 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
The Speech of
President Bashar al-Assad
President of the Syrian Arab Republic
at
The Syrian Expatriates’ Conference
Umayyad Conference Palace
9 October 2004
Honourable sons and daughters of Syria,
I welcome you today in you country which reciprocates the feelings of happiness and satisfaction for the warmth of this meeting and the hope that it will usher a strong and solid relationship between you and your home country, for your benefit and for the benefit of your countrymen and women. I welcome you today as the good sons and daughters of Syria. You carry its fragrance wherever you go, and plant its values and ethics which grow and bear the fruit of acts of giving, friendship and peace; and I welcome you as people who belong to this ancient Arab civilization which has lasted for thousands of years, because it was built on coexistence, love and friendship, not hatred and division.
I also welcome you as citizens of other countries in which you chose to live. You were loyal to these countries in your work, creativity and professionalism, without finding any contradiction between your pride in the roots that have never left you and your loyalty to the countries that you decided not to leave. In this behaviour too, you were loyal to the values of Syria that finds in coexistence an advantage and a source of wealth for all, and in the interaction between religions, cultures and peoples creative sources of human energy, and different aspects of civilizational prosperity.
Your initiative today and your participation in this conference, despite your many preoccupations, is a spontaneous expression of the importance of your role in your home country and in the country that you chose to belong to. Human civilization today needs people like you, who have the ability to assimilate the cultural, and political dimensions of contemporary societies, because of the richness of their makeup and expertise and their knowledge of the expertise and experiments of other peoples. Achieving this construction has not been easy. Your fathers and grandfathers paid for it: they suffered the hardship of travel, the pain of separation from their home country and longing for it in order to put you on the map of the countries that you belong to. Therefore, its our collective right and duty to invest in this heritage bequeathed to us by our grandparents, to be proud of their achievements and build on the foundations they laid since they were messengers of human communication and civilizational interaction.
Syria, whose roots go deep into history, has felt safe and secure seeing her children off and welcoming them back, because she saw herself, once more, a constructive part of this universe. She has believed that the fate of the whole humanity is in one boat whose shape or colour might differ from one country to another, while factors of survival and danger do not. Despite all the aggressions Syria has suffered, she stuck to her values and sacrificed for them because she learnt from her long experience, which spans thousands of years, that peoples’ wills and the values of right and justice, embodied by peoples perseverance will triumph in the end.
We are very proud to see, wherever we go, Syria’s children embodying these values and enjoying good reputations, adapting to the societies they have chosen, and becoming in many cases a valued treasure for these societies. They have never isolated themselves; they inter-married, interacted and expressed love and devotion to their new countries, and pride in the Arab civilizational heritage they belong to. Through all this, Syrians everywhere have expressed an important and clear fact: that they belong to one country called the world.
This picture that you have embodied throughout the expatriate history is a picture full of human values and ethics. Many cultures and peoples, no doubt, share these values with us in an expression of the unity of human civilization, and make clear that conflict does not happen between one civilization and another. It happens between civilization and non-civilization, between moral values and the lack of moral values, in the same way that it happens between good and evil. But this honourable and human picture is at odds with the very dangerous international circumstances, not only in our region, but in the whole world. These circumstances have become a threat to civilization, to history, to values and to human beings. Makers and promoters of terrorism are theorizing for combating it; and those who are trying to defend themselves and their peoples are accused of it.
So, we have nowadays a state of chaos consisting of wrong concepts and false terms that increase division among cultures and prepare for more wars and bloodshed, while international organizations which were established for the good of the world and for the establishment of peace and justice in it are being turned into arms of superpowers at the expense of small countries’ interests, becoming instruments for intervention in the domestic or bilateral affairs of these countries, thus violating every principle, logic and international law.
Through this picture, resolution 1559 was passed by the Security Council, although the mere fact that the draft resolution was brought before the Council surprised many. If Syria is well known for her continuous support of the United Nations and its organizations, this does not mean that we do not criticize mistakes when they are made, particularly the double standards used in dealing with these resolutions, or passing resolutions outside the jurisdiction of the bodies that pass them, or violating the UN Charter itself. The last resolution was such a measure that was portrayed as to have been passed in order to protect the independence of Lebanon on the backdrop of a ‘violation’ of the Lebanese constitution. That was how it was portrayed. In real fact, the resolution has absolutely nothing to do with either point. It did not come, as some people believed as a result of the extension of President Lahhoud’s term in office. The resolution, in content, had been ready for some time; and it aims at achieving different objectives very far from what has been proposed as masks to camouflage the real objectives. Foremost among these real objectives is the internationalization of the internal situation in Lebanon, which means a return to the atmosphere of the 1980s and a strike at the Syrian Lebanese relationship based on a blend of the two societies and on historical and geographic ties. This relationship has never given in to challenges thanks to the strong relationship between the two peoples and the joint sacrifices they both offered at different stages.
In the weeks preceding and following the adoption of this resolution, there were several question marks concerning the circumstances of its adoption, its aims, the way we dealt with it and the plans of the states which stood behind it. Many people oversimplified the issue and thought that the stakes were either to refuse the extension of the mandate of President Lahhoud or to have this resolution adopted. This was not the true picture. In fact, the terms of the present resolution, not the draft resolution, had nothing to do with the issue of the extension.
For example, the article concerning the militias - the draft resolution mentioned Hizbullah or the resistance. What has this to do with the subject of the extension? Similarly, the reference to the Lebanese army and the spread of its control over Lebanese territory had nothing to do with the subject of the extension.
In fact, we received reports a few months before the adoption of this resolution that something was being cooked in the Security Council about Syria and Lebanon. At first, we believed those reports to be rumours. We usually check the information we receive, but we did not have clear information, so we believed that they were rumours.
Later, the question of the Presidency was raised. Syria announced that it will not interfere. I personally made this declaration in a press interview. Later, we informed many Lebanese officials of this position, including, of course, President Lahhoud himself, since he is directly concerned with this. We were surprised later that the attack on the extension continued; and it continued on President Lahhoud and Syria. Work continued feverishly at the Security Council to issue some sort of resolution against Syria.
With time, the details became clear. The most important thing was that the question of the Presidency of Lebanon was nothing but a title for this resolution, whose contents had nothing to do with the presidency. I say the Presidency, not the extension, because in November it could be extension and could be change.
It thus became clear that the scheme, or the scenario was divided into two stages. The first concerned the extension, which was the weak possibility, followed by the question of the Presidency due in November. Within the same framework there were other details with the same aim. There are so many details; and you have many questions. I will only mention some highlights as titles. The details will be revealed for all in due course, and in a suitable manner.
The questions raised included ‘violation of the constitution’. How can such violation take place when constitutions throughout the world can be amended? Everywhere, there are provisions defining the mechanism of amending constitutionals. We are not convinced that they were ignorant of the simplest principles of law in the world. Sometimes they spoke against the extension in public speeches. If they were against the extension as a principle; then why did the same countries and the same individuals agree to the extension in 1995, while they oppose it today, although it concerns the same article. So, it is not a matter of principle or the attitude would not have changed within nine years. On the other hand, if it was a matter of a certain individual, namely the President, this can only be seen as a flagrant intervention in the internal affairs of Lebanon.
They speak about their objectives, or one of their objectives, namely protecting Lebanon from outside intervention, as they claim. If they were against an individual or a principle, both cases constitute a flagrant intervention in Lebanon’s affairs. They spoke about their concern for Lebanon, and that whatever they are doing, it is based on their concern for Lebanon. The question which arises here is this: What have these forces offered to Lebanon throughout the past decades, when Lebanon was in crisis? The West offered two things: in 1975, a Western country offered a ship to the Lebanese Christians to migrate from Lebanon, and in 1990 another country offered an aircraft carrier to support an insurgent group against the legitimate authority in Lebanon. This is all they offered. It is now for us to ask, where was this concern for Lebanon's welfare since the beginning of the civil war, when Syria entered Lebanon in 1976 to protect the Lebanese Christians from massacres? The massacres were about to be completed within two weeks in the name of reforming the political system, justice, socialism and progress. Where were they at that time. Imagine that reforming the political system required massacring half the population? Who would remain if they wanted to reform the whole society? Nobody! It would have been a reform without a people! At that time, President Hafez aI-Assad was asked to delay entering Lebanon for just two weeks. Of course, he refused. I say he was ‘asked’, and I am using the passive voice. In linguistic terms the subject is not known, but in diplomatic terms the subject is well-known.
If we take other crises, where were they during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian victims were being massacred? Syria lost thousands of martyrs within a few weeks, not months. They probably denounced from afar; and some of today's tigers in Lebanon used to spray the Israeli forces with rice. Where were they during the Israeli occupation from 1987 till the Israeli withdrawal from most Lebanese lands in 2000? They were non-existent. Now we suddenly see concern for Lebanon, its independence, democracy and everything else.
Now they speak about ‘Syrian hegemony’. When a state wants to impose hegemony, it must have goals, implicit or explicit. Why should Syria dominate Lebanon? Did we ask for money? Were there any subterranean resources? Is there any oil? Have we taken electricity? Have we taken water? We have taken nothing from Lebanon. We have offered blood. If we aimed at domination, why have we started a phased withdrawal of our forces five years ago, including the recent withdrawal? Why should we dominate Lebanon if domination meant weakening it? A weak Lebanon is harmful to Syria, and Syria's weakness is similarly detrimental to Lebanon. There is no logic in this, and Syria has no interest in dominating Lebanon. In the end we ask a simple question: what is the aim of this resolution? Where are they taking this region with such resolutions regardless of the real or imaginary goals? The region was on the edge of a volcano, and now the whole Middle East is in the heart of the volcano. Relatively speaking, Syria and Lebanon are the most stable states in this region, despite all these conditions. Do they want to throw the whole region into the lava of the volcano? Haven't we learned from September 11? Haven't we learned from the war on Iraq? Hasn't the world learned? We have learnt many lessons during the past few decades. The others do not seem to have learned that when a volcano erupts, the lava will hit those near and far, the strong as well as the weak. I think it is time to learn these lessons.
Therefore, we are fully convinced that Syria’s responsibility towards Lebanon and Lebanon’s responsibility towards Syria will hold despite all circumstances, and will be supported by history, geography, God’s will and the blessing of the two peoples.
Since we make history and geography a point of departure, it is only natural for us to talk about our eastern borders, about Iraq, with which we are connected with blood relations, brotherhood and common history. All Iraqis know that we strongly opposed aggression against Iraq, and will still oppose its occupation. We saw at the time that preparing for war on Iraq is driving the region and the whole world into the unknown. Successive events in Iraq, and the killing and destructions these events have produced, have shown the size of the debacle and the ignorance of how to get out of it. This opens the doors for all possibilities. It has become difficult to foresee any possibility. The least that can be said about the outcome of these events is that it is catastrophic.
We stress today that we are doing our best in order to preserve Iraq’s unity with a view to regaining its full sovereignty. This requires a constitution that expresses the will and aspirations of the Iraqi people, and withdrawal of foreign forces from its territories.
Concerning the Middle East peace process, it has been at a standstill, as you know, for several years as a result of Israel’s rejection to resume negotiation, its continued occupation of Arab lands, and aggression against the Palestinian people, and also as a result of international powers not honouring their commitments towards the peace process and their lack of seriousness in implementing international legitimacy resolutions when it comes to Israel.
We have stressed our clear position towards the peace process on different occasions, and stressed our serious desire to achieve just peace in accordance with United Nations resolutions and the land for peace principle. But, instead of the peace promises that the people of the region are looking forward to, the region lives in a state of despair and social congestion as a result of the hegemony exercised by Israel over the Arab people without any deterrent. Israel is taking advantage of the current wave of fighting terrorism to settle accounts with the live powers defending their rights and dignities, by practicing state terrorism expressed by dredging land, uprooting human beings and assassinating a whole unarmed people. It is regrettable, once again, that the United Nations was unable to pass a resolution condemning these Israeli crimes because of the unlimited American support to Israel.
Concerning the partnership with the European Union, Syria has arrived at an understanding for completing the Association Agreement after overcoming the obstacles that hindered it, particularly concerning mass destruction weapons. Last month we reached a common formula that is in line with our position on non-proliferation, in the framework of our joint goal of making the Middle East free of mass destruction weapons. There were negotiations between Syria and a European Union delegation. We now believe that the above mentioned formula has been distributed to the EU member states; and we are waiting for their approval, unless there are sudden changes as was the case concerning the same negotiations at the beginning of this year.
Dear brothers and sisters,
We have started work in recent years on completing an ambitious reform plan through which we hope to overcome weaknesses in our institutions and the inability of our performance to meet the increasing needs of the citizens and to adapt to the accelerating global changes around us on the economic, scientific and services level. This development process implies conducting a comprehensive review of our plans and methods and an assessment of what has been achieved. It also aims at drawing an integrated vision of what we should achieve in the future, whether in developing laws, reforming the administrative system, activating the tax system, or upgrading the banking systems so that they play their role in this reform process. It aims at developing our productive sectors in the fields of industry and agriculture, overcoming red tape and technical problems that hinder their performance, and addressing the condition of the workforce in Syria, improving its quality and finding job opportunities for the young entrants into the labour market. We have also been working on an assessment of our political institutions and widening the framework of participation through giving citizens more opportunities to contribute to forming the future of the country.
As you can see, the volume of what we have to do is huge, the burden is heavy and the cost is high; particularly that we are keen on achieving that within the framework of our national independence and the consolidation of our inner front, our efforts to improve living conditions and provide conditions of social justice which is the foundation of our social and political stability. This means that this reform process does not happen without difficulties and obstacles.
Some of these obstacles are subjective, or related to the mentality that controls our performance, our social behaviour, our difficulty to cope with new facts, lack of the expertise necessary for development in some areas, understanding global developments and trends and their impact on our domestic conditions, in addition to the lack of methodological work, lack of responsibility that manifests itself in individuals and institutions, a lukewarm attitude towards the values of work and production. All these things make reform plans susceptible to a great deal of confusion.
This is a very important subject for expatriates, since you are here out of keenness for the welfare of your home country and to participate in the development process. Your role is very important. We have been talking about development for several years. We have achieved some steps, but many others are still to be carried out. More often than not, we rotate within a vicious circle of theorization without tangible results. The reason is sometimes the absence of methodology in thinking about the development process. On several previous occasions, in press interviews and speeches, I addressed aspects of the development process. I do not intend to address it here because it is a large issue. However, I want to touch upon one aspect since we are talking about subjective factors and obstacles. I say that if we want to achieve development or something thereof, the bottom line is to have some knowledge of the factors of development requirements at our disposal. We cannot simply use ‘Development’ as a title. We want development, and it is not forthcoming. What is this development? What are the requirements of this development? We do not pay enough attention to details. But details are important. For example, we say that in Syria we have specialists who carry high degrees in various disciplines. This is true, but a degree is not enough. We need experience and qualification. This is also good, because a degree holder with experience and qualification can carry out his daily work in the best way. However, this does not mean that he develops. In many cases, we are in need of a vision for development in various fields. If we do not have this vision, all the other elements will not be enough. We need contact with a vision of development in the advanced world, in order not to make this process move in a direction different from world trends in general. We need to start where others have finished. Otherwise, we would never be able to keep abreast with the rest of the world. So, we must have all the elements at our disposal. Then there is a very important base for this process, without which we could never dream of achieving development. Development is the culture of work. The lack of this culture and of the love of work must be remedied in ourselves. Otherwise, it would be difficult to talk about any achievement in the future.
We have talked much about mentality. We speak about the mentality of the government employee and the government official, but the subject is larger than this. It is about how to deal with things, how to react, how to view things, from what perspective, how to analyze, how to conclude. Sometimes, we have the mentality of running away from the problem instead of solving it.
A question is often asked by expatriates. I have heard it many times, namely, why do we enact legislation if they will not be implemented? In fact, the question should be why do we not implement the legislation when they are passed. The first case is running away from the solution, while the second case is finding a solution for the problem. We also talk about time. Some people do not appreciate the value of time. This is part of our nature in the Middle East or in the developing countries. There are also those who appreciate time but in the wrong way. Time has many elements, but it cannot jump over the objective conditions of any country. I always give the example that we cannot move very quickly in a very old car, or very quickly in a new car if the road is not paved. Time is not the first element. It is rather the last element. We must define all the other elements or factors required to set up a timetable, to define the stages in a logical sequence. Sometimes, we put the pyramid upside down. I am just giving simple examples. If we wanted to go from Damascus to Aleppo, we must first go through Damascus countryside, Homs, Hama, Idlib. We cannot go to Idlib first then come back to the other provinces. We have to identify the elements first, then the stages, then we talk about time. If there is somebody who wants to achieve a project, the first thing he defines is where to obtain funding, and are there building materials? Then what about qualifying personnel? When he is sure that all these elements are ready for the project he would set up a timetable. Setting up a timetable without securing the elements is a mere waste of time.
Therefore, I go back to the first idea. When we speak about development, we must discuss the elements at our disposal. I believe that in this conference, through the presence of Syrian expatriates, we can benefit a great deal from the observations, ideas and any other thing in this meeting.
Some obstacles are objective, however, or related to the complicated conditions we work under and the political and cultural events and developments which put pressure on developing countries and impose a coercive logic on movement and initiative, which makes them unable to act in a proactive manner and in a way tied to their local conditions and capabilities.
This is abundantly clear in the difficult challenges we face that threaten our existence and our identity as a result of the stormy events in our region in recent years which deprived it of its stability and balance and prepared it for tough possibilities for which citizens pay dearly in their security and dignity.
But despite these obstacles, we have the will and determination to overcome them and achieve what we want to achieve. We have made a number of steps on the road to reform. We have passed a large number of laws that affect a wide scope of financial, monetary, productive and services areas, and which allow for achieving more openness, make things easier for productive people and promote investment. We have started a plan for restructuring salaries and wages, amending work and commerce systems, and reforming the administrative, financial and judicial systems. We still have so many things to do. And there is no doubt that the large expansion of the development process increases the possibilities of having gaps in what has been achieved that should be avoided in the future.
In this reform process, you have a supportive role through your expertise and capabilities, visions and ideas that you have accumulated through your exposure to the work, experiences, and cultures of other peoples, and based on the efforts you have made to become the people you are and in order to prove yourselves.
Expatriates have a point of strength not available to others. They have absorbed two cultures and experiences and integrated into two cultures and experiences. They know the strengths of each one and can make comparisons. Comparison is very important. It enables expatriates to say to both countries which experience is better, and where the errors lie. Herein lies the importance of this conference and this contact with expatriates.
Many Syrian expatriates have presented ideas and initiatives in order to serve their country and contribute to its development. Some of them have implemented these ideas directly driven by their loyalty to their country. But these initiatives remained individual ones because of the lack of an institutional structure that organizes them and draws a framework for them. Hence the idea to create the Ministry of Expatriates in order to organize the relationship between expatriates and their home country and the relationship between expatriates in their different expatriate countries, and in order to transform individual work into collective work. In this way we can achieve the desired results through pooling efforts and capabilities in order to improve performance in Syria.
Thus, immigration should not bee seen as a drain of the country. It might turn into an effective power if we achieve the required connection with expatriates and prepare the appropriate conditions for them to express their loyalty to their home country in an effective manner and to be ambassadors for their country, people and civilization through the positive and realistic image they project.
We often repeat the phrase, brain drain, as if what goes out will never come back. In fact, the problem is the lack of continuous contact, not immigration itself. If contact is maintained, the loss will be turned into equilibrium through gain. If we have good contact, loss will become gain. This is what we endeavour to achieve in our relationship with expatriates.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Your important role in achieving cultural interaction with other peoples through your wide geographic spread and your openness to others is the practical response to the theory of the clash of civilizations promoted by some narrow-minded people, particularly at this stage when the communications revolution has changed many concepts and allowed for cultures to know each other. But at the same time, these advanced technologies have been misused in order to distort many facts in the world. Nevertheless, the images that people see on the ground remain more effective and more credible. This gives you a great responsibility; and this responsibility grows even larger with the development of technology and the distortion of facts.
Brothers and sisters,
For your own sake, for the sake of the genuine values we believe in, keep in touch with your home country, with your relatives, with your friends, encourage communications between your children and children in the home country. Communicate with other Arabs, with all people. Organize yourselves in organizations that express you and your culture and interests. I want you to excel and integrate and to be loyal to the countries you are living in and to your home country. These are the elements of your success and our success.
Convey my greetings and love to our brothers and sisters in expatriate countries. I wish you continued progress and prosperity.
|