Global powers will keep pouring oil on the fire in Syria - Hezbollah

Ammar Al-Mussawi, the head of Hezbollah's International Relations

There is no compromise on Syria alone – the entire Middle East is at stake and all the world powers have their interests there, Hezbollah’s Ammar Al-Mussawi told SW.

Ammar Al-Mussawi, the head of Hezbollah's International Relations shared his views on the grounds for the Syrian conflict and the possible ways to settle it in an interview with RT’s Nadezhda Kevorkova. Hezbollah believes the Syrian crisis is not a revolution but a case of international intervention and a way to punish Syria for its support of the Palestinians. Its leadership says the conflict has a political solution only, even while all its players want a bitter military escalation.

Q: What is your assessment of the current situation in Syria?

AM: What we are seeing is the escalation of foreign involvement and it’s hard to accept that it’s all being done to protect human rights and democracy. What they have in store for Syria could cause chaos across the Middle East. Different forces have drawn radicals and extremists into the fight, they have been supporting and exploiting them. They assure their nations that they are fighting against terrorists while here they are working hand in hand with terrorists.

Q: What do you make of Russia’s stance on this difficult issue?

AM: We believe that Russia has taken a responsible stance and is acting in line with international law. There’ve been attempts to distort Russia’s position and make it look like it is pursuing its own selfish ends in Syria. We’ve been watching the developments in Syria for two years now and what we see is that Russia has stayed true to the key principles it announced. The main one is non-interference.

If those who promote the right to interfere get the upper hand, then they would be able to destroy any country and inflict pain on any nation. Russia was initially concerned with the escalation of violence. Now we see what this violence has led to. So Russia was right.

Q: What is your forecast for the conflict in Syria?

AM: The regime is still strong, but destructive consequences of the crisis have been felt throughout the country. We fear that violence can spill over beyond Syria. The longer the crisis, the more chaos we see, the more factors there are that make these clashes look legitimate. The conflict in Syria has gone beyond a simple domestic political dispute. You have the same tension in Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan. The Gulf countries will not remain safe havens in case this conflict will spill over. As we see it, the West wants to keep the situation in Lebanon stable so far to keep the spotlight on Syria. But sooner or later, violence may sweep across Lebanon.

Already today there are a total of 100,000 Syrian refugees in Lebabon and hundreds of rebels fighting for the Free Syrian Army. Some of them are armed, and the latest events in Tripoli prove my point. The Lebanese are divided over what’s happening in Syria. Some, like us, think it’s a conspiracy by the West that wants to intervene. Others believe it’s a revolution and their duty is to support it.

Q: Do you think there is a potential solution?

AM: We agree that the crisis cannot be resolved through force. A political solution is the only way forward. The communique adopted in Geneva was expected to become the platform for a transition period when such a solution could be found, no conditions are mentioned there. But the West said that Assad must go before it will be implemented. So at the moment we do not see any serious opportunities for a political solution.

It was possible to turn the tide before the conference of the so-called Friends of Syria. Now they have a chance to achieve what they want through the use of force. Those who reject talks have only one goal in mind – they want the conflict that has brought death and destruction to continue. Those who have accused the regime of killing Syrians seem to forget that they are supporting rebel fighters and are only adding fuel to fire. That’s why we believe they want to destroy the Syrian society and rip the country apart. After that they will define new goals for new proxy players.

Q: Why has Syria been chosen as a target?

For many decades, Syria has been the only country in the region has played a positive role in the Palestinian issue. That’s why the West wants to remove Syria. The oil and gas deposits found in the Eastern Mediterranean are a factor, too. The one who wins in Syria will get the right to develop them.

Also, Qatar, which is small in territory and population, is seeking to play a big role in the region. They want to supply gas to Europe, and Syria will allow them to do this if the current regime is crushed.

Any sane person understands that Russia doesn’t have imperialistic ambitions like some others. As far as relations with Russia are concerned, you don’t have to say ‘no’ to your own interests, you don’t have to sacrifice your own country. Some say that Russia will start losing its influence and popularity. But these people are Americanized Arabs, who cannot speak for the whole Arab world. If we held a referendum among Arabs right now and asked them to express their opinion of Russia, I can promise you – over 50% would give Russia their approval, US policies lead to destruction. Some Western ambassadors have been using Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya as examples of democratic changes. But what’s happening in those countries is not a good example, this is the worst scenario possible. So we don’t have a choice – we need to stay strong and resist.

Q:What do you think of the March 14 alliance in Lebanon?

AM: This organization hopes that the Syrian regime will be overthrown. In that case they will take power in Lebanon. They consider Hezbollah, General Michel Aoun and the Amal Movement to be the echo of the situation in Syria. Their problem is that they cannot fulfill their mission, but keep giving empty promises to their partners. For the sake of argument let’s say the regime in Syria falls (which is impossible), wouldn’t it be replaced by another regime? This is not realistic. If the fist that keeps everything together loosens its grip, there will be chaos in all countries and Syria will fall apart. Syria will have to deal with serious problems for many years to come. The March 14 alliance will not be able to implement its political projects in Syria. Hezbollah is not an anti-March 14 alliance force. Our allies have enough power to keep the balance of forces inside Lebanon. Hezbollah is an anti-Israel force, it is not our objective to stand against the March 14 alliance.

Q:Some experts say that Israel wants Assad to stay in power, others think that chaos in the country would benefit the Israelis. What do you think?

AM: What is happening in Syria benefits Israel, because they hope that Syria is getting weaker. Let’s have a closer look at the situation. In the past years, President Assad has proven to be a strong supporter of Lebanese and Palestinian anti-Israel forces. Israelis like to say, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.” Now they are saying that what happens after this regime falls, will be more acceptable than Assad staying in power.

Israel openly admits that it wants the Syrian regime to fall, and they even give exact dates when it is going to happen. There was a scandal involving Israeli intelligence. They want a weak country with weak leadership, focused on domestic problems. And if this new power decided to fire a few rockets at the Golan Heights from Katyusha launchers – that’s a price Israel is willing to pay. Israel views the Syrian regime as the link connecting Palestinian and Lebanese anti-Israel forces and their supporters in Iran. The frontline that runs from Iran to Gaza through Baghdad, Damascus, and Beirut, poses a challenge to American interests and Israeli domination in the region.

The latest events in Gaza confirm it. It was not easy to launch rockets into Tel-Aviv. Throughout the whole history of Israel, Tel-Aviv was one of the most secure cities. Now Fajr-5 rockets can reach Tel-Aviv, and these rockets are not small. Such threats define Israel’s approach to Syria. They consider Assad part of the anti-Israel strategy.

After the Camp David Accords, the Syrian and Iraqi armies were the only two forces in the region not equipped by the US. Americans didn’t control these two armies. They were equipped and trained by the Soviet Union. In 2003, the US managed to destroy Iraq’s forces. Now they intend to do the same in Syria.

Q: There are about half a million Palestinian refugees in Syria. Do you know anything about their involvement in the conflict?

AM: We don’t have much information about it. But many Syrians support the Palestinians and their cause. As for the Palestinian refugees – out of all Arab countries, including Lebanon, Syria offers them the best conditions. Syria has always supported the Palestinian cause at all political platforms and on the international arena. They have always kept their doors open for all Palestinian political movements, even when other countries, including the ones in the Arab world, closed theirs. So it wouldn’t be right for Palestinians to take Syria’s support for granted. So we hope that Palestinians will not take sides in the Syrian conflict.

But we also know of cases when external forces turned Palestinians against Syria. The recent events in the Yarmouk camp near Damascus is one of them. If you know the area, you will understand how the armed rebels were able to penetrate and bomb it. But leaders of different Palestinian movements are being wise and making sure that Palestinians do not get involved in this conflict.

Q: Can the Syrian crisis be resolved through force?

AM: This problem can only be solved through political means. But when you have armed groups and they are supplied with weapons from the outside, the regime has no other choice but to fight back. The West is distancing itself from explosions and terrorist attacks. This is dangerous. If you’ve chosen to keep them, then don’t blame anyone but yourself when these blasts start happening in your country. Those who are trying to rationalize terrorism shouldn’t be surprised if the terror strikes back at them.

Syria must take a firm stand against terrorism and all its allies should be on its side. We are not just dealing with hooligans and a few armed guys. This is a war against an international coalition. We have to seek all the means possible to make sure the current Syrian regime stays.

Q: Your party runs many hospitals and charities that take care of the handicapped. Can you tell us more about it?

AM: Hezbollah was founded in 1982, after the Israeli aggression, and we didn’t participate in the civil war. We enjoyed a broad grassroots support. We don’t barter – you give us support, and we will give you aid. We are just trying to help people where the state is not able to.

We started out by simply supporting people and families in need. And then we put our work on a regular and large-scale level. We set up infirmaries, hospitals, centers for underprivileged families, families of those who were killed, special schools and centers for war veterans.

We’re not saying that we have got it 100% covered or that all of our people’s needs are taken care of. Our facility for the handicapped was completely destroyed by Israel during the war in 2006, and we have only recently managed to re-build it. We extend help to all confessions and all social groups including our Palestinian brothers.

Today, we’re working hard to help Syrian refugees, and we are helping all of them, not only those who support President Assad. We are helping everyone regardless of their political views. You always have to put a human attitude above politics. We have accommodated some wounded Syrians from the opposition in our hospitals. They are no longer taking part in combat operations and must be treated humanely and provided with medical care.

We know that 11 Lebanese nationals are being held as POWs in Syria. They are not members of Hezbollah but we share similar views. We could easily apprehend and turn to POW status over 500 people from the so-called Free Syrian Army in order to liberate those 11 Lebanese nationals in a swap. But we choose not to use such methods. It’s a matter of principle.

Q: How do you think the situation will unfold?

AM: If you want to know my personal view, I feel that this war in Syria is going to last for quite a while.

We’ve already discussed the factors driving this crisis, but there’re much deeper causes behind it. The whole world is fighting in Syria, it seems, with all the countries having their interests in the conflict. Politics and oil are very much connected, tensions are high, and all the stakeholders are interested in further escalation.

There’s only thing that the parties to the conflict have so far succeeded in achieving: they have defined some rules of their involvement and drew the red lines which they think they are not going cross.

The world powers are not willing to get fully involved in the situation. No one wants to do that, neither Americans, nor the French, nor Turkey, nor Iran. They are all involved in the conflict but they don’t want to battle it out on the ground. Therefore, they are all going to keep pouring oil on that fire. I do not see there is a solution. But I very much hope I’m wrong about it. I don’t think that any party would agree to be the losing side. And even if we talk about a compromise, we all understand that such a compromise will have to be reached on so much more than just Syria. It will be about the entire Middle East and all the world powers. Working out a compromise is a very challenging and complicated task. Each of the parties will keep score of possible benefits they can obtain and threats they will run, so it is a very complex equation. This is a conflict with a very deep hidden agenda and so far it has not exhausted itself.

As Russia See Syria

Assad: Not a civil war, terrorism my enemy, no regrets for now (EXCLUSIVE)

In an exclusive interview with RT, President Bashar Assad said that the conflict in Syria is not a civil war, but proxy terrorism by Syrians and foreign fighters. He also accused the Turkish PM of eyeing Syria with imperial ambitions.

Assad told RT that the West creates scapegoats as enemies – from communism, to Islam, to Saddam Hussein. He accused Western countries of aiming to turn him into their next enemy.

While mainstream media outlets generally report on the crisis as a battle between Assad and Syrian opposition groups, the president claims that his country has been infiltrated by numerous terrorist proxy groups fighting on behalf of other powers.

In the event of a foreign invasion of Syria, Assad warned, the fallout would be too dire for the world to bear.

­

‘My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria’

­RT: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank very much for talking to us today.

Bashar Assad: You are most welcome in Damascus.

RT: There are many people who were convinced a year ago that you would not make it this far. Here again you are sitting in a newly renovated presidential palace and recording this interview. Who exactly is your enemy at this point?

BA: My enemy is terrorism and instability in Syria. This is our enemy in Syria. It is not about the people, it is not about persons. The whole issue is not about me staying or leaving. It is about the country being safe or not. So, this is the enemy we have been fighting as Syria.

RT: I have been here for the last two days and I had the chance to talk to a couple of people in Damascus. Some of them say that whether you stay or go at this point does not really matter anymore. What do you say about this?

BA: I think for the president to stay or leave is a popular issue. It is related to the opinion of some people and the only way can be done through the ballot boxes. So, it is not about what we hear. It is about what we can get through that box and that box will tell any president to stay or leave very simply.

RT: I think what they meant was that at this point you are not the target anymore; Syria is the target.

BA: I was not the target; I was not the problem anyway. The West creates enemies; in the past it was the communism then it became Islam, and then it became Saddam Hussein for a different reason. Now, they want to create a new enemy represented by Bashar. That's why they say that the problem is the president so he has to leave. That is why we have to focus of the real problem, not to waste our time listening to what they say.

­

‘The fight now is not the president’s fight – it is Syrians’ fight to defend their country’

­RT: Do you personally still believe that you are the only man who can hold Syria together and the only man who can put an end to what the world calls a ‘civil war’?

BA: We have to look at it from two aspects. The first aspect is the constitution and I have my authority under the constitution. According to this authority and the constitution, I have to be able to solve the problem. But if we mean it that you do not have any other Syrian who can be a president, no, any Syrian could be a president. We have many Syrians who are eligible to be in that position. You cannot always link the whole country only to one person.

RT: But you are fighting for your country. Do you believe that you are the man who can put an end to the conflict and restore peace?

BA: I have to be the man who can do that and I hope so, but it is not about the power of the President; it is about the whole society. We have to be precise about this. The president cannot do anything without the institutions and without the support of the people. So, the fight now is not a President’s fight; it is Syrians’ fight. Every Syrian is involved in defending his country now.

RT: It is and a lot of civilians are dying as well in the fighting. So, if you were to win this war, how would you reconcile with your people after everything that has happened?

BA: Let’s be precise once again. The problem is not between me and the people; I do not have a problem with the people because the United States is against me and the West is against me and many other Arab countries, including Turkey which is not Arab of course, are against me. If the Syrian people are against me, how can I be here?!

‘Syria faces not a civil war, but terrorism by proxies’

­RT: They are not against you?

BA: If the whole world, or let us say a big part of the world, including your people, are against you, are you a superman?! You are just a human being. So, this is not logical. It is not about reconciling with the people and it is not about reconciliation between the Syrians and the Syrians; we do not have a civil war. It is about terrorism and the support coming from abroad to terrorists to destabilize Syria. This is our war.

RT: Do you still not believe it is a civil war because I know there are a lot who think that there are terrorist acts which everyone believes take place in Syria, and there are also a lot of sectarian-based conflicts. For example we all heard about the mother who has two sons; one son is fighting for the government forces and the other son is fighting for the rebel forces, how this is not a civil war?

BA: You have divisions, but division does not mean civil war. It is completely different. Civil wars should be based on ethnic problems or sectarian problems. Sometimes you may have ethnic or sectarian tensions but this do not make them problem. So, if you have division in the same family or in a bigger tribe or whatever or in the same city, it does not mean a civil war. This is completely different and that is normal. We should expect that.

RT: When I asked about reconciling with your people, this is what I meant: I heard you say on many different occasions that the only thing you care about is what the Syrian people think of you and what Syrian people feel towards you and whether you should be a president or not. Are you not afraid that there has been so much damage done for whatever reason that at the end of the day Syrians won’t care about the truth; they will just blame you for the carnage that they have suffered?

BA: This is a hypothetical question because what the people think is the right thing, and regarding what they think, we have to ask them. But I don’t have this information right now. So, I am not afraid about what some people think; I am afraid about my country. We have to be focused on that.

RT: For years there have been so many stories about almighty Syrian army, important and strong Syrian secret services, but then we see that, you know, the government forces are not able to crush the enemy like people expected it would, and we see terrorist attacks take place in the middle of Damascus almost every day. Were those myths about the Syrian army and about the strong Syrian secret services?

BA: Usually, in normal circumstances when you have the army and the secret services and the intelligence, we focus on the external enemy even if we have an internal enemy, like terrorism because the society is helping us at least not to provide terrorist’s incubator. Now in this case, it is a new kind of war; terrorism through proxies, either Syrians living in Syria or foreign fighters coming from abroad. So, it is a new style of war, this is first and you have to adapt to this style and it takes time, it is not easy. And to say this is as easy as the normal or, let us say, the traditional or regular war, no, it is much more difficult. Second, the support that has been offered to those terrorists in every aspect, including armaments, money and political aspect is unprecedented. So, you have to expect that it is going to be a tough war and a difficult war. You do not expect a small country like Syria to defeat all those countries that have been fighting us through proxies just in days or weeks.

RT: Yes, but when you look at it, I mean on one hand, you have one leader with an army, and he orders this army go straight, go left, go right and the army obeys. On the other hand, you have fractions of terrorists who are not unified and have no one unified strategy to fight you. So, how does that really happen when it comes to fighting each other?

BA: This is not the problem. The problem is that those terrorists are fighting from within the cities, and in the cities you have civilians. When you fight this kind of terrorists, you have to be aware that you should do the minimum damage to the infrastructure and minimum damage to the civilians because you have civilians and you have to fight, you cannot leave terrorists just killing and destroying. So, this is the difficulty in this kind of war.

­

Without foreign rebel fighters and smuggled weapons, ‘we could finish everything in weeks’

­RT: You know that the infrastructure and economy are suffering; it is almost as if Syria is going to be fall into decay very soon and the time is against you. In your opinion, how much time do you need to crush the enemy?

BA: You cannot answer this question because no one claimed that he had the answer about when to end the war unless when we have the answer to when they are going to stop smuggling foreign fighters from different parts of the world especially the Middle East and the Islamic world, and when they are going to stop sending armaments to those terrorists. If they stop, this is when I can answer you; I can tell that in weeks we can finish everything. This is not a big problem. But as long as you have continuous supply in terrorists, armaments, logistics and everything else, it is going to be a long-term war.

RT: Also, when you think about it, you have 4,000 km of loosely controlled borders, so you have your enemy that can at any time cross over into Jordan or Turkey to be rearmed, get medical care and come back to fight you!

BA: No country in the world can seal the border. Sometime they use this word which is not correct, even the United Stated cannot seal its border with Mexico for example. The same can be applied to Russia which is a big country. So, no country can seal the border. You can only have a better situation on the border when you have good relations with your neighbor and this is something we do not have at least with Turkey now. Turkey supports more than any other country the smuggling of terrorists and armaments.

­

‘The Syrian Army has no orders to shell Turkish land’

­RT: Can I say to you something? I have been in Turkey recently and people there are actually very worried that a war will happen between Syria and Turkey. Do you think a war with Turkey is a realistic scenario?

BA: Rationally, no I do not think so – for two reasons. The war needs public support and the majority of the Turkish people do not need this war. So, I do not think any rational official would think of going against the will of the public in his country and the same for the Syrian people. So, the conflict or difference is not between the Turkish people and the Syrian people; it is about the government and officials, it is between our officials and their officials because of their politics. So, I do not see any war between Syria and Turkey on the horizon.

RT: When was the last time you spoke to Erdogan and how did the talk end?

BA: May 2011, after he won the election.

RT: So, you just congratulated him, and it was the last time

BA: Yes and it was the last time.

RT:  Who is shelling Turkey? Is it the government forces or the rebels?

BA: In order to find the answer, you need a joint committee between the two armies in order to know who shells who because on the borders you have a lot of terrorists who have mortars; so, they can do the same. You have to go and investigate the bomb in that place itself and that did not happen. We asked the Turkish government to have this committee but they refused; so, you cannot have the answer. But when you have these terrorists on your borders, you do not exclude them from doing so because the Syrian army does not have any order to shell the Turkish land because we do not find any interest in this, and we do not have any enmity with the Turkish people. We consider them as brothers, so why do it; unless that happened by mistake, then it needs investigation.

RT:  Do you accept that it may be mistakenly from the government forces?

BA: That could happen. This is a possibility and in every war you have mistakes. You know in Afghanistan, they always talk about friendly fire if you kill your soldier; this means that it could happen in every war, but we cannot say yes.

 ­

‘Erdogan thinks he is a Caliph’

­RT:  Why has Turkey, which you call a friendly nation, become a foothold for the opposition?

BA: Not Turkey, but only Erdogan’s government in order to be precise. Turkish people need good relations with the Syrian people. Erdogan thinks that if Muslim Brotherhood takes over in the region and especially in Syria, he can guarantee his political future, this is one reason. The other reason, he personally thinks that he is the new sultan of the Ottoman and he can control the region as it was during the Ottoman Empire under a new umbrella. In his heart he thinks he is a caliph. These are the main two reasons for him to shift his policy from zero problems to zero friends.

RT:  But it is not just the West that opposes you at this point; there are so many enemies in the Arab world and that is to say like two years ago when someone heard you name in the Arab world they would straighten their ties, and now in the first occasion they betrayed you, why do you have so many enemies in the Arab world?

BA: They are not enemies. The majority of Arab governments support Syria in their heart but they do not dare to say that explicitly.

RT: Why not?

BA: Under pressure by the West, and sometimes under pressure of the petrodollars in the Arab world.

RT:  Who supports you from the Arab world?

BA: Many countries support Syria by their hearts but they do not dare to say that explicitly. First of all, Iraq which played a very active role in supporting Syria during the crisis because it is a neighboring country and they understand and recognize that if you have a war inside Syria you will have war in the neighboring countries including Iraq. I think there are other countries which have good position like Algeria, and Oman mainly and there are other countries I would not count all of them now but I would say they have positive position without taking actions.

RT: Saudi Arabia and Qatar, why are they so adamant about you resigning and how would an unstable Middle East fit their agenda?

BA: Let’s be frank, I cannot answer on their behalf. They have to answer this question but I could say that the problem between Syria and many countries whether in the Arab world or in the region or in the West, is that we kept saying no when we think that we have to say no, that is the problem. And some countries believe that they can control Syria through orders, through money or petrodollars and this is impossible in Syria, this is the problem. May be they want to play a role. We do not have a problem, they can play a role whether they deserve this or not, they can play a role but not to play a role at the expense of our interests.

RT: Is it about controlling Syria or about exporting their vision of Islam to Syria?

BA: You cannot put it as a government policy sometimes. Sometimes you have institutions in certain country, sometime you have persons who try to promote this but they do not announce it as an official policy. So, they did not ask us to promote their, let’s say, extremist attitude of their institutions but that happened in reality whether through indirect support of their government or through the foundation from institutions and personnel. So, this is part of the problem, but when I want to talk as a government, I have to talk about the announced policy. The announced policy is like any other policy; it is about the interest, it is about playing a role, but we cannot ignore what you mentioned.

RT:  Iran which is a very close ally also is exposed to economic sanctions, also facing a threat of military invasion. If you were faced with an option to cut ties with Iran in exchange for peace in your country, would you go for it?

BA: We do not have contradicting options in this regard because we had good relations with Iran since 1979 till today, and it is getting better every day, but at the same time we are moving towards peace. We had peace process and we had peace negotiations. Iran was not a factor against peace. So, this is misinformation they try to promote in the West that if we need peace, we do not have to have good relation with Iran. There is no relation; it is two completely different subjects. Iran supported Syria, supported our cause, the cause of the occupied land and we have to support them in their cause. This is very simple. Iran is a very important country in the region. If we are looking for stability, we need good relations with Iran. You cannot talk about stability while you have bad relations with Iran, Turkey and your neighbors and so on. This is it.

­

‘Al-Qaeda’s final aim is an Islamic emirate in Syria’

­RT:  Do you have any information that the Western intelligence is financing rebel fighters here in Syria?

BA: No, so far what we know is that they are offering the know-how support for the terrorists through Turkey and sometimes through Lebanon mainly. But there is other intelligence, not the Western, but the regional intelligence which is very active and more active than the Western one under the supervision of the Western intelligence.

RT: What is the role of Al-Qaeda in Syria at this point? Are they controlling any of the rebel coalition forces?

BA: No, I do not think they are looking to control; they are looking to create their own kingdoms or emirates in their language, but they mainly try now to scare the people through explosions, assassinations, suicide bombers and things like this to push the people towards desperation and to accept them as reality. So, they go step by step but their final aim is to have this, let’s say, Islamic Emirate in Syria where they can promote their own ideology in the rest of the world.

RT: From those who are fighting you and those who are against you, who would you talk to?

BA: We talk to anyone who has genuine will to help Syria, but we do not waste our time with anyone who wants to use our crisis for his own personal interests.

RT:  There has been many times…not you but the government forces have been accused for many times of war crimes against your own civilians, do you accept that the government forces have committed war crimes against their own civilians?

BA: We are fighting terrorism. We are implementing our constitution by protecting the Syrian people. Let’s go back to what happened in Russia more than a decade ago when you faced terrorism in Chechnya and other places; they attacked people in theaters and schools and so on, and the army in Russia protected the people, would you call it war crimes?! No, you would not. Two days ago, Amnesty International recognized the crimes that were committed few days ago by the armed groups when they captured soldiers and executed them. Also Human Rights Watch recognized this. Human Rights Watch recognized more than once the crimes of those terrorist groups and few days ago it described these crimes as war crimes, this is the first point. The second point, if you have an army that committed a crime against its own people, this is devoid of logic because the Syrian Army is made up of Syrian people. If you want to commit a crime against your people, then the army will divide, will disintegrate. So, you cannot have a strong army while you are killing your people. Third, the army cannot withstand for twenty months in these difficult circumstances without having the embrace of the public in Syria. So, how could you have this embracement while you are killing your people?! This is a contradiction. So, this is the answer.

­

‘I must live in Syria and die in Syria’

­RT: When was the last time you spoke to a Western leader?

BA: It was before the crisis.

RT:  Was there any time at which they try to give you conditions that if you left the post of presidency then there will be peace in Syria or no?

BA: No, they did not propose it directly, no, but whether they propose that directly or indirectly, it is a matter of sovereignty; only the Syrian people will talk about this. Whoever talks about this in the media or in a statement directly or indirectly has no meaning and has no weight in Syria.

RT: Do you even have a choice because from what it seems from the outside that would not have anywhere to go. Where would you go if you want to leave?

BA: To Syria. I would go from Syria to Syria. This is the only place where we can live. I am not a puppet. I was not made by the West to go to the West or to any other country. I am Syrian, I was made in Syria, I have to live in Syria and die in Syria.

­

‘I believe in democracy and dialogue – but we must be realistic’

­RT: Do you think that at this point there is any chance for diplomacy or talks or only the army can get it done?

BA: I always believe in diplomacy and I always believe in dialogue even with those who do not understand or believe in it. We have to keep trying. I think that we will always achieve a partial success. We have to look for this partial success before we achieve the complete success. But we have to be realistic. You do not think that only dialogue can make you achieve something because those people who committed these acts they are of two kinds: one of them does not believe in dialogue, especially the extremists, and you have the outlaws who have been convicted by the court years ago before the crisis and their natural enemy is the government because they are going to be detained if we have a normal situation in Syria. The other part of them is the people who have been supplied by the outside, and they can only be committed to the governments which paid them the money and supplied them with the armament; they do not have a choice because they do not own their own decision. So, you have to be realistic. And you have the third part of the people whether militants or politicians who can accept the dialogue. That’s why we have been in this dialogue for months now even with militants and many of them gave up their armaments and they went back to their normal life.

‘The price of a foreign invasion will be more than the world can afford’

­RT:  Do you think a foreign invasion is imminent?

BA: I think the price of this invasion if it happened is going to be more than the whole world can afford because if you have a problem in Syria, and we are the last stronghold of secularism and stability in the region and coexistence, let’s say, it will have a domino effect that will affect the world from the Atlantic to the Pacific and you know the implication on the rest of the world. I do not think the West is going in that direction, but if they do so, nobody can tell what is next.

RT:  Mr. President, do you blame yourself for anything?

BA: Normally you have to find mistakes you do with every decision, otherwise you are not human.

RT: What is your biggest mistake?

BA: I do not remember now to be frank. But I always, even before taking the decision, consider that part of it will be wrong but you cannot tell about your mistakes now. Sometimes, especially during crisis, you do not see what is right and what is wrong until you overcome the situation that you are in. I would not be objective to talk about mistakes now because we still in the middle of the crisis.

RT:  So, you do not have regrets yet?

BA: Not now. When everything is clear, you can talk about your mistakes, and definitely you have mistakes and that is normal.

RT:  If today was March 15, 2011, that is when the protest started to escalate and grow, what would you do differently?

BA: I would do what I did on March 15.

RT: Exactly the same?

BA: Exactly the same: ask different parties to have dialogue and stand against terrorists because that is how it started. It did not start as marches; the umbrella or cover was the marches, but within those marches you had militants who started shooting civilians and the army at the same time. May be on the tactical level, you could have done something different but as a president you are not tactical, you always take the decision on a strategic level which is something different.

RT: President al-Assad, how do you see yourself in ten-years’ time?

BA: I see myself through my country; I cannot see myself but my country in ten-years’ time. This is where I can see myself.

RT: Do you see yourself in Syria?

BA: Definitely, I have to be in Syria. It is not about the position. I do not see myself whether a president or not. This is not my interest. I can see myself in this country as safe country, stable country and more prosperous country.

RT:  President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, thank you for talking to RT.

BA: Thank you for coming to Syria, again.

Abuse of inmates happens in every Georgian jail, says torture whistleblower

The penal system in Georgia is rife with the sadistic abuse of inmates covered under a glossy façade, claims an ex-deputy chief warden, who released footage of beatings and rape allegedly taken in a Tbilisi prison.

Vladimir Bedukadze alleges that top Georgian officials, including President Saakashvili, were aware of the abuses at the Gdlani prison, which triggered a major political scandal in the country. He claims that inmates in Georgia face inhumane treatment for political reasons or simply for the amusement of those in charge of jails.

Bedukadze told RT that he wanted to release the footage after bringing his family to Belgium, where he is seeking political asylum. But the Georgian authorities found out about the incriminating evidence and tried to undermine it by painting him a crook and a fabricator.

RT: Vladimir, how long have you been making these videos?

Vladimir Bedukadze: I have been working as the prison’s deputy chief warden since 2008.

RT: Who gave the orders? Who in the government knew what was going on? And who kept this matter under wraps?

VB: I made those videos on the instruction of the chief warden, and then the chief warden showed these videos to Minister Akhalaia. I made those videos over the period of a year, or maybe six months, I’m not sure. I didn’t make them in a day or two. They were accumulated over a period of time, and eventually I had two hours of video. Minister Akhalaia was in charge of all correctional facilities. Then Saakashvili made him Deputy Defense Minister. Then he became Defense Minister, and then, Minister of Internal Affairs. Throughout this time, Akhalaia remained in charge of Georgia’s prison system.

RT: How do you know the chief warden showed those videos to Akhalaia?

VB: I just did what I was told to do. I made those videos for him, and then he would take the tape, and I don’t know what he would do with it. But Akhalaia would often come to the Gdlani prison, perhaps once or twice a week. He used to spend a lot of time talking to the chief warden in his office. Akhalaia was a very close ally of President Saakashvili, whom President Bush called a “beacon of democracy.” He was fully aware of what was going on in the prisons. This is why I insist that Saakashvili should resign. In a democratic country, it wouldn’t be the Minister of Interior Affairs or Defense Minister stepping down; the President would resign. President Saakashvili must step down if he is a democrat. But he’s no democrat. He keeps the entire nation in chaos and fear. He relies on criminals. He has people with blood on their hands working in high positions in the government.

RT: Was Saakashvili aware of what was going on?

VB: Of course he knew. Saakashvili was fully aware of what was going on. When Akhalaia was appointed minister in 2005, the system was very far from European standards. Then Saakashvili appointed Akhalaia minister, and Akhalaia started taking very tough steps. He would send security forces into prisons. They would break into prisons and beat up inmates. Even Akhalaia himself would often be there with a camera, filming everything. And then, I think, he would show those videos to Saakashvili in order to show him what kind of system he had built. European MPs would visit the Gdlani prison, and they were impressed. They would say, “How did you manage to build such a system? You have 4,000 inmates there, and this place is so quiet, we haven’t heard as much as somebody speaking loudly. It’s almost as if there were no inmates there at all.

RT: You’re saying this has been going on for some time. Why did you release these materials now?

VB: In May, I asked myself whether I wanted to serve the regime or be a man. I tendered my resignation, took the videos I had made and left the country. I was afraid because I thought they would kill me. So I came to Belgium and asked for political asylum. My family is currently in Georgia. This is why I asked the Belgian authorities to grant me and my family political asylum as soon as possible.

RT: Are you afraid that something may happen?

VB: Yes. Saakashvili is mentally unstable. Nobody knows what he may do.

RT: Do you have specific reasons to be concerned about your family? Have you received any threats?

VB: Yes, after I released those videos, some people called me on the phone a few times, telling me to keep my mouth shut.

RT: And then you moved to Belgium?

VB: No. Those phone calls were just a couple of days ago. I secretly left Georgia and came to Belgium in July. I have been here for three months now, and for financial reasons I have been unable to bring my family here. Belgian institutions tell me my videos can’t be published before my family comes here, because nobody knows what Saakashvili may do to them. As soon as my family is in Belgium, this footage will be released. When I came to Belgium, I played those tapes to the European Commission and the European Parliament, and they assured me that they would keep it secret and that Saakashvili would never find out about it. They kept their word, but somehow four or five days ago President Saakashvili found out about this tape, and then he told Akhalaia to get two of my friends who worked with me at the prison, and stage a beating of an inmate. So those two guys beat up an innocent inmate, and then that video was aired on Georgian television. They claim that they did it on my orders. The purpose of this fabrication was to create an impression that I was connected to the opposition. They say I was paid 2 million dollars for those videos. But I have never been involved in politics. I have never been in a political party. I didn’t care about politics.

RT: Your critics say the upcoming election is the reason why you have published these videos now.

VB: No, no. They started this by publishing their video! They contacted two of my friends, made that video with an inmate and played it on Georgian TV. What could I do? I had this tape with two hours of footage. I had to defend myself. They forced me to release those videos.

RT: You mean you released your videos in response to what they did?

VB: Right. This had nothing to do with the election.

RT: Let me get this straight. You’re saying that Saakashvili somehow found out that you had these videos…

VB: Actually, it was not Saakashvili. It was Minister Akhalaia who found out.

RT: And then they published their video to accuse you, and after that you released your videos.

VB: Right. Except that their video was staged, it was a fabrication. Those two friends of mine are in prison now. Actually, four of my friends are in prison. This is just to put psychological pressure on me. Saakashvili and Akhalaia accused me of torture and issued a warrant for me. I’m a wanted man now.

RT: Who gave you the order to make those videos? And who among the high-ranking officials knew about what was going on?

VB: Nobody – just the chief warden and I. I was deputy chief warden. He wanted me to film some interesting moments: for example, when police arrest an opposition activist, or a prominent figure, is arrested, he wanted it on tape. Probably, they intended to use those videos later against those people. The chief warden would take those videos to Akhalaia, and Akhalaia would take them to the President. They used it for entertainment. They enjoyed watching how helpless people were in their hands. Once they take you to prison, you are nobody. You have no dignity. This is why these videos caused such an outrage in Georgia. This is why all those young people are protesting.

RT: How did they pick inmates for torture?

VB: They just did it for entertainment, or, if an inmate had something to do with politics, if he was Saakashvili’s enemy, they would pick him. The system is extremely politicized.

Russian Media (Putins mouthpiece) Article & Interview

 

‘Foreign intervention to Syria not a Hollywood movie ending with happy kiss’

 While Western countries push for military intervention in Syria, a former French spy explained to RT that Syria and its neighbors are a melting pot of religious and social groups and stirring it could spill over into a bloody conflict.

­

Claude Moniquet, a former member of the French intelligence service and the founder of the European Intelligence and Security Center, a Brussels-based think tank specializing on terrorism and security issues, gave his view on why the Libyan scenario does not fit for Damascus.

RT: You’ve spend a lot of time in North Africa and the Middle East, so looking at the Arab Spring, did you see this coming, were you expecting this? And how much of it, do you think, is a product of people going against repressive governments and how much of it as some governments claim has been fueled from the outside?

Claude Moniquet: We probably said things which were probably not really politically correct but very popular. First of all, we did not see it arriving. We knew that there were a lot of problems in the Middle East, the Arab world North and the Africa – a lot of poverty, social problems, cultural problems, problems of the youth, youth without employment, and so on and so forth. And we knew that something was burning, but we were much more focused on the risk of Islamization than the risk of a so-called Arab Spring.

When it happened, when we saw the mechanics, we understood that it will be a large and deep shock not only for the Arab world, but for the whole world. In the beginning it was the exasperation of people wanting to live a normal life. It is very clear in Egypt, for instance. If you take the Tahrir Square, at the beginning, you had very young people, graduates most of them, most of them helped and supported by the United States, some of them were trained by the United States and funded by the United States, some with a very clear and very liberal idea of the future. The only sad thing is that it did not happen in the Western world, but in an Arab country, where the political agenda was different. We had these people coming from the street, but with a clear view of the future and everything was occupied at the end of the day by the dissatisfied Muslim brothers.

RT: So do you see this as a trend in region, where you have openly religious leaders coming into power?

CM: I personally wrote, a long time before the Egyptian elections that the only possibility is to have the Muslim brotherhood as first political formation in Egypt. I mean everything else was just impossible; because you have a very poor society with a large percentage of people who are just not able to read the newspaper, with a large unemployment number. So everything was in place for the extremists and certainly not for democraticians [sic] in Egypt, and the same in Tunisia and the same in Morocco and Syria.

RT: Yes, and looking at Syrian crisis – it is complicated and it is far from over. We heard the US and Turkey studying a no-fly zone, and we’ve also heard from the French defense minister, who said that France is willing to help in looking at this effort. Is that were you think this is headed, a similar Libyan scenario of imposing a no-fly zone?

CM: Actually very clearly, no leader of the Western world wants to go to Syria, but maybe at one point it will be impossible to avoid. I don’t think so, but it’s possible. If you go into Syria, I think it will be a nightmare, but we’ll see. For the moment, we do not see any clear evolution in Syria. It clearly seems that the government cannot win, but it cannot lose. So for the moment you have just killing after killing and bombs after bombs with no possibility of reconciliation because at the base of the problem you don’t have the problem of democracy, of course you have a problem of democracy in Syria, but it is not the main point.

The main point is the problem between the Sunni and the Alawis, which are 10 per cent of the population. The Alawis are leading the country for 20-30 years and the Sunni, which are 75 per cent, say ‘No. It is enough we do not want you anymore.’ But it is not Luxemburg, it is not Switzerland. In the Middle East, in Syria today for the Alawi losing the grip on the power means dying and I’m not sure if the country’s 2 million Alawi are eager willing to die. So they have no other choice but keeping the power with the support by the way of the Christians.

You have 2 million Alawi and 2 million Christians, and Christians in Syria are clearly supporting the power, because they fear to have problems when Sunni will reign in the country, as their fellow Christians in Egypt had with the Muslim Brothers, as have the Christians in Iraq. Today it seems clear that you cannot be a Christian in the Muslim world. Yes you can be a single Christian and nobody will hurt you, but you cannot have a Christian organized community with a possibility of a political activity in the Muslim world today, I mean the Muslim-Arab world today.

RT:Well despite some of the tough words the Western leaders and their allies said today in regards to Syria, you still feel that they will not go into Syria on a full military scale. What do you think is still holding them back?

CM: We think and the leaders think that Syria could be worse than Libya and I think that basically they’re right. Because in Libya we had 6 million people and in Syria we have between 17 and 20 million people, we have clearly extremists in Syria.  It is on the border of Iran. It is between Iran and Israel. You have the Lebanon problem, which is not so far – so no one wants to get involved there.

The last time we – I mean the Western armies – were involved in the area it was in the 1980s, in Lebanon. I was there and we left with the body bags of fellow soldiers – 242 of the American marines and 62 French paratroopers. I was there that day and all my life I will remember these body bags. And it was not such a nice experience for us and I do not know if we want to have such experience again. And if we go there we risk of having this experience again.

It is not a game, it is not a Hollywood movie where the good guy, a good cowboy, can just come into the city and make everything calm and quiet again, just killing two or three bad guys and at the end of the movie to kiss a beautiful woman. The marines, they have a lot of killing, it is really not the same story. It is the Middle East. It is a savage war and after this war whoever will be the winner – you will have terrible sentiments of killing, revenge killing and so forth and we do not want to be involved there.

RT:Well from the intelligence circles, can you confirm the smuggling of weapons into Syria as well as the presence of the some of the foreign secret service in the country?

CM: Very probably. We have some coming from Iran for the government and some from Qatar and Saudi Arabia for the rebels – it’s clear, I think. Everyone knows it. And some intelligence services, for instance probably he British MI6, maybe the French, maybe the Americans, are involved on one level or another level in support of the opposition.

RT:On one hand you’re saying that the West and its allies don’t really want to get involved in the operation in Syria, at the same time you’re saying that it is very likely that there are secret service agents in the country already. But it is getting involved then. What is the difference between military operation and having your agents on the ground?

CM: You can deny. You can deny. When you send the intelligence people, even if they’re killed, you can say that ‘I do not know him, maybe he is a journalist. I do not know. I’m not involved.’ The main prospect of the use of secret service and the secret agents is the possibility of denial – ‘Oh, I do not know him.’ When you are caught using guns, tanks, planes, you can’t say ‘Oops, it is not my plane.’

RT: Let’s talk about Al-Qaeda operating in Syria. Is this true and if so what can the situation develop into?

CM: It is probably very true. What we know is that Syria at the time of the war in Iraq, Syria was one of the platforms of action for Al-Qaeda. Lots of people coming from Europe from France from Belgium from Germany went into Iraq through Syria. So it’s clear that Al-Qaeda had at that time its own networks there. It’s also clear that a lot of people, we do not how much, but a lot of people who were involved in the Iraqi war are now fighting with the opposition against the Syrian regime in Syria for a very obvious reason.

As you remember members of Al-Qaeda in Iraq were killing Shiites as well as British and American soldiers. And in Syria Shiites are in power, Alawi are a branch of Shiites. So for the people of Al-Qaeda who practice strict obedience, they’re the worst enemy. And to kill a Shiite is better than to kill a Christian for them, so it is a good motivation for them.

I do not think we have Al-Qaeda fighting on the streets of Aleppo, because it does not make sense, but when we had a bomb in the center of Damascus a few weeks ago, it is very likely an Al-Qaeda job. Actually for the moment nobody actually really knows what the different tendencies in the opposition in Syria, because when you see the people from National Syrian Committee in Paris, they’re very modern, very Western-speaking, very democratic and so on.  When you see people plotting a bomb in Damascus, it’s another thing, so where is the real truth, where is the real power of the moderates and the democrats, if they exist? What is the real power of the Al-Qaeda, what is the real power of the Saudis? Nobody really knows. And we will see it and we will know it after, but when will be this after? It could be in tomorrow and could be in six months. It could be in two years.