• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

05 May 2003

Powell Tells al-Asad Syria Faces a "New Strategic Environment"

(Background briefing on Powell's May 3 talks with al-Asad) (3000)
Secretary of State Colin Powell has told Syrian President Bashar
al-Asad that the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq has
created a "new strategic environment" in the Middle East, and it is in
Sryia's interest to improve its ties with the United States, said a
senior State Department official following Powell's meeting with
al-Asad in Damascus May 3.
Powell told al-Asad that Iraq is "going to be a different kind of
regime, it's going to be democratically based, it's going to be a very
close friend of the United States. Therefore, it's in your [Syria's]
interest to have a better relationship with the United States," the
official said, speaking to the press on background during a flight to
Shannon, Ireland.
The topics that Powell and al-Asad discussed included Israeli
detainees, child custody cases, headquarters of terrorist
organizations in Damascus, sealing the border with Iraq and turning
over Iraqi officials and scientists, weapons of mass destruction, and
trade relations in the future with Iraq, the official said.
Powell said President Bush is "deadly serious" about moving the Middle
East peace process forward, and still views the negotiations "in
comprehensive terms" that would include the resolution of Syria's and
Lebanon's disputes with Israel, the official said.
Powell warned al-Asad that not only is the Bush administration paying
close attention to Syria's action, but also some members of the U.S.
Congress have proposed the Syria Accountability bill with penalties
for actions the United States would deem hostile, the official said.
Powell's three-hour meeting with al-Asad in Damascus was "open" and
"candid" and resulted in "some progress," the official said. He added
that al-Asad said Syrian authorities would close down the offices of
some terrorist organizations in Damascus.
The official said Al-Asad's concern was for a comprehensive solution
in the Golan and for a better relationship with the United States.
Following is a transcript of a background briefing by a senior State
Department official en route to Shannon Airport:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
May 4, 2003
PRESS BRIEFING
By a Senior State Department Official
On Board Plane En Route Shannon Airport
May 3, 2003
On Board Plane
QUESTION: Can you clarify for us the closure issue? How many? What the
Syrians have told you? What they promised to do, etc?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: For three solid hours, nonstop, with
the President, we had three solid hours, nonstop, two meetings. The
first one was a little over an hour, and then we cleared the room down
to a much smaller group for about an hour and a half, remained till
whatever time it was we left after twelve. So it went roughly from
9:25 to 12-something.
Everything that I've been talking to you about, on the various
conversations that we had, from Israeli detainees through child
custody cases through Hezbollah through the headquarters of terrorists
and terrorist organizations in Damascus to sealing the border to
turning over people who show up to turning over scientists who might
show up to weapons of mass destruction to whether or not you have a
good trade relationship in the future with Iraq or not, all of these
things were discussed. But that wasn't as significant, in my judgment,
as the context in which it was put, which was new strategic
environment. These are all things that we have to work our way
through.
What you're really going to be looking at is, you're in a new
situation with your neighbor, it's going to be a different kind of
regime, it's going to be democratically based, it's going to be a very
close friend of the United States. Therefore, it's in your interest to
have a better relationship with the United States, and to see in those
terms. The President is deadly serious about the peace process moving
forward. Yes, we know you would have preferred to see all of the other
pillars inside the initial roadmap thing. But, first things first. We
had to deal with the Israelis and the Palestinians. I have never
failed to also touch, maybe occasionally I've failed, but most often
when I've talked about this, I've talked about the need for a
comprehensive solution, and it's in the President's June 24th speech,
and it's touched on in the roadmap. But of course, it's "what have you
done for me?" And "am I getting that amount of attention?" So I
assured the President that we still see this in comprehensive terms,
and I reminded him of the fact that when I first saw him two years
ago, we'd talked about two tracks, and at that time, when I said to
him, do you want to get started while the Palestinian track is slowed
down? He said, "we were much further along, but I cannot move forward
unless the Palestinian track is moving forward." And I said, "well,
we're going to work the Palestinian track and at some point, if we get
traction and start to see some success, then obviously we can look at
the other track and see if it's time for it to start moving as well."
So I tried to reassure both the Lebanese and the Syrians on that. I've
made it perfectly clear that a lot of trouble was created by their
behavior, both sides, the Lebanese and the Syrians, over the last,
shall we say, two months, for a longer period, but especially during
the conflict and during the run up to the conflict, and during the
period of intense criticism of our actions, the disapproval of our
actions. And letting things go back and forth across the border,
people, equipment, and other things, and I gave him some specific
examples - don't ask me what the specific examples are - of things
that were of concern to us, and we took note of that and couldn't
understand why they didn't get it, that they shouldn't be doing those
kinds of things.
I suggested to him that he should sit with his associates and reflect
on all of these things and how they wanted to respond to them, but I
wasn't looking to play pickup sticks today and get it all today, but
that he had to know that we were looking for, not just incremental
moves, but something that suggested a full understanding of a changed
strategic environment.
Specifically with respect to offices of organizations in Damascus, we
could not understand why they saw the presence of these offices and
their leaders and their organizational structure was of any benefit to
Syria any longer. They indicated some closures before I got there,
confirmed them, and also with respect to other things that they do
such as appearing on public and other sorts of television and
essentially being very public, that would stop.
And as I said, there were other suggestions that we had for them that
they've taken under advisement. That's all I really can say about it
because I made it clear to him that we'll be watching, on all of these
issues, to see whether or not they are serious in creating a better
relationship with us on a new foundation, not just some incrementalism
from the past.
I pointed out that I wasn't the only one who was greatly interested in
watching this, our Congress was. I made a reference to the Patriot
Act, I made a reference to the Syrian Accountability proposals that
come up on a regular basis, and for those of you who come to my
scintillating hearings whenever I give them, it came up earlier this
week from Senator Boxer, for those of you who were surely listening at
the time. And so it's a real issue again, this Syria Accountability
Act. And if you want to avoid these sorts of things, we need to see
action.
I also discussed finances, Iraqi finances, and the importance of
making sure that any funds that are out there are held in trust for
the Iraqi people, and not whoever might have the signature card at a
particular moment in time.
And so it was about as full of discussions as I could have had, it was
open, candid. His concern was a comprehensive solution in the Golan,
wants a better relationship with the United States, wants to move
forward, and I'll leave it at that.
QUESTION: Can you tell us which groups were closed, did he tell you or
give you a list of them?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We were talking as a general
proposition, and I specifically mentioned three: Hamas, PIJ, PFLP-GC.
QUESTION:  (inaudible)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We didn't go one by one, those were
the ones I listed, and to make sure there was no mistake, I said, and
others who do similar things.
QUESTION: When you were in Beirut, you brought up for the first time
the question of (inaudible) forces in Lebanon, presumably referring to
the Syrian military presence. How big a part did that play in the
talks in Syria, where do we stand on that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I should have mentioned that, I'm
sorry. As part of the discussion that I had with them, I also talked
about continuing withdrawal of their forces from Lebanon under the
Tais (sp) Accord, and as I said in Lebanon and also raised with the
Lebanese leaders, we'd like to see the strengthening of Lebanese
forces in the southern part of Lebanon. We also talked about Hezbollah
and the supply of Hezbollah. Keep asking me, I'll think of more. It
was three hours.
QUESTION:  (inaudible)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, there was no immediate response
to that. They, well, they're going to be continuing, they've been
withdrawing, and they want to continue to move in that direction but
at a pace that they'll have to pick because they have such strategic
issues. If you look at the map, you know what concerns them.
QUESTION: When the President said these offices, did he directly say
these offices were closed? Did he use that kind of language? And did
he leave you with the impression that this was something he wanted to
make permanent?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: We were talking permanence, and he,
we were, some of them had already been announced earlier in the week,
and I think that's a question that was asked in Beirut, that they had
announced earlier, that some were closed, that they were closing some.
I wanted to make sure that what he was talking about, and what he's
talking about in the future, is a permanent closure and not a
reincarnation three days later with another name and another location.
An office in an apartment is still an office. It got that clear and
direct. So we would only view these as closed if the closures are
permanent. But there are other ways to ensure permanence of closure
and we suggested some other ways.
QUESTION: It sounds like you achieved some kind of a breakthrough
today, with the Syrians. Would you go so far as to characterize it as
that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I always avoid these one word
characterizations of complex, intense discussions and negotiations. I
think we made some progress, let me say that. The things I have said
to you about closures and keeping off screens and things like that, he
knows that would be something that would become public. But other
things that might happen in the future, we'll just have to wait and
see if they happen. You'll recall that once before he gave me
assurances on some things that would happen that did not happen. So he
knows that we have expectations and we'll be waiting to hear from
them.
This was in the form of, these are the things that make it difficult
for us to have a good relationship going forward, coming out of this
difficult past. You start to work on these and deal with these, we can
work with you and we can help you. We believe we can be especially
helpful now that you have to create a new relationship trading,
political, economic, oil relationship with your neighbors in Iraq.
QUESTION: A number of US officials have, over the last few weeks in
particular, questioned Asad's judgment. Why would he do these sorts of
things when the die was cast? What impression did you get from talking
with him today about his quality of judgment, his ability to lead this
country into a different direction?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He understands the issues, and I
think he understands the seriousness now with which we regard these
issues. I don't want to suggest that I got perfect insight into the
decision-making process or what judgments he might make. He shared his
views, but other than the items I mentioned, we're waiting to hear
what else he's going to do on the whole range of issues that I gave
you. So we'll have to wait and measure his judgment and evaluate his
judgment at a later time. But he seemed on top of his brief,
knowledgeable, pretty much the gentleman I've met on two occasions
previously. In the smaller meeting, the only one in the room with him
was the Foreign Minister.
QUESTION: (inaudible)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He's the President of the country.
What his individual authority is or how they operate is a collective,
I'm not prepared to tell you. You can read lots of papers on this
subject, and read many intelligence analyses of the subject, and still
not come up with a clear answer. I'm not going to try to divine it,
I'm going to try to evaluate it as I see it. We will know soon enough.
QUESTION: Did President Asad talk at all about the UN resolution that
was brought forward Friday, and do you think they were serious with
that or was that a ploy?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: He didn't raise that. You mean on
weapons of mass destruction? I told him that our policy has been for a
long time, no weapons of mass destruction. And I told him that remains
our policy, but because of the delicate time that we are in right now,
I didn't think it would be useful for us to divert time, energy and UN
attention to a resolution. He heard me, the Foreign Minister heard me,
cause I was looking at him at the time I said it, and that's where it
ended.
We spoke, he heard everything in English and didn't need any
translation, and then when he spoke back, he would occasionally break
into English when he was too impatient to wait for an interpretation,
he'd speak in English. Pretty good. But for the most part, in order to
make sure his meaning was clear, he used an interpreter most of the
time.
QUESTION: Did he address at all the US allegations about their
chemical weapons program, did you bring that up and did he address it?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I brought it up, I told him we had
evidence and indications, and he did not acknowledge that they have
such programs, they had previously denied it, but we're pretty sure of
our evidence.
QUESTION:  (inaudible)
Senior: I don't remember a specific, I told him that we had the
greatest concerns about these kinds of programs, and he noted it. We
didn't go much beyond that, we were essentially at that point
exchanging talking points on that issue.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, when you've talked about materials going
over across the border between Iraq and Syria, are you talking about
the goggles and that stuff, or are you talking about some allegations
about possible weapons, chemical or weapons of mass destruction from
Iraq going to Syria?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Two points: I was talking about
anything that was going back and forth during the course of the
conflict that would have put our soldiers at risk, and what an
impression and am impact that had on us. And I used a specific
example, we had certain knowledge of a kind of vehicle, and we were
watching them very carefully, and I said I couldn't imagine why you
would allow that to happen. He gave some, didn't acknowledge that it
did, and we got into a runaround on that.
With respect to a discussion of weapons of mass destruction, someone
else's going into Syria, his view is that it didn't happen and it
wouldn't make sense for them to do that. And they've said that before.
QUESTION:  How long have these offices been closed?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I've got to wait and make sure they
have been closed, I'm just reporting what he said. We will now
monitor, and I made it clear to him that what we're looking at is
performance. We will know what has been closed and whether people are
doing things or not doing anything. That will be an indication of
whether there's seriousness behind his action or not, and that will be
taken into account.
QUESTION: US News & World Report is reporting Monday, tomorrow, that
you wrote a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, saying that some of the
detentions of noncombatants in Guantanamo Bay is illegal. Is that
true?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. To that specific question. Have
we exchanged letters on the detentions in Guantanamo Bay, yes. Have we
had recent meetings on it, yes. But I don't think I've ever said
anything like that because I don't think that's the case. They are
there in a legal status. The question is, how do we resolve their
status over time? And that's an ongoing process. I don't know, I don't
think I've ever used such, I think I'm a little more careful than
that.
QUESTION:  Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)