SYRIA’S President Bashar al-Assad, speaking in Damascus on Monday, said: ‘The Geneva Conference should produce clear results with regard to the fight against terrorism in Syria’.
He made his remarks during an interview with Agence France Presse.
He added that the conference ‘In particular, needs to put pressure on countries that are exporting terrorism – by sending terrorists, money and weapons to terrorist organisations – especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and of course the Western countries that provide political cover for these terrorist organisations.
‘This is the most important decision or result that the Geneva Conference could produce.
‘Any political solution that is reached without fighting terrorism has no value.
‘There can be no political action when there is terrorism everywhere, not only in Syria but in neighbouring countries as well.
‘From the political side, it is possible for Geneva to contribute to a process of dialogue between Syrians.
‘There has to be a Syrian process within Syria and whilst Geneva could support this, it cannot be a substitute for it.’
He continued on whether he would stand again for the post of President. He said: ‘As far as I am concerned, I see no reason why I shouldn’t stand; as for Syrian public opinion, there is still around four months before the election date is announced.
‘If in that time, there is public desire and a public opinion in favour of my candidacy, I will not hesitate for a second to run for election. In short, we can say that the chances for my candidacy are significant.’
He also asserted that Syria was winning the war.
‘Fleeing is not an option in these circumstances. I must be at the forefront of those defending this country and this has been the case from day one. . .
‘This war is not mine to win; it’s our war as Syrians. I think this war has, if you will, two phases. The first phase, which took the form of plans drawn up at the beginning, was the overthrow of the Syrian state in a matter of weeks or months.
‘Now, three years on, we can safely say that this has failed, and that the Syrian people have won. There were countries that not only wanted to overthrow the state, but that also wanted to partition the country into several “mini-states”; of course this phase failed, and hence the win for the Syrian people.
‘The other phase of the battle is the fight against terrorism, which we are living on a daily basis.
‘As you know, this phase isn’t over yet, so we can’t talk about having won before we eliminate the terrorists. . . we are making progress, but have not yet achieved a victory.’
On the issue of foreign fighters Assad said: ‘Clearly the job of defending Syria is the responsibility of the Syrian people, the Syrian institutions, and in particular the Syrian Army.
‘So, there would be no reason for any non-Syrian fighters to get involved had there not been foreign fighters from dozens of countries attacking civilians and Hezbollah especially on the Syrian-Lebanese border.
‘When we talk about fighters leaving Syria, this would need to be part of a larger package that would see all the foreign fighters leave, and for all armed men – including Syrians – to hand over their weapons to the Syrian state, which would consequently achieve stability.
‘So naturally, yes, one element of the solution in Syria – I wouldn’t say the objective – is for all non-Syrian fighters to leave Syria.’
Assad continued: ‘It is clear to everyone that some of the groups, which might attend the conference, didn’t exist until very recently; in fact they were created during the crisis by foreign intelligence agencies whether in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the United States or other countries.
‘So when we sit down with these groups, we are in fact negotiating with those countries. So, is it logical that France should be a part of the Syrian solution? Or Qatar, or America, or Saudi Arabia, or Turkey? This doesn’t make any sense.
‘Therefore, when we negotiate with these parties, we’re in fact negotiating with the countries that are behind them and that support terrorism in Syria.
‘There are other opposition forces in Syria that have a national agenda; these are parties that we can negotiate with.
‘On the issue of the vision for Syria’s future, we are open for these parties to participate in governing the Syrian state, in the government and in other institutions. But as I mentioned earlier, anything that is agreed with any party, whether in Geneva or in Syria, must be subject to people’s endorsement, through a referendum put to Syrian citizens.’
On the issue of the ceasefire agreements that have been started in Moadimiya and Barzeh, Assad had the following to say: ‘The truth is that these initiatives may be more important than Geneva, because the majority of those fighting and carrying out terrorist operations on the ground have no political agenda.
‘Some of them have become professional armed robbers, and others, as you know, are takfiri organisations fighting for an extremist Islamic emirate and things of that kind.
‘Geneva means nothing for these groups. For this reason, the direct action and the models that have been achieved in Moadamiyeh, in Barzeh and other places in Syria has proven to be very effective.
‘But this is separate from the political process, which is about the political future of Syria.’
Assad also spoke about the composition of a future government, and whether there could be a prime minister from the opposition.
He said: ‘That depends on who this opposition represents. When it represents a majority, let’s say in parliament, naturally it should lead the government.
‘But to appoint a prime minister from the opposition without having a majority doesn’t make any political sense in any country in the world.
‘This will all depend on the next elections, which we discussed in the Syrian initiative; they will reveal the real size of support for the various opposition forces. As to participation as a principle, we support it, of course it is a good thing.’
He was asked: ‘Are you prepared to have, for example, Ahmed Jarba or Moaz Khatib, be your next prime minister?’
Assad responded: ‘This takes us back to the previous question. Do any of these people represent the Syrian people, or even a portion of the Syrian people? Do they even represent themselves, or are they just representatives of the states that created them?’
He continued: ‘The participation of each of these individuals means the participation of each of those states in the Syrian government.’
He continued: ‘In short, regardless of the labels you read in the Western media, we are now fighting one extremist terrorist group comprising of various factions.’
When asked ‘When will this war end?’, President Assad responded: ‘From our side, when this terrorism stops coming in, ending the war will not take more than a few months.’
When told: ‘It appears Western intelligence agencies want to re-open channels of communication with Damascus, in order to ask you for help fighting terrorism. Are you ready for that?’, he replied: ‘There have been meetings with several intelligence agencies from a number of countries.
‘Our response has been that security cooperation cannot be separated from political cooperation, and political cooperation cannot be achieved while these states adopt anti-Syrian policies. This was our answer, brief and clear.’
When asked: ‘After all that has happened, can you imagine another president rebuilding Syria?’, Assad responded: ‘If this is what the Syrian people want, I don’t have a problem with it. I am not the kind of person who clings to power. Should the Syrian people not want me to be president, obviously there will be somebody else. I don’t have a personal problem with this.’
