Exclusive: Syrian VP Al Shara On Iraq

Read The Full Text Of Elizabeth Palmer's Interview With Farouk Al Shara

(CBS)  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.

[notblue]

How many people really believe this guy? It's like interogating a teenager, he answers questions with questions and makes false denials.

[karlimhof]

Watched interview BBC with DAVID SATTERFIELD, Condi's State undersec for Middle East:

he flatly refused any discussion with either iran or sryria: And this joker was involved in the Pentagon mole case (US vs. AIPAC/Franklin)

In the indictment: U.S. v. Lawrence Anthony Franklin, Steven J. Rosen, Keith Weissman, USGO-2 is mentioned, and in a New York Times article: David Satterfield, deputy chief of the United States Mission in Baghdad, is identified as USGO-2. In early 2002, Satterfield discussed secret national security matters in two meetings with Steven J. Rosen. The meetings, on January 18, 2002, and March 12, 2002, were confirmed by classified documents. The indictment, however, did not accuse Satterfield of any wrongdoing.

So this neocon got away - scott free and selling us out to AIPAC/israel. Believe it, this neocon cancer is malignant.

[bluestardad]

For the past 50 years the west has been trying to impose its perception of democracy and government on the Middle East. This has cost a tremendous price in money, blood, and hardship on all sides. Diplomacy with honor is the only thing that will quell the fighting and bring all parties into agreement and peace. The American people have spoken on November 7, 2006 and demand that our elected officials pull our troops out of Iraq and start negotiations with all countries in the region on an equal basis. This Rovian Sound Bite that disagreement with the Presidents policies in the Middle East provides aid and comfort to the enemy is preposterous and rejected by the American people. First off the President and his Rovian Neocons Chicken Hawks who got us into this war don%u2019t know who the enemy is. Nor can they define the enemy we are fighting now! Is the enemy the Saudi back Sunnis or the Iranian backed Shiites that have been our friends for 20 years, could it possibly be the hold outs from the old Saddam regime or maybe just anyone who disagrees with President Bush?

[bluestardad]

don't engage the distractors on this blog it is a good topic and should evolve some cognitive discussions if permitted.

[skyhawk761]

liebermen18, I thought you have said we FOUND WMD in Iraq, now your saying they're in Syria or Iran? You truly are a Bush puppet, just change the story and to hell with facts! Heck maybe they're in N. Korea and we can invade them after Syria and Iran. All hail King George and the new Empire!

[antoniof123]

Our congress is being run by a bunch of morons maybe this last election will change somethings but in the end they are still at war with the Soviet Union. Instead of making friends we are still trying to go it alone the world is to small for that kind of thinking. If someone believes they way the do fine as long as they do not try to force others to believe then you take a stand. You do not invade a country that is not harming you in any way and if you knew that and liked Libby may prove it then I believe it is time for a real change. Daddy may not be able to help you out of this mess.

[lieberman18]

bomb the border camps in both Iran and Syria - in the latter case, it'll make this war criminal and liar Al Shara take notice.

And maybe baby Assad too.

[lieberman18]

Because we do not interfere in the internal matters of Iraq.

Just like you haven't interfered in the internal matters of Lebanon. Just killed anyone who dares not to toe the Assad-Hizbullah line, that's all.

This guy has lied for years. Hopefully quite soon he will grace a gallows ala Saddam.

[lieberman18]

Once we take care of Iran, hopefully the Israelis will have elected Netanyahu, and he can take care of Syria permanently.

And ensure Lebanon remains a Western Democracy, not a Raghead Fascist state governed by Sh*tria.

Oh, by the way, bluestarclown and the rest of the Lib surrender monkeys and Bush-haters, what happens if Israeli troops on the way to Damascus come across Saddam's WMDs? Remember, thanks to your Vichyite French Fascist friends and the U.N., he had over three months to move them to either Syria or Iran...just in case you forgot.

[bluestardad]

Talk don't shoot! Shooter go hunting Bush go to your room! Condi Go back to Alien Space Craft!
Let someone else talk to Iran and Syria that has some credibility and will get America out of the mess you guys have gotten us in!