what happened following the Camp David accords. Egypt represented at least half the Arab force facing Israel. The U.S. always claimed that it supplied Israel with weapons and money in order to strike a balance between Israel and the Arab forces. After the departure of Egypt from the Arab ranks following the Camp David accords, the U.S. was supposed to cut its aid to Israel, and Israeli military forces were supposed to be cut down as well. Instead, the opposite happened. We Arabs lost at least half of our force, and yet American aid to Israel even increased. So, how can we say that this served the purpose of peace?

After the war in Lebanon, I received a delegation from the American Congress, and in discussing aid with them I said, “You offer us only talk about peace, and while you talk to us about peace you will be debating in Congress a few days from now [proposals for] military and economic aid to Israel estimated at billions of dollars. Don’t you see that your talk is unbalanced, if on the one hand you offer us nice words about peace but on the other hand you offer the Israelis tanks, artillery, aircraft and dollars? Where is the logic in all this?”

Q. Perhaps you overestimate the power of what you call the Zionist lobby? There is also genuine sympathy for Israel among the general public.

A. I totally disagree. It is not a question of sympathy. The question is one of an organized Jewish force within the Zionist movement that dictates its views through the main centers of the media and through financial institutions. It is not a question of sentiment,,but one of material effectiveness. I find it strange that American citizens might sympathize with a state that bombards Beirut indiscriminately, using American aircraft, and yet might not sympathize with millions of displaced persons living in camps. If I am to accept this theory of sympathy, then I will have to change my view of American citizens, which I do not want to do.

Q. Now that the U.S. and Israel have failed in Lebanon, Syria carries a heavy responsibility in that country. Is there a chance for a new start to solve existing problems, particularly between Syria and Israel, the two key countries in the area?

A. We have always sought to achieve peace in the area. We agreed in 1973 to United Nations Security Council Resolution 338 [which asks that negotiations begin in order to establish a “just and durable” peace in the region] and to arrangements adopted by the U.N. that called for an International Peace Conference. However, we found that all this was in conflict with Israel’s ambitions.

In the light of our experience, Israel has not sought peace based on justice and the aspirations of those who have been wronged in the area. Israel is greedy for the lands of others. Israel wants to act as a big power in an area under its hegemony. The tremendous help given by the U.S. to Israel enhances this spirit and greed.

Without this help, Israel would not have been able to expand in Arab territories. Without it, the experience of these long years would have motivated the Israelis themselves to put an end to their illegitimate ambitions.

We want a peace that will restore our rights and put an end to Israeli expansionism. In this context we have supported appeals and proposals calling for an international conference under the auspices of the U.N. We are sorry to say that American attempts made from time to time under the title of “Search for Peace” have not, in most cases, been those of a superpower with special responsibilities in our world. They have, rather, been attempts that in fact were Israeli proposals. We pointed this out frankly to the American officials who conveyed these proposals to us.

Q. Let us suppose that such a conference were convened. How would you envision the Middle East after such a meeting, including the role of Israel?

A. It is difficult to draw a detailed picture. However, we envision the Middle East as a region in which peace prevails, rights are restored to each party in the light of

U.N. resolutions and where no feeling of injustice remains with anybody. This is how we envision it.

Q. Can recognition of Israel be a subject of discussion in such a conference?

A. When we talk of a peace conference convened in accordance with U.N. resolutions, then each party puts forward what it thinks is included in these resolutions. You know that the Israelis have always said there should be no preconditions. Your question represents a precondition.

Q. What is the next Syrian move in Lebanon? Can there be a simultaneous withdrawal of Syrian and Israeli troops? Will Syria withdraw from Lebanon if asked to do so by a government of national reconciliation?

A. Lebanese reconciliation is the only way. This has remained true despite continued fighting for many years and despite Israel’s invasion. We emphasized this in 1976. We re-emphasize it now and are endeavoring to bring it about. Our attitude recently in Lausanne is quite clear. It is true that the Lausanne conference did not succeed to the extent that we or the Lebanese parties hoped, but there was maximum cooperation on our part. We cooperated fully with the Lebanese President, and the Syrian representative made hectic efforts at the bilateral and trilateral level. We will continue to work for reconciliation, especially as the Lebanese parties are now convinced that there is no alternative.

Our position with regard to a government of national unity is one of full support. When such a government is formed, we will respond to its requests because it will be representative of the Lebanese people. Such a government will stand side by side with Syria to expel Israel from Lebanon unconditionally.

The Syrians and the Lebanese are one people, their past is one and the same, their history is one and their future is one and the same. At the same time we are two independent states. What is there in common between Israel and Lebanon? Israel is an invading force in Lebanon, while we defended Lebanon against Israel. So where is the logic in any attempt to link the Syrian presence to the Israeli presence or to link Syrian withdrawal to Israeli withdrawal? That is why we say our position is clear. We will never accept any linkage between Syrian and Israeli withdrawal. But when a government of national unity is formed as a result of the desire of the Lebanese government, we will meet its request to withdraw unreluctantly, and this could be within a month or within days or months.

Q. The differences in Lebanon are deep and bitter. Have you not perhaps bitten off more than you can chew?

A. No. The people of Lebanon are our people. The U.S. may have bitten off more than it could chew, even if it is a superpower. The reason is that the U.S. and Lebanon do not form one people. The Arabs can solve their own problems because of their common history. More than anyone else, we want to see Lebanon united, stable and strong.

Q. There is concern in the U.S. and other countries about state-supported terrorism, such as the attack on the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut. It is said that this attack would not have been possible without Syrian negligence or even Syrian approval. What is your comment?

A. Are there no terrorist acts that take place in the U.S.? If we accept your logic, then we have to conclude that somehow these acts were arranged or condoned by the U.S. government. If foreign missions [in the U.S.] are attacked, are we to hold the U.S. responsible? We have had terrorist acts committed in recent years in Syria. Are we to say that the Syrian government was behind them? Why are we to be held responsible for an act that took place in Beirut when we have no presence in Beirut? Some American officials have made such accusations, but I doubt that they believe what they say. I told one of them that if we failed to prevent such acts in areas under our control, why did the Lebanese Army then fail to prevent those who carried out these acts from passing through areas under its control? And why did the other Lebanese forces also fail to prevent them from crossing their areas? Why did the American forces fail? In other words, all those who failed are not responsible except for Syria. There is no logic in this.

Q. Did King Hussein learn from you when he made his recent remarks about the U.S.?

A. [He laughs.] I wish he did learn. We are facing a very serious situation. Israel wants our land, wants Jordan and wants Saudi Arabia. Facing such a situation we are bound to learn, and that guarantees that King Hussein as well as others will also learn.