Military

DATE=10/10/2003

TYPE=ON THE LINE

NUMBER=1-01406

TITLE=SYRIA AND TERRORISM

INTERNET=Yes

EDITOR=OFFICE OF POLICY 619-0038

CONTENT= Transcript for OTL released Saturday UTC

THEME: UP, HOLD UNDER AND FADE

Host: Syria's support for terrorists. Next, On the Line.

[music]

Host: Israeli planes bombed a terrorist training camp in Syria. The strike was retaliation for a terrorist suicide bombing at a restaurant in Haifa in which nineteen people, including children were murdered. Islamic Jihad, long harbored in Syria, claimed responsibility for the killings in Haifa. Syria has also given safe haven to other terrorist groups, including Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command. U-S officials say that terrorists operating out of Syria have also targeted Americans. Under Secretary of State John Bolton says that "Syria permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war and is still doing so." Will Syria continue to support terrorists? I'll ask my guests: Marc Ginsberg, former U-S ambassador to Morocco; Farid Ghadry, president of the Reform Party of Syria; and Tony Haddad, president of the Lebanese-American Council for Democracy. Welcome and thanks for joining us today. Marc Ginsberg, Syria says that the organizations labeled by the United States as terrorist organizations merely have media offices in Syria.

Ginsberg: And I have the Brooklyn Bridge for you to sell. The bottom line is that we have a situation in Syria. Syria likes to pretend that terrorist groups killing innocent civilians, whether they be in Israel or Americans who have been killed by Hezbollah or by Palestine Islamic Jihad or the seven other terrorist groups, they're operating in Syria somehow immune from being held accountable. Well, Syria's been on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list for a reason. And yet at the same time, it's a country with whom we maintain normal diplomatic relations. It's a paradox that can no longer continue. And the fact remains, Eric, that under these circumstances, we have a situation where Syria has the choice. We're in a fork in the road with our relationship with Syria. I don't think Americans any longer are going to condone or tolerate Syria's continued courting of terrorist organizations as well as it's continued efforts to help kill or condone the killing of American men and women in Iraq any longer. I think the time has run out and I think we're all fed up.

Host: Farid Ghadry, does Syria think that it can continue the way it's been going in the past of supporting terrorism and at the same time claiming: "Terrorists, what terrorists?"

Ghadry: Given the history of Syria in the past, we know that they can play both sides of the argument. And they have thought that post-nine-eleven they can still play that tune. But I think the U-S, and rightly so, is coming down hard on Syria. And I think it's about time that it dawns on them that they need to stop terrorism. Their fate is in their hands today. And they need to do what exactly we're asking them to do and that is stop supporting terrorism out of Syria, stop the killing of American troops as well in Iraq.

Host: Tony Haddad, is Syria going to stop its support for terrorism?

Haddad: Well, Syria's reason d'être, as we say, is by supporting terrorism. I mean, this is all that we've asked them to do for the last thirty years. We're saying we want a diplomatic relationship with Syria, we want a good relationship with Syria. And all we've been asking them is: "Stop supporting terrorism. Stop supporting terrorism." That's why we keep on coming to them doing that. If they stop supporting terrorism, what are we going to talk to them about? We're going to tell them: "Well, now you need economic reforms. Now we need you to have more freedom for your own people. Now you don't have any more enemies and you can't have marshal laws on bringing people in." So, this is the consequence of the rest of them stopping supporting terrorism. What that means is that the regime's going to be in jeopardy, because I think if you have a political freedom and economic reforms in Syria, these people will not be in power. So, we've been wasting our time.

Host: Marc Ginsberg, Tony Haddad suggests that by supporting terrorism, Syria has been able to keep any other issue off the table that might bring criticism of Syria or put pressure on them. Has that been their tactic and is it successful for them?

Ginsberg: Well, so far it has been given a pass by the Bush administration up until the Secretary of State Powell went there in May. The argument being is that right after September 11th, they began providing intelligence advice about Al-Qaida operatives that were interdicted and then brought to Syria. Okay, granted. And I have said this on a time and on many occasions: The Syrian government deserves credit for providing informational support to American counter-intelligence organizations regarding certain Al-Qaida operatives that were Syrian nationals or other Syrian controlled individuals. But, let's go back and remember one thing here. Syria ultimately has played a double game. And it has gotten away with this double game. And the only reason why it has provided support for us is because it believes that by doing so, it can draw the distinction, Eric, between opposing global terrorism and yet condoning what they call "liberation movements" of the Palestinians against Israel -- no matter how the rest of the world views them as terrorist organizations. By providing us intelligence on Al-Qaida, that in their minds provides them insurance against being held accountable for terrorist activities that they are condoning, supporting, harboring against Israel and against American forces inside Iraq. That's the insurance that they claim they're buying.

Host: Farid Ghadry, are they going to be insured in that way?

Ghadry: I don't think so. I think patience is running out, patience in the U-S administration; patience among Syrians that we [Reform Party of Syria] represent is running out as well. And I think the pressure is just going to keep mounting and mounting until they acquiesce and yield to the fact that they need to stop supporting terrorism. As Marc said, it doesn't give them a free pass. The fact that they're cooperating on Al-Qaida issues doesn't give them a free pass to go ahead and do things that are harmful to this country and to the interest, not only to the interest of the United States, but also to the interest of Syrians living in Syria. I think they're getting to the point where they have to choose the road that they want to take. And more than likely, my belief is that they're going to choose the wrong road. For reasons that have to do with the makeup, the structure, the reason why the Baath party exists in Syria and how they have evolved. Over forty years they have been champions of Arab causes, lost Arab causes and for them now to back away from those Arab causes is going to take away that card from their hands. And they will no longer have the power to handle the politics in the Middle East.

Ginsberg: You know Eric, just on that point. I couldn't agree more with your [Ghadry] assessment. There's a certain point, understand, that we have a Baath party that has controlled Syria. It is the country cousin of the party that was overthrown in Iraq. The Baath party in Syria is a secular party. It is also a party that represents a dictatorship. There's no democracy, much less a decent civil society inside Syria that has blocked economic reform. And the ruling family is a small minority inside an Alawite small minority that rules a much broader Sunni majority. And so, focusing the Sunni public's attention on the continuing Palestinian conflict is the tried and true way of decrepit Arab regimes. To draw the public's attention away from what is necessary to help improve their own lives. But, I don't think there's anyone who doesn't want to see Syria be a successful country and its people integrated and successfully enjoy the benefits of globalization and decent civil society. But it's ruled by a government that is determined at any cost to hold on to power. Holding on to power is all that matters to the people who are ruling Syria. And I just want to, if I may, make one other point. The Syrians probably only respond, not to verbal threats, but to actual pressure, and I'm talking about military pressure. When the Syrians started playing games with the Turkish government a couple of years ago regarding water and access to water as well as to their harboring of terrorist leaders who managed the P-K-K, the Turks sent several divisions to the Syrian border and basically issued an ultimatum to the Syrians. Well that's what the Syrians seem to understand. Maybe perhaps they need to get that type of ultimatum from us.

Host: Tony Haddad, can the Syrian regime survive if it steps away from it's long-standing practice of supporting terrorism?

Haddad: I think part of it will survive. Not the same way it is right now. But, I wouldn't say that everybody's going to be just thrown out and if they truly want what's good for Syria and want reform in Syria and they allow the reform in Syria, I think part of that regime will survive. And we have no problem with them surviving if they are doing it in a democratic way and people will allow them to do it. And they have it in their hands to allow the good people there, to allow the actual parties, you know, such as the reform party to come in and practice in Syria and be democratic. I mean, look, the Soviet Union was a regime. Some of them survived, some of them didn't and that's how it's going to be. What they have to do, is they have to do everything that we're asking them to do. And we're not just asking them because of us. This is good for the region. This is good for Syria itself. We want them to stop supporting terrorism. We want them to get their troops out of Lebanon. We want them to stop the W-M-D program that they have.

Host: W-M-D is Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Haddad: Weapons of Mass Destruction, yes. And we want them to stop meddling with us in Iraq. Our troops are dying every day because of people that they're letting into Iraq to kill our troops.

Host: Farid Ghadry, the president of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad said to Al-Hayat newspaper about whether Syria would expel terrorists, he said "We refused for several reasons to expel the terrorists. Only because these people did not break any Syrian laws and have not harmed Syrian interests and are not terrorists," he said. Does this come down to changing Syria's attitudes about what's in their interests and what isn't in their interests?

Ghadry: It does. When he says that they have not harmed Syrian interests, it shows the short-sightedness of the ophthalmologist who's ruling the country. Of course they are harming serious interests because as a result of what happened, Israel had to, in a defensive move bomb the Ein Saheb training camp. If that's not hurting Syria's interests, what is? I think the Syrian government this is the only country in the world that I know of who is still run by a dead president. And the legacy of Hafez Al-Assad is still around.

Host: The father of Bashar Al-Assad?

Ghadry: The father of Bashar Al-Assad. But Bashar Al-Assad is too weak as a person to be able to maintain, or to be able to see what is coming up ahead in the road for him. And I think that they are going to make one mistake after another. And I think things are going to escalate until a point where they feel like, they're going to get to a point where the propensity to resist will be too great and then they will back away, but then it will be too late. I think there are a lot of people right now waiting to see how weak this regime will get. There's the Syria accountability act in Congress which I think Tony will be able to talk about and there are a lot of measures being taken by the U-S government and other countries that will just weaken the regime. And I think it's their best interest today. And it's in Bashar Al-Asad's best interest, to really see what's coming up ahead on that road. And I don't think he sees it.

Haddad: See maybe we should share some of that responsibility, our administration. I'm not just going to say about this administration, previous administrations also, because every time we talk to the Syrians we always give them the pass. Somehow we're always giving them the pass and they don't take us seriously anymore when we tell them: "You've got to stop this." We've been telling them this for the last thirty years. You've got to stop terrorism. You've got to come to the peace camp and so on. And they have not been listening. And every time we raise the stakes somebody somehow comes along and says, "No, we're still going to talk to you, no matter what you do." And then, you know, we've been talking to them and our marines got killed in Lebanon. We've been talking to them and our embassies were blown up in Lebanon. As we're talking to them our hostages were taken in Lebanon. As we're still talking to them, our soldiers are getting killed in Iraq. So when do we stop talking? Our administration has to take a stand and say: look, we're not taking this any more. And you're not going to get away with it and you're not going to get away with just giving us a name or two from terrorist camps. Probably the spies from the Cuban camps are giving them the: "Okay, here's a couple of names given to the Americans." I mean, they can't get away with that any more and our administration should be firm on that. And I think this week is a good week to start saying that because the Syrian controversy and the Lebanese sovereignty restoration act was just voted on in the committee, the foreign relations committee and we see reports that the president is willing to sign it. That's a good sign that we are taking it seriously. But we can not just go from the back door and tell them, "Well, if you do this one thing for us, maybe we'll let this thing go."

Host: Mark Ginsberg, you talked about the way in which the Turkish government put a threat forward to Syria and the response that it got. Is the U-S willing to make those kinds of threats against Syria or does Syria think that perhaps the U-S is distracted now in Iraq and isn't going to be able to bring that kind of pressure to bear?

Ginsberg: I agree with Tony. The Bush administration seems to have drawn a line in the sand after September 11th. You're either with us, or against us. And somehow or other, Syria was left out of that decision-making process. Secretary of State Powell goes to Damascus, warns the Syrians that the United States will no longer tolerate Syria participating in and supporting terrorist groups operating from its territories. He comes back to Washington, declares that he has the concurrence of the Syrian government. Five days later the Syrian government disabuses anyone of the notion that they reached an agreement with Secretary Powell. We're going to go into hibernation all of a sudden. Whatever happened to Secretary Powell's own credibility? Several months go by and then Ambassador Bremer, Ambassador Bremer in Baghdad, the civil administrator, has a press conference, no less, and announces that the Syrian government has either by omission or commission permitted Jihadists to infiltrate across the border and they are killing American men and women as a result. The papers that were found on the terrorists that were killed by special forces in the camp that was attacked by the United States on the Syrian-Iraqi border, most of those people had Syrian transit papers on their bodies. How did they get there, Eric? They got there because the Syrian government somehow gave it to them. They weren't forgeries and the Syrian government never denied that it didn't issue these papers. So, I'll issue a challenge to my colleagues in the Bush administration: Why is it that you can't see the difference anymore between whether you're with us or against us when it comes to Syria? And you know at the same time, the Secretary of State issue also an olive branch: "If you change your policies, if you begin to act responsibly, if you do not continue to do the things that are harming American interests in the region, if you stop this double game that is no longer acceptable to us -- we can work with you to try to provide all sorts of opportunities that the Syrian people have been denied and we're willing to do that. Doesn't look like the Syrian government wants to play that game with us.

Host: Farid Ghadry, is the Syrian government then learning that it can get away with playing this double game?

Ghadry: Well, as Tony said they've been getting away with it for forty years now. And so they feel like it's still the same rules. They have not yet succumbed to the group or the understanding that the rules have changed and they cannot continue with their policies. I would like also to add to what Marc has said. Syria has in the last few months played that game and they thought that they can get away with it. They thought that they could just give a few names, cooperate between one division of their intelligence services with our intelligence services and feel like they can get away with it. Well, it's not happening. And I think the U-S, and rightly so, wants to make sure that Syria plays that game. We as a party would like to see Syria stop terrorism. We would like to see Syria get rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction. We would like to see Syria bring about change in the country that will take away the economic deprivation and the political suffrage and the political empowerment that we deserve as people. Because I think, unless we bring this to Syria, Syria will always, always be one of those ghost, between the lines, type of countries that we're willing to work with but at the same time they're working against our interests. And we will never be able to really control Syria in the way that we want to. We've got to show Syria that we're willing to go with them if they're willing to act, but at the same time we need to bring some democracy or some form of suffrage to the Syrian people, because that is the ultimate goal in Syria.

Host: Tony Haddad, you talk about a bill in front of Congress now that would bring new sanctions on Syria. Do you think that would be enough to convince Syria to stop supporting terrorists?

Haddad: Well that is the first message. It should be a very straight message to Syria. It's one of the only messages that I see right now that is going to be heard by the Syrians, because they've been worried about this bill for a while now. And somehow we wanted to use it as a hanging sword. But, you can use it for a hanging sword for a while. This bill itself is a hanging sword in a way that, if Syria accomplishes everything that we ask them to do, which is what's good for the region and what's good for us, which is: stop supporting terrorism, getting out of Lebanon, stop the Weapons of Mass Destruction. And if Syria doesn't have them, fine. Let us go in there and we'll find out if they have them or not. And stop meddling in Iraq. If they do this, then we'll give them support. Then we'll give them what Marc was saying. We give them the financial support. We're going to give them reform support, and anything they need. They have to comply with this. And that bill, actually, will give them a road map to what they need to do for us to be able to help them.

Host: I'm afraid we only have about thirty seconds left. Marc Ginsberg, one last question I want to get in. What is Syria doing on the U-N's counter-terrorism committee?

Ginsberg: That's a good question. Well, it's also on the Security Council. And Syria's government continues the falsehood that somehow it's supporting the war against global terror. And, at the same time, any accusations that it is engaged in supporting terrorism against Israel: "Well, no those are freedom fighters and they don't deserve to be called terrorists." Well, the fact remains is that, it seems that everybody in the world is seeing black and the Syrians are the only ones seeing white.

Host: Well I'm afraid that's going to have to be the last word for today. We're out of time. I'd like to thank my guests: Marc Ginsberg, former U-S Ambassador to Morocco; Farid Ghadry of the Reform Party of Syria; and Tony Haddad of the Lebanese-American Council for Democracy. We welcome your questions and comments. You can e-mail them to us at Ontheline@ibb.gov For On the Line, I'm Eric Felten.