Text of interview with Bushra Kanafani

Interview with Ms. Bushra Kanafani, Director of the Foreign Media
Department at the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs

Conducted for Just World News by Helena
Cobban, Jan. 15, 2008.

Q:  I’d like to
ask your views about the recent Annapolis conference.  What
persuaded Syria to take part, and how do you view the outcome?

A:  The question
of Golan is a national priority for us as Syrians– the people and the
government.  It is wrong for any international conference on the
Arab-Israeli issue to ignore Golan.  Golan needs to be on the
agenda.  That was why we went.  We agreed that the
Palestinian question could have priority.  But at least Golan
should be on the agenda, even if it is not given equal prominence.

Right now, we are not sure about the status of the Syrian-Israeli track
in the negotiations.  We still see no sign of willingness from
Israel or the United States– at this point– to resume the Syrian
track of negotiations.

Q:  How about the
position of the other members of the ‘Quartet’?

A: The Russians have
talked about holding a follow-on international conference in Moscow,
but they have announced no decision yet– perhaps because there are
still so many difficulties.

The US administration is stressing the Palestinian track for their own internal reasons.

If there is a Moscow conference, its content is still unknown.  So
far we have no reason to think there will be such a conference. 
If there is one, we would go– for the same reason we went to
Annapolis: to make sure that the Golan question is on the agenda.

Q:  Do you have
any reason for new hope regarding achievements on the Palestinian track
since Annapolis?

A: Unfortunately
not.  There is nothing to indicate that there is any hope…

Actually, as we see it, the priority for Palestinians is not in these
peace talks but to make a reconciliation among the Palestinians
themselves.  There will be, as you know, a conference of
Palestinians next week in Damascus and its aim is to rebuild
Palestinian national unity.  Everyone has been invited.  Mr.
Abbas has been invited.

Q:  Is this an
attempt to return to the Mecca agreement among the Palestinian
movements that the Saudis were able to mediate last February and to
heal the inter-Palestinian rifts caused by the events in Gaza last June?

A:  You know, we
all worked for the Mecca Agreement.  We don’t want to say exactly
who was responsible for breaking the Palestinian national unity that
was achieved there, because we always keep the same distance between
the different sides in internal Palestinian disputes.  Actually,
regarding the Mecca Agreement, the Palestinian representatives started
the talks here in Damascus but then moved to Mecca because Riyadh [that
is, the Saudi government] could be better at marketing the agreement
reached.  But the situation in Gaza after the conclusion of the
agreement was not healthy at all, and that led to some bad
developments…

Q:  How are your
relations with Saudi Arabia these days?

A:  There are
differences between us.  The Saudis put emphasis on the question
of Lebanon and express concern about our relationship with Iran–
though they also have their own relationships with Iran, too.

Regarding Lebanon, after the Riyadh Summit conference of late March
last year, which we went to, we suggested to the Saudis that we work
together on the Lebanon issue.  We wanted each side to use its
influence with its repsective allies there to resolve the political
problems.  But the way it turned out, the Saudis wanted us to use
our influence but we did not see so much the same from them.

Q:  And how are
your relations with Iran.  Were there some problems with Tehran
after you decided to go to Annapolis?

A:  We have had
good relations with Iran since the revolution of Ayatollah
Khomeini.  These are mainly because of our strategic view of the
region.  Iran has been a friend to us since the days of Khomeini,
and iut is an important regional power– as Turkey is, too.

We appreciate the Iranians’ stand, even though we don’t agree with them
about everything.  We don’t agree with President Ahmadinejad’s
statement about Israel.  We declared many years ago that peace
with Israel is our strategic choice; and it still is.

Q:  Was there a
big problem with them when you decided to go to Annapolis?

A:  They didn’t
like it, and they said so.  But we do what we think is right for
us.  In the diplomacy of the 1990s, for example, we had our talks
with Israel for ten years.  Those talks didn’t in the end achieve
anything.  But our relations with Tehran remained fine throughout.

Q:  What is the
main thing you want from the US Government?

A:  We want them
not to be a ‘closed-eyes’ ally of Israel.  We can’;t change the
fact of the alliance.  But at least it should be an ‘open-eyes’
alliance that also recognizes the realities of this region.

In the negotiations of the 1990s we expected a US role as a neutral
negotiator, but we didn’t get it.

Q:  How do you
hope to persuade the Americans to change their approach?

A:  Through
dialogue.  Through talking.  This is the duty of the US
administration and people, if they want to continue to pursue their
interests in the long run.  Dialogue and talks are the only
way.  We would certainly like them to return their ambassador
here, to discuss all the
many issues of shared concern between us– but not for them to pick and
choose which issues they want to discuss, as they currently try to do.

You know we have a joint committee with the Iraqi government on border
security, and the US asked to participate in it.  We said,
No.  Because we need to discuss Iraq as well as the peace process
and Lebanon with them.  In Lebanon, we see them as fostering a
‘winner-takes-all’ mentality which is very harmful.

We have seen no sign of any improvement in bilateral relations since
Annapolis.

Q:  How do you
see the prospects for Lebanon?

A:  We hope Amr
Moussa’s mission can succeed.  We see some Arabs trying to change
the Arab Plan that Moussa has produced, but in our view the whole Arab
Plan should be a package deal.

You know, the US also has its friends in Lebanon, in the government and
the March 14th movement.  It should try to influence them to
accept the Arab Plan.  Until now we didn’t hear any word of
support or encouragement from the Americans for the Arab Plan. 
From our side, though, we have been calling on all Lebanese and Arabs
who care like us about Lebanon to support Amr Moussa’s initiative.

This problem in Lebanon needs
to be resolved, because the longer the constitutional crisis continues,
the greater the danger of a crisis erupting.

Q:  What is your
view of the suggestion from the Iraqi Defense Minister, as reported
in  today’s New York Times, that the US should keep its bases in
Iraq until 2018?

A:  We are
against all this!  The US invaded Iraq illegitimately, against the
wishes of the international community.  Then, to add insult to
injury, they brought Iraq into chaos, and they brought Al-Qaeda into
Iraq where it had not previously existed.  And of course they also
found no WMDs.  But what they brought into Iraq was what you might
call a “bloody democracy.”

What is best for America, Iraq, and the whole region is to have a
timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq parallel to the process of
rebuilding the Iraqi forces.

To have American bases there over the long term: this is a recipe for
more violence.

Q:  How do you
view the legitimacy of the present Iraqi government?

A:  Firstly, we
note that this present government was the result of
elections.  The democracy was “bloody”, but still, there were
elections.  That made it different from preceding governments in
Iraq, because there had been a real political process there.

And secondly, we have mutual interests and concerns that we need to
work on with this government.  There is security: we have many
important security interests in common with them, not least because at
one point we were being accused of allowing terrorists to travel to
travel into Iraq.  But now through our joint work with them we
have done a lot to address that problem.

And there are so many other common interests!  Water, for
example.  Last week we had a three-party meeting here in Damascus
between us and Iraq and Turkey to discuss water issues on the Tigris
and Euphrates.  And there are other trade and economic issues.

Q:  How are your
relations weith Turkey?  I have heard that the Israelis are uneasy
about them.

A:  The Israelis
want the Arabs to have nad relations with everybody!  Turkey is a
neighboring country, and it does a good job, including as a channel
between us and Israel.  The Israelis should value that.

Q: What can you tell
me about the incident last september when Israeli planes attacked a
site in northern Syria?  If the site was as innocent as Syria
claimed, why didn’t you organize delegations of diplomats and
journalists to go and tour it?

A:   The whole
affair is very mysterious and there is still a lot we don’t know about
it.  The Israeli media announced the attaack — not the
government.  And then our defense ministry  confirmed
publicly that there had been an attack.  The Israeli government
still said nothing.

The Israeli press gave various different accounts of what the target
had been, and settled on the idea it had been a nuclear-related site,
involving the North Koreans.

I should note, though, that we did show photos of the damage suffered
to diplomats and press people.  The Israeli missiles hit an empty
area.  We showed pictures of the Israeli missiles that had
fallen.  Then people elsewhere showed pictures of a building that
they claimed had been destroyed by Israel.  But who knows where
that building was?

Maybe they made a mistake?  People should ask the Israelis why
they did it.  So far they have kept silent about what it was all
about.

Q:  How do you
see the prospects for the months ahead, which will include the US
election campaign?

A:  I can’t link
it to the election campaign, but the American administration has kept
the tension high in the region for years.  Now, President Bush is
trying to persuade the Gulf Arabs to confront Iran, and he is asking
the Saudis to help with his peace process.  But it is not easy for
the Saudis or any Arabs to support the plan when it ignores half of the
Palestinians!

Bush wants to present himsel;f as a peacemaker.  But the pressures
he is trying to exert on people don’t lead to any hope of success.

Q:  How can we
reinstate the role of the UN in the peace process?

A:  The Madrid
conference did not give the UN a good role.  The sponsorship there
was from the US and the Soviets.  So we should take a lesson from
that.  When we were at the “Madrid + 15” conference in Madrid in
October, many participants there believed the UN should play a bigger
role.

Our view is that you can’t have a peace process without an American
role, because of the strength of the US-Israeli relationship.  But
you also need to have a good influencing role for the UN.  Also,
the Europeans should play a bigger role: one that involves not just
giving money, but also, a political role.  Even while keeping a
special role for the Americans.