Exclusive: Syrian VP Al Shara On Iraq

The complete transcript of Elizabeth Palmer's exclusive interview with Syrian Vice President Farouk al Shara. Click here for Palmer's report on the CBS Evening News and here to read her account of difficulties with the Syrian government in obtaining the interview.

Elizabeth Palmer: Let's begin by talking about the refugees as we did last time. How many do you think are here and how many more can Syria take before you really feel the strain?

Farouk al Shara: This is a good question; how many more we can take? We can't take more because the 1 million Iraqis who are living here now and have taken Syria as a sanctuary or a refuge, running away from fighting, is a big number.

EP: What will you do, because the fighting doesn't look like it is stopping?

FS: Well, we have already started to contact the United Nations agencies, Europeans, European Union Commission, some international humanitarian organizations. They must do something about this because, you know, we have one million Iraqi refugees here. We have half a million Palestinian refugees since (UN resolution) 1440, 15 years, and during the war on Lebanon we also had hundreds of thousands of Lebanese who came for a month or two and most of them went back to Lebanon. We also have half a million uprooted from the Golan… from the Syrian Golan Heights. They live in Damascus, around Damascus, some of them around in (inaudible), but yet, I mean their homes are under occupation in the Golan Heights.

EP: You've got trouble on all sides, haven't you Mr. vice president? You have got a war in Iraq, you've got serious disturbances threatening in Lebanon, Gaza appears to be a mess with the Palestinians are no closer to peace talks, and you, you are like the sink where it all drains, aren't you?

FS: Yes, it is not an easy position. That is why we are under heavy pressure. Heavy pressure from the region and particular pressure from the United States. The United States doesn't understand the burden that we shoulder, because, partly because of its policies, its wrong policies. If you take, for instance, the issue of Palestine, 40-50 years have elapsed without a solution, and the major player in this conflict, Arab-Israel conflict, is the United States. I mean if the United States doesn't come up with a solution or with a plan, or to be an honest broker, then you cannot reach peace in the Middle East. And the same now with Iraq, not to mention the clashes that take place from time to time in Lebanon.

EP: I was told that the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, had wanted to come to Damascus on her Middle East trip a couple of weeks ago, but crossed it off at the last minute. Did you hear of that?

FS: No not really, but though it's not a something of a surprise if she comes because her colleagues before she had this assignment, all of them came to Damascus. Colin Powell came to Damascus before the war on Iraq, he came to Damascus after the war on Iraq. Christopher Warren, Warren Christopher, Marilyn Albright, Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, all of them came to Damascus. Even Scholtz came to Damascus. No secretary of state, U.S. secretary of state who hasn't visited Damascus.

EP: She is the only one?

FS: She's the only one.

EP: She says she doesn't want regime change here, she wants the regime to change its behavior.

FS: If she doesn't know Syria, if she hasn't come to Syria yet, if she, this is my personal assessment, she doesn't know much about Syria because her past knowledge focused on the former Soviet Union, East Europe and some other countries but not Syria and the Middle East.

EP: Why should she come to Syria?

FS: To know what's going on. To exchange views. I mean coming to Syria is not a concession. Coming to Syria is an added value to the knowledge that you have.

EP: With, in the Iraq file specifically, what could you offer the United States if they decided to engage in direct talks with you?

FS: It's wrong to say that we have to offer, but I'm sure that any dialogue between any two people or two countries or two governments would produce something positive, or at least, if it doesn't produce anything, it makes you more aware of the concern of that country, and the difficulties that are facing you and that country. So in the next step you are well informed that these difficulties can be listed as follows and then it is easier for you to solve the problem, or to make the dialogue succeed.

EP: The United States would say now look, we already know everything about the Iraq war, we are their on the ground, we have a lot of military intelligence, we have diplomats throughout the region, we know what we need to know, we don't have to come to Syria to get better informed. There has to be a harder reason.

FS: Some people accuse the United States of lack of knowledge, even on Iraq before the invasion on Iraq. Some people say that the administration didn't have a plan, a clear-cut plan to invade Iraq, and then what to do with Iraq after invasion? Even if you read Mr. Bremer's memoirs, he said something to that effect. He told President Bush he wanted something, he wanted a plan before he is instructed to leave to Iraq. And the president met with him and he gathered all of the top American officials, they didn't talk about what Bremer should do in Iraq after he leaves Washington. They just went out jogging. He just borrowed a plan from a private company, think tank company, and he went to Iraq. And he offered that plan to Rumsfeld in order to have an answer whether this is a right plan or not or to give an alternative. He didn't get an answer and he left for Iraq without any knowledge, without any official instruction on what to do, and you know he did a lot within one year, he did a lot. The Iraqi army is dismantled, the police force dismantled, I mean the country was turned upside down without a master plan. So why should the blame be put on us, on the Iraqis, on Bremer, on the administration, on the American people who do not know what their administration is doing? Then you as me it is not necessary for the American officials to know Syria or Iraq, to know Saudi Arabia to know rest of the region.

EP: Why is Syria in a good position to be the focus of dialogues between all of the fighting parties in Iraq?

FS: Because we did not interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq. We didn't take sides. We said from the beginning we are against from the invasion, but we are with the Iraqi people, with the sovereignty of Iraq, with a good government in Iraq. We have to see that Iraqi unity is preserved. Arab identity is also preserved, or maintained. Division of Iraq or partitioning of Iraq is a grave mistake. It will be counterproductive in all the region. So that's why all the Iraqis look at Syria for assistance. Some, of course, some acquisitions were directed against Syria but most of these acquisitions were not based on facts.

EP: As recently as, I think a week ago exactly, President Talibani was still asking Syria to stop terrorists from crossing the border from Syria into Iraq. Why haven't you done that yet?

FS: Why doesn't the United States do it? The United States is very strong in Iraq, apparently — 150,000 troops, all the technology, satellite, operation rooms in Qatar, in Baghdad in the Green area, in Washington, somewhere else in the United States, overseas. The United States is the largest, the most powerful sophisticated army. You ask Syria to stop insurgents; OK we will do what we can. But if the United States is unable to do more than Syria then this is a failure.

EP: We would say that you have a been playing up a double game because a couple years ago there were busloads of insurgents going from here was witnessed by the New York Times among others going quiet openly across the borders. There were fighters from all areas including Syria and off they went…

FS: You know, to be quiet frank with you, the United States, I mean the American administration, they don't do anything to help us stop the insurgents. If one politician or a writer has a sinister thinking, he would conclude that the United States wanted to keep talking about insurgents crossing the border to Iraq in order to justify the difficulties that the United States is facing inside Iraq. You have to put the blame on somebody, you can't blame it on the American people because the American people were not in favor of this war or perhaps other wars, and the American administration did not make a referendum to ask American people whether they want this war or not. Even the European Union, which is a partner, an ally to the United States, not all of them wanted this war. From the beginning they had there own reservations. The American troops went to Iraq on there own, without even calculating the difficulties, without expecting what they are going to confront inside Iraq. Again, I am referring to Bremer's memoirs. He is a simple man in my view, but what he has written is very deep.

EP: But why didn't you stop those buses? You could have done that then, you could have stopped the recruiting here in Damascus.

FS: We never recruited anyone. Not not-the Syrian government, not recruited anybody and sent to Iraq, for sure. But I am telling you the truth. No border is a 100 percent safe.

EP: But, lets go back…

FS: Neither the Syrian -Iraqi border, nor the American - Mexican -Canadian border…

EP: Fair enough…

FS: Or the Afghani-, for instance, Iranian border. I mean this is something to do with motive. People, some people, when they see there are American tanks in that country, they do anything to cross the border. They do anything. They even sacrifice their lives to cross the border to confront these tanks. This is, I mean if you read history, this is history. This step doesn't have to have assistance from any other people. It is personal, ideological motive. I give you a realistic example. The United States went to Iraq to find out whether there was mass destruction weapon. They didn't find that, and they said at one time they were after al Qaeda in Iraq. There was no Qaeda there. But now there is. Why? As though they attracted al Qaeda from Afghanistan, from Egypt, from Algeria, from Syria if there were any, from Lebanon, from Jordan, from Saudi Arabia definitely because they are the homeland of the al Qaeda, or used to be.

EP: If there was recruiting going on here then, and there was, then did you move to stop it?

FS: Of course. You know we never had relations with al Qaeda, even when they ruled in Afghanistan.

EP: I'm not talking about al Qaeda, I am talking about young men from the Arab countries who came here to fight.

FS: Then we come to the Baathists. You know we are two parties different from each other. I mean, unfortunately, for a long time the Baath party has two branches and they do not belong to one political structure. On the contrary, they used to clash with each other on ideological bases and even on Iraq-Syria confrontation. The Iraqi Baathist who have been armed before the war, you know, because that was the regime's… the, Saddam's regime's idea, they had the weapons with them when they were dismantled. Then, when the Americans came, they had to face these people, 3 or 4 million Baathists, armed people. They had an ideology and they are going to fight the Americans. Not all of them, of course — not all of them like Saddam. Not all of them like the Americans. Some of them hate Americans, some of them hate Saddam, but at least some of them would fight with the Americans. We have nothing to do with them. We didn't send them. There is no need to send anybody to Iraq, Iraq is a 25 million people.

EP: Do they come here, these Baathists?

FS: Now, those normally Iraqis who come here, you know sometimes you stamp the Iraqis as though they are one color, they are different colors. People run away from fighting and some other people cross the border in order to fight. I mean this is the nature of human being.

EP: Moufak al-Rubaie has said that Syria was harboring thousands, he said, of senior Baathists, Sunni insurgents and…

FS: This man talks nonsense. He doesn't know. Officially he has some tag that he is in charge of security but if you just read what President Bush says, and is still saying, the security is not the responsibility of the Iraqis. Now, this new strategic plan is to hand over some security business to the Iraqis, but not before. So, no man can claim that he knows the security of Iraq, no Iraqi government official can claim that.

EP: President Talibani said that he wanted you to hand over some members of the old regime here. Who is he asking for?

FS: You know now there is a very complicated picture. The scene in Iraq is a very sensitive one. There are government officials that would like to see old Iraqis come together in a broader spectrum of reconciliation. So the Baathists are a part of this spectrum, part of the reconciliation if they do believe in the political process. Some Iraqis who live in Syria would like to join the political process or at least President Talibani thinks this is a way to broaden the spectrum of the political process. So he imagines from the information that he has got that there are people that are ready to join the political process because Syria has been calling for Iraqis to join rank and file and to work for a particular political process that would end occupation eventually.

EP: I'm told specifically that there was a meeting of Baathists here, excluding the really old hardliners under al-Duri, and they met here just a few days ago. What can you tell me about that meeting?

FS: I don't know what you mean by hardline, you know?

EP: Well, what can you tell me about that meeting?

FS: I don't know anything about that meeting. But I want to know whether we have, I mean Syria and the United States, whether they have the same definition of hardliners.

EP: Probably not.

FS: Or extremism.

EP: Probably not.

FS: Syria is not a hardliner.

EP: Fair enough, in fact, exactly. This congress was everybody but the really old guard of Saddam and they came to meet here to join the political process, encouraged by Syria.

FS: If they are flexible, and if they really believe in the political process, believe in the unity of Iraq, believe that they must do everything to preserve the sovereignty of Iraq in order to allow the Americans an exit to give them an honorable exit, then why not? I mean, even if we don't ask them to come here, they will come here because they feel, they feel at ease in Syria.

EP: So let's come back to this conference, this meeting that people here have told us happened. What can you tell me about it?

FS: Nothing really. Nothing of substance.

EP: But it happened?

FS: Nothing of substance, except what you read through the Internet or some other press.

EP: Can you confirm that it happened?

FS: I cannot confirm anything.

EP: Will you deny that it happened?

FS: Well, I can't deny it, can't deny it as well.

EP: How easy is it going to be to unite the Arab resistance and lead them into political talks?

FS: It depends on the American policy, American strategy. This recent strategy that was announced by President Bush, it could be counterproductive.

EP: Sending the 20,000 troops.

FS: Yes, because more force, more violence, and violence breeds violence, especially in Iraq. Iraq is a history of violence. I don't know whether it would succeed or not, but I'm not certain that it will.

EP: If you have succeeded in creating various dialogue tables if you like, I know that Makhdad Asalsader was here just recently; Talibani came, the Baath party meeting here. It looks as if Syria is going to make itself indispensable to the United States, because this is where the diplomatic action will be taking place.

FS: We don't want to exaggerate our role, but it is important. It is significant. If you are serious about preserving the unity of Iraq, stability of Iraq, and at the same time pave the way of the success of the political process because the political process can go on and on and on, and elections can follow other elections and so forth, without any results. But if cooperation among a number of states, at least those who are significant in addressing the Iraqi issue, plus, of course, the United States, because it is a major player in this affair, then I think the solution is more attainable.

EP: If the United States did decide to engage directly and openly, would Syria then push for a larger set of discussions leading to what amounts to a Middle East peace plan?

FS: You know Syria is not naïve, and Syria is ready to work when its interests are preserved. Also Syria understands other peoples interest. We are here, not to confront, and to stand against other people's interests. If they are legitimate and if they know that Syria has an interest which have to be kept and maintained. So, it is a mutual understanding of common interests. If they are looked upon from one objective angle, then the perspective to have a just and global solution is possible.

EP: Let me ask you about one provocative person who is here, Mr. al-Jaboori who is running (inaudible) Television, which you may or may not have looked at…

FS: I heard of this name when he was very friendly with Americans.

EP: He's not now.

FS: I don't know.

EP: And, in fact, the Iraqis wanted him back…

FS: I don't about his present situation.

EP: He is here.

FS: I don't know

EP: I can tell you. If I can find him, you can tell me…

FS: You know better than me then. (chuckle)

EP: But is he one of the guys, I mean the Iraqi government wants him badly because they accuse him of having stolen a lot of money. The Americans don't like him because he runs a television channel that shows Americans being shot…

FS: Can I interrupt you and say one thing?

EP: Please, yes.

FS: You know the United States has invested a lot in Iraq, spent over $350 billion, to the best of my knowledge, from rumors and from some facts, which spread here in there and Iraq and inside Iraq and some officials. And Iraq say to some officials in other countries. Some Americans say that corruption is spreading in Iraq. And I think more than half of this big sum of money has been… has vanished. So if you talk about several millions, it's peanuts.

EP: But the Iraqis want him, and I suppose I'm thinking about President Talibani saying look, 'give us some of these guys,' he's an easy one to find, why don't you give him?

FS: He didn't ask for that.

EP: Who does he want?

FS: Well, and why should he ask for that? He might inquire about the man, if he is here, and what is he doing. And if there is a case against him, are we going to hand him over to Iraq? I mean this is a legal issue. If there is a legal issue we will respond.

EP: In the coverage of Talibani's visit, he was quoted as saying they asked for some guys, some criminals, some ex-regimes I think he said. Are these people you would consider giving to them?

FS: I'm not talking about individuals, I am talking about an issue, a broader issue to deal with parties, factions, sects, different opinions, larger, broader spectrum of Iraqis that they can make unified or a government of national unity. We do bother much about the fate of one person here and there. What is he doing? Is he against or pro American. We don't know. I mean, we are not going to waste our time for this. We are ready to utilize our time to help all the Iraqis have a stable country.

EP: Which is in your interest too?

FS: Yes, of course. I have already spoken about common interest mutual interests.

EP: Mr. vice president thank you.