Examination of Witnesses (Questions 168
- 180)
THURSDAY 15 MARCH 2007
HIS EXCELLENCY MR SAMI M KHIYAMI, DR ABDULLATIS DABBAGH,
DR HOSAM HAFEZ AND MR JIHAD MAKDISSI
Q168 Chairman:
Your Excellency, thank you very much indeed for having come to
meet the Committee today. We see from your background you have
a great deal of knowledge of software and computers. As we sometimes
have problems working out the computer solutions for Parliament,
we may wish for you to come to another committee which discusses
those sorts of matters in future.
Ambassador Khiyami: I would certainly appreciate
that.
Q169 Chairman:
Today we are very pleased that you and your colleagues have come
to meet the Committee. We are carrying out an inquiry into the
European Union and the development of the Middle East. We are
the Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee charged with
looking at the European Union's work in the fields of foreign
policy, defence and development systems. We are therefore carrying
out these inquiries. Next week we shall be in Brussels, where
we are expecting to meet Dr Solana, but we wanted to get a picture
of the range of views from within the region before we went to
Brussels, which is why we felt it would be very helpful for us
to have the chance to meet you this morning. Your Excellency,
I do not know whether you would like to make an introductory statement
or whether you would like us to move to those questions of which
we have given you some indication.
Ambassador Khiyami: Could I make a five-minute
introductory statement?
Q170 Chairman:
Of course.
Ambassador Khiyami: First of all, I am very
privileged to be in the House of Lords. I have learned in Britain
how to be extremely impressed by the weight of traditions which
are really extremely lovable. I really appreciate the democratic
system in the UK. It is an honour to be here and to discuss with
you. May I start with a few emotional words. Distinguished Lords,
it is difficult for a Syrian ambassador to express how important
Europe is to Syria. Our history reveals long periods in which
my country was an integral part of the Greek and Roman Empire.
Subsequent events made Europeans visit Syria during the Crusades
for over 200 years—most of them are, by the way, still there—and
made Syrians visit Spain and other parts of Europe for over 800
years—and most of them are also still there. The social
cultural proximity that Syrians feel towards Europe and the important
economic ties with it make our dependence on Europe come only
next to our dependence on our Arab neighbours. In addition, the
European Union is to us an insurance that the world economy and
political supremacy would not be monopolised by one or two nations
but will always be monitored by Europe with whom we share a great
number of moral and human values. Europe can create a counterbalance
to the American dominance of world technology and the American
control of the flow of the world's oil, and hence dominance of
the world's economy. Europe can ensure that globalisation will
still open niches of economic opportunities for third world economies.
It can also ensure that the Middle East would become free of weapons
of mass destruction—but completely free, not partially free.
It can assist the countries around the Mediterranean to proceed
with their reform process and become effective partners of Europe.
It can become a knowledgeable—which is even more important
than honest—a knowledgeable and honest broker, assisting
the USA and other nations in the search of a comprehensive and
fair solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Europe, my Lords,
is economically, politically and culturally more important to
Syria than the US. America only comes first when we have to defend
ourselves from threats, invasion and sanctions. During the past
years the EU has faced many political challenges, and its relations
with Syrians and most of the Palestinians and probably most of
the Lebanese have suffered from various inconsistencies. I would
ask you to allow me to state what I feel. (1) The inability of
the EU to devise a consistent, unified foreign policy. (2) Each
EU Presidency seems to have its own agenda of priorities, creating
further instability in the foreign policy. We have seen about
10 different Middle East initiatives in Europe in the past year.
(3) The emergence in Europe of two tendencies, one favouring almost
total adherence to the US policies and the other trying to have
a distinctive European position vis-a"-vis Middle Eastern
affairs. (4) The unfortunate recession of the British role invested
in the dialogue between the West and the Arabs is also clear.
(5) The lack of dialogue with Syria, which limited the ability
of the EU to play a more active role in the search for peace in
the region. (6) The role of the EU in the Quartet is still coloured
by American dominance. (7) The European position towards Lebanon
reminds us of the growth of colonisation in the early 20th century.
Q171 Chairman:
Thank you very much indeed, your Excellency. I wonder if we could
move to the questions which we would like to discuss with you.
We would like to begin by looking at the current situation and
possible ways forward, and then go and look in more detail at
the political role of the European Union, which of course you
referred to in some detail in your introductory statement. I would
like to begin by asking you how you see the current situation
regarding the Middle East Peace Process.
Ambassador Khiyami: In Arabic we say that having
one eye is better than blindness. This could ultimately describe
what is happening today. We have sort of encouraging moves by
the USA towards finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. We hope this is not only a show of sympathy while telling
the Israelis not to make anything tangible. We hope this is really
a serious move. Whether the USA is really going to invest in finding
a proper solution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem we are not
sure. The problem we are still facing is that there is always
the sort of negotiation about land and this is something we do
not understand at all. We know for sure, all my generation and
all the young Arab generation, that Israel has been established
as an illegal state. The Arabs now are offering to make this country
legal in the region. This is not to say that we believe it was
legal at the onset. It was certainly illegal; however, there are
today children in Israel who know no other homeland and who consider
that they have to live in this country and have their future in
this country, therefore the Arab governments are today more than
ready to follow the Arab initiative of 2002, Land for Peace. This
means that land is intractable: the occupied land has to come
back to the countries that were attacked in 1967. Palestinians
should have their state with East Jerusalem as the capital. Negotiations,
in our minds, means: What does Israel need to make sure that it
has no worries any more about the peace ahead? Does it need water?
Does it need more security? What are the measures that have to
be taken in order to make Israel an acceptable member of the Middle
Eastern community? This, up to now, is being diverted, because,
unfortunately, the Road Map is still not based on UN resolutions
to the letter, but is a sort of general plan which does not take
the international role considerably into consideration. The fact
is that the Road Map has to abide by the UN resolution is material
in our eyes. Whether what is happening today is really a step
forward is something conditioned by what the Americans will do
next and the role the EU has decided to play in the future.
Q172 Lord Anderson of Swansea:
Ambassador, welcome. I have a two-part question. In your judgment
and that of your country, how much strength is left in the Road
Map? I know from visits to your country that you have been highly
critical of the phasing, stating that the Syrian track should
have been advanced to place Golan to the first section, so what
is the current view of your country? Secondly, the Arab peace
initiative of 2002 was led by Prince Abdullah. The Mecca agreement
was concluded obviously led by the Saudis. Is it your judgment
that the initiative now is being left by consensus of the neighbouring
states to King Abdullah and to the Saudi Arabian government?
Ambassador Khiyami: I will start with the last
part of your question. The Saudi initiative of 2002 of King Abdullah
did become an Arab initiative due to the Syrian support. When
Syria went into this Beirut summit conference, it gave so much
support for the initiative. It even tried to convince reticent
Arab states until it succeeded in doing so, and all 22 Arab countries—which
is really a novelty—accepted the Arab initiative. It is
unusual for Arabs to agree on an initiative, usually they agree
on generalities, but this time they all agreed on one initiative,
saying, "Give us back our land. Give the Palestinians their
state and we will give you peace." It is a very important
initiative, my Lord. If we go back only a few months behind us,
we will see the effect of what the Lebanese war has done to the
region. The young people in the region have seen with their own
eyes how a small group of determined individuals could defend
their country against a huge invading army, an army that exists
only in one or two places outside the US, and this army was not
able to advance in Lebanon. This is seen by young Arab people
and they are looking at their governments and criticising them:
"If we had known all this time that 2,000 individuals can
do such a kind of victory over an overrated army like the Israeli
army, why didn't we do so a long time earlier?" This is a
very important phenomenon that is happening in the Middle East
and this phenomenon has to be contained by wise governments that
are still presenting the Arab initiative as a real solution to
the problem. If the Arab initiative does not succeed, this will
mean ultimately chaos. Because if we continue to listen to the
Israelis, with their famous slogan of "Might makes right.
We are strong, we do not have to negotiate as much as you want
us to. We do not need to" then, ultimately, no doubt that
the Israeli army is stronger than all the Arab armies together—and
even not all the Arab armies but all the Middle Eastern armies
together and, I would say, even with some European armies, but,
anyway—no doubt they are stronger but this absolutely does
not mean that this will bring peace to the region. What will bring
peace to the region is a real peace between two cultures. People
think that peace is only a peace for land. It is also a peace
of cultures. The Syrian culture is threatened by the Israeli culture
as it stands right now. If there is peace, there is reconciliation
between cultures also, and this is really a historic chance that
has to be grasped. Concerning the first part of the question,
I think that the Road Map initially was a sort of tranquiliser.
The Road Map, instead of saying, "Let us implement the UN
resolution, said let us give these Palestinians something to tranquilise
them" it is like an aspirin pill. It never defined in detail
what to do and what are the steps ahead, and now, again, we hear
about gradual implementation of the Road Map and the idea is really
not there. There is a race against time. Young people are becoming
more and more enthusiastic into a sort of popular war in the region
and fanatics are increasing in number everywhere, not only on
the Arab side but also on the Israeli side, and there is no time.
Time is pressing and the Arab initiative has to be taken seriously
and the Road Map has to be adapted to the UN resolutions and the
Arab initiative in order to gain the necessary strength it needs
to present.
Q173 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
Ambassador, could I turn to some of the issues that arise from
Syria's position in the region and also its relationship with
the Lebanon, which of course does affect the Middle East Peace
Process obviously in quite a profound way. Is indeed Syria accepting
and applying all the UN resolutions that relate to the Lebanese
conflict, from 435 onwards up to the most recent ones, including
those that relate to preventing any weapons from reaching any
of the factions in the Lebanon, and does Syria accept that that
is the framework within which it should be possible to deal with
the Syrian and Lebanese aspects of the Middle East peace? In so
far as the contentious issues of the Sheeba farms is concerned,
is there any possibility for that being dealt with by international
arbitration, so that the matter as to whether it belongs to Lebanon
or Syria is settled by an objective process? We are all agreed,
I think, that they do not belong to Israel. They do not belong
to Israel but there is still dispute as to whether they belong
to Syria and Lebanon and my question is: Is that something that
could be dealt with by an international arbitration or judicial
process?
Ambassador Khiyami: Concerning the first part
of your question, my Lord, Syria has always completely adhered
to the UN resolution. In fact, sometimes we hate to implement
the resolution and we do it just because we do not want Israel
to say, "You faulted on this one, so this gives us the right
to fault on others." So we have been scrupulous in adhering
to the UN resolutions. You remember, for example, the 1559. The
1559 said that Syria had to leave Lebanon and this is what we
did exactly. Although we were planning to do it over the three
coming years that followed, we did it in a matter of one month.
The 1701 is completely adhered to by Syria. My foreign minister
has said it only yesterday. This question of crossing of arms
is really very puzzling, because nobody has any proof on that.
It is just being used by media in order to put pressure on Syria.
You know that the Americans have superb satellites up there and
they are photographing every single inch in the region. Not only
do we not have these satellite pictures from the Hariri murder,
which is what Mr Brammertz is complaining about, but also we do
not have any satellite picture about the Syrian-Lebanese borders
and any proof that arms are crossing these borders. Of course
there will have to be pictures that differ from what Mr Powell
once showed the UN Security Council but if it is really serious
pictures that show that such a thing is happening then Syria should
be really held as responsible for that. It is important for Europeans
to understand that Lebanon is no longer the Lebanon of the beginning
of the 20th century. Today in Lebanon the problem is internal.
There is a majority and an opposition and the opposition says,
"We are 60% and despite this we are considered a minority"
and the majority is 40% of the population and it is considered
to be a majority. This thing has to be sorted out among the Lebanese.
If one Lebanese seems more pleasant to a European because he speaks
better English, better French and looks closer to a European,
this does not mean that the other Lebanese is detestable. One
has to deal with all of them exactly the same way and with Lebanon
as an integrated country. It is important to understand that the
problem is inside Lebanon and all that we are witnessing right
now is a sort of dialogue between the Lebanese that Syria is supporting
tremendously. It is also tremendously supporting the Mecca Accord
which really started in Damascus. Saudi Arabia could never have
obtained the Mecca Accord without the negotiations that happened
between President Abbas and Mr Mashaal in Damascus. But if we
continue to say that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation and
so on, there will be no solution. Lebanon is the Lebanon that
is today as it is. It should be considered as it is with all the
factions forming the country. The Sheeba farm is really a minor
business. Everybody seems to say, "If we can solve the Sheeba
problem then there is no reason for Hezbollah to stay around."
In fact this is absolutely not true. Hezbollah is saying, "I
will always stay around with my arms as long as there is an Israeli
threat." Will the return of the Sheeba farms stop the Israeli
threat on Lebanon? This is the question to answer. We do not consider
the Sheeba farm as so essential in the process towards peace between
the Lebanese and the Israelis. This, added to the fact that we
believe that all tracts in the negotiation with Israel are complementary,
they are not separate, it is now impossible to create something
called an Israeli-Palestinian peace and then two years later a
Syrian-Israeli peace and one year later a Lebanese-Israeli peace.
It has to be a comprehensive peace. The Egyptians have tried that,
the Jordanians have tried that, but in fact we do not have peace
in the region. Although Egypt is the most important Arab state,
we are still away from peace as we were the day the Egyptian-Israeli
peace was signed.
Q174 Lord Lea of Crondall:
We have just had a parliamentary delegation here from the Lebanon.
I can assure you that we got on well with all the political parties
and not because we liked the look of someone's face rather than
somebody else's, but I take it you were using a certain metaphor
there. Could I ask about the role Syria sees the EU playing, following
the meeting yesterday, the day before we saw the FT report
of the meeting with Mr Solana following our visit, an exploratory
visit I guess, from one of the assistant secretaries of state
from the US. Among the points in this FT report was the question
of an arms embargo on Hezbollah and how that is being implemented,
and a tribunal where your Prime Minister said that Syria did not
oppose the tribunal in connection with the Hariri assassination.
These are difficult questions but they reveal a sort of substance
to a dialogue. Would you like to comment on the respects in which
you see this meeting with Mr Solana opening a new chapter?
Ambassador Khiyami: In the past two years, we
have faced an attitude of quasi-boycott adopted by some European
countries, most of them, and the EU foreign affairs towards Syria.
European officials avoided visiting Syria for almost two years
and, although the economic relations were still going on, in fact
there was no real dialogue between Syria and Europe. However Syrian
Ambassadors in European countries continued really to have a sort
of channel of discussion with the foreign offices of different
European countries. We see the visit of Mr Solana, as you have
said, as a sort of new page. However, there are still of course
differences that have to be solved. For instance, Mr Solana came
with the idea that all European countries have signed a statement
saying that we will resume contacts with Syria, which was welcome
in Damascus, and Mr Solana said, "You should make more efforts
to help implement the 1701." We said, "We are more than
ready but go check with the Lebanese. It is their problem, not
ours, after all." Mr Solana promised to help Syria in starting
negotiations over the Golan. Of course, today, in the morning,
I heard some of the Israeli reactions to that and they were extremely
negative, but he said so. He said that Europe will help Syria
to recover its occupied Golan. Concerning the international tribunal,
the President of Syria said to Mr Solana that Syria is absolutely
not against the principle of having an international court; the
problem is the statute that is still discussed by the Lebanese,
because, as it stands, this statute could even drag me, poor,
peaceful Ambassador, to the tribunal. I mean, it is an open statute.
It is totally open. If a Syrian commits any mistake anywhere,
you can ring the President of Syria. You can hold the President
of Syria responsible. If a Saudi commits any mistake, and the
judge decides to, he can bring the King of Saudi Arabia to hold
him responsible. This is really a statute that has been done extremely
hastily. It has not been studied according to high legal standards
and it is still negotiated between the Lebanese. Once the statute
becomes okay, then I think the Lebanese will obtain consensus
about the tribunal. The other problem, of course, is that Syria
was never consulted about this tribunal. The United Nations started
with the idea that the problem has to be negotiated with the Lebanese
government and not with Syria. Syria assumed that it had absolutely
nothing to do with the tribunal and therefore did not take any
stand concerning the tribunal because basically it is not concerned.
If there is anything that would ultimately touch on Syria—not
a Syrian citizen here and there but if a Syrian official here
and there is implicated in anything—then of course the statute
of the tribunal has to be discussed with Syria. Syria is not a
banana republic: it has sovereignty and when we have sovereignty
we will not accept anything to happen unless it is negotiated
with us and unless there is a consultation with us.
Q175 Lord Chidgey:
Ambassador, you have been very generous in giving us a far-ranging
and detailed view about the EU's relations with Syria and the
peace process, but I wonder if you could briefly give us an assessment
of what you consider to be the most salient issues and maybe summarise,
in an overall way, the EU's relations and dialogue with Syria
with regard to the Middle East Peace Process which encapsulates
the whole issue.
Ambassador Khiyami: I mentioned where it did
not work well. The Road Map, for instance, barely mentions the
occupied Golan. The Association Agreement with Syria was held
hostage by the EU—although it was signed as a draft—by
the EU Council for the sake of unjustified political agendas.
What is worse is that some European officials, just before stopping
to come to Syria, were telling us to do this and that, "Otherwise
we won't sign," so it became a sort of pressure too, and
Syria was immediately responding to them when we do not really
need it. We are also doing it for your sake. So we got into a
situation of total disruption of contacts. Let me mention to you,
for instance, something that touches the inhabitants of the occupied
Golan. The rules of origin in the European Association Agreement,
signed with Israel, were broken when the EU accepted to consider
the products of Israeli settlements, illegal settlements, in occupied
territories and, therefore, a fortiori the Syrian occupied
Golan, as third-party products. I do not know if you are familiar
with the Association Agreement: you accept to make a preferential
treatment for products as long as the third-party component of
these products is not above a certain percentage. Of course the
products coming from the settlements would not go beyond this
percentage, so they get the preferential treatment. In occupied
Golan they are illegal settlements and there are Syrians living
there and both have production. The settlements production is
included in the Israeli-European Association Agreement and, at
the same time, there is no special agreement with the inhabitants
of the Golan telling them, "Okay, Europe will deal with you
separately and will give you a certain preferential agreement."
What happens to you, automatically, is that you become at the
mercy of the settlements in order to sell your products or to
export your products. We are putting the inhabitants of an occupied
territory under the mercy of an illegal settlement in order to
survive. Furthermore, the nervousness expressed by certain important
European chancelleries following the murder of Prime Minister
Hariri of Lebanon and the unprecedented European intervention
in Lebanese affairs, reminded us of the goals of the European
colonization at the beginning of the 20th century. European ambassadors
started behaving like high commissioners in days of mandate, giving
directives to Lebanese politicians on what to do and what not
to do. This has only contributed to antagonizing Syria. It is
very important to know, my Lord, that Lebanon was established
in 1943 on the premise set by its founding fathers that it will
never be a base or gateway of colonization to the detriment of
Syria. What is happening or what has happened in the past 50 years
is exactly that. Suddenly Syria felt that there is a lot of danger
coming from its soft belly and from the country that is closest
to it. One million Syrian families are intermarried with one million
Lebanese families, so it really becomes like touching a place
so close to you and causing you threat through that place. What
can the EU do to improve things with Syria? Certainly I think
the EU can play a big role in helping Syria play its normal role
in the Middle East. Syria happens to be the most important geopolitical
country in the region. Whether some important nations like it
or not, it is, by chance, that we happen to be able to influence
the situations in neighbouring Iraq, in neighbouring Turkey, in
neighbouring Saudi Arabia, in neighbouring Lebanon, in neighbouring
Palestine, so, essentially, this is a country with an extreme
importance geopolitically speaking. When Europe tries to extend
a hand towards Syria, then I think peace will progress in the
region. Syria is most certainly part of the solution and not part
of the problem. It is important that in all the calls voiced by
Syria for the resumption of negotiations with Israel over the
Golan, I think the best broker for such talks would be the EU.
This complex that you are starting to have as Europeans, as we
have had 100 years ago, of being so weak in front of the American
giant, I think is becoming slowly a fantasy, in the sense that
Europe can play a very important role in the process of peace
in the region. When dealing with Lebanon, Europe, I think, ought
to review its position towards Hezbollah. Hezbollah happens to
represent at least 40% of the emotions of the Lebanese people
and at least 60% of the political choice of the Lebanese people.
We cannot deal with this kind of party by just giving a big label
"terrorist": "terrorist" without proof; "terrorist"
while others are killing thousands of people. When Israel comes
and kills 1500 civilian Lebanese in one short while, in one month,
among them 400 children, we say very little, but when Hezbollah
kills 37 Israeli civilians then it is the end of the world. This
would show you a little bit the double standards that are happening.
These double standards are heavily felt in the Middle East. One
of the problems of the Arabs of the North—and here I say
"Arabs of the North" meaning Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian,
Jordan, Iraq—is their tenacity. You know, they look like
Europeans a little bit in that. They look like people of the North
in their tenacity. They cannot be taken for granted. They cannot
be taken according to a double standard process. There is no way
anybody could do that. They prefer—and I am sorry to say
it—to die and not lose their honour. It is extremely problematic,
but one has to take us the way we are. I mean, we could evolve
and become something else in 100 years, but this is how we are
today and one has to deal with us the way we are. The way we are
is that we would never accept any solution that would not satisfy
what we consider as our legal aspirations.
Q176 Lord Crickhowell:
Coming back to the central role of this Committee, which is the
job that Europe can do in the Middle East Peace Process, like
the Egyptian Ambassador you have referred several times to the
role of honest broker and the fact that there is a historic chance
that needs to be grasped. Indeed, you went further and said that
there was no time. You have painted a vivid picture of the risks
of the young and fanatics taking control if that chance was not
grasped. You have identified one possible role of Europe, which
is helping Syria have a part in the overall settlement, but what
would you like to see Europe now doing in the settlement? Do you
think the fact that the Palestinians seem to be moving towards
a workable National Unity Government gives us an opportunity?
How do you think Europe should relate to that?
Ambassador Khiyami: I think what is most important
is that Europe would cooperate with the new National Unity Government.
It should have recognised of course the Hamas government. It is
senseless to say all the time, "You will not deal with Hamas
until Hamas recognises Israel" because Israel never recognised
a Palestinian state initially. How do we ask Hamas to recognise
Israel while Israel is not recognising Palestine? Then we ask
Hamas to follow scrupulously the Road Map, although Israel has
100 reservations on the Road Map. I think this is a question of
double standards as well. If we ask somebody for one, we ask the
other for one. We may ask him for one prime, sort of epsilon difference,
because we understand the strength of the lobby, et cetera, but
we cannot ask one for five against while asking the other for
one. This is becoming really exaggerated. It is very important
to cooperate with the new National Unity Government. It is very,
very important to stop immediately the boycott against the Palestinian
people. If these people explode, then there is very little the
Arab governments can do. I think it is about time for Europe to
sponsor a call for an international conference to define terrorism.
We cannot just continue calling terrorists whoever dares to resist
an occupation force. It is unbelievable. Al-Qaeda people in Iraq
are never attacking occupation forces. I have never seen an al-Qaeda
operation against an American tank. I am sorry, I have been watching
TV even at two o'clock in the morning, and I have never, ever
seen an al-Qaeda operation against an American military personnel.
I have seen al-Qaeda attacking women and children and innocent
people around mosques and in markets, and all of them Iraqis.
I have seen American bodies being booby-trapped by resistance
forces through remote control devices. This, yes, I have seen,
but these are not al-Qaeda people doing it. We call all this whole
lot terrorists. How do we then differentiate? A young man wanting
to resist occupation, how will he understand that this is a freedom
fighter and this is a terrorist? Because he will say, "Whatever
I do if I want to resist occupation, whether I kill 100 civilians
or I kill two occupation military soldiers I will anyway be called
a terrorist, so maybe by killing 100 civilians it will make more
media." The distinction between the legitimate resistance
against occupation and the acts of terrorism is extremely important
to define and I think still that terrorism has to be defined too.
This can be done by an international conference that only Europe
can sponsor. Because if Russia asks for it, then it will be said
that it is because of the Chechen; if China asks for it, it will
be said it is because of, I do not know what . . . because of
Tibet; if the Arabs ask for it, "Oh, my God! it's because
they are terrorists, all of them"; if the Americans ask for
it, it is also for this and that. Only Europe has the ethical
reputation to be able to help in calling for an international
conference to define terrorism. I think Europe can help basing
the Road Map on UN resolutions and international law. This should
be item number one. You could derive from that proposals and changes
here, and changes there, but the base has to be UN resolutions.
I think Europe ought to deal with Lebanon as a whole. I think
it should devise a policy characterised by fairness; by Western
elimination of the Arab-Israeli conflict; and, of course, abide
by the EU security strategy adopted in 2003, in particular as
it relates to the elimination of WMDs in the Middle East. It is
very important also not to use double standards here and not to
say all the time, "Maybe a democratic country is allowed
to have some nuclear weapons. They are democratic, so we can negotiate
with them." If Iran tomorrow becomes a Western democracy,
it will not affect the fact that it will always want to have its
eye on the oil flow and on the control of the oil flow, so nothing
will change after all. Basically, we should not have double standards
concerning the nuclear issue. It is really stated in the security
strategy of the EU. These are suggestions but, most importantly,
why do I say "work with Syria"? Because Syria has a
very important geopolitical position in the region and Europe
has a very important economic and ethical position in the world
and I think the cooperation between Europe and Syria can lead
to a lot of positive results in their search for peace.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I think Lord
Hannay has a final question.
Q177 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
Yes. I am sorry, it is more of a statement than a question. Ambassador,
you might find it useful to read the UN Secretary General's proposals
for a definition of terrorism which were contained in his report
In Larger Freedom which were made available to all members
of the United Nations, because that of course makes a perfectly
clear distinction between acts which are taken against innocent
civilians, which are the only thing that he proposed should be
covered by the definition, and acts that take place under an occupation,
which are of course governed by the Geneva Conventions which already
exist. The distinction has been made but, if I am not wrong, your
government is not one of those which accepted the Secretary General's
proposals.
Ambassador Khiyami: We will not accept it because
you will not consider that killing civilians by occupation forces
is terrorism. If the occupation forces tomorrow enter a city in
Iraq and exterminate all, we will still call that terrorism.
Q178 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
I am sorry, Ambassador, I was not referring to that.
Mr Khiyami: I did not understand.
Q179 Lord Hannay of Chiswick:
I was referring to the fact that there is no attempt in the definition
to suggest that an Iraqi who killed an American or British soldier
is a terrorist because the definition related only to the killing
of innocent civilians. It was not an attempt to suggest that actions
between Iraqis and the American, British and other forces who
are in Iraq constituted terrorism.
Ambassador Khiyami: My Lord, this is happening
in Israel. No matter what you do in Israel, you are a terrorist.
If the Palestinians go and capture an Israeli soldier, Shalit,
imagine that we know the name of one soldier and we do not know
the names of thousands of people who have suffered from Israelis
actions or killings. Shalit—and I respect, of course, his
agony—Shalit. We know him, and those who have captured him
are considered terrorists, although he is a military. The principles
are upside down. Now religions are upside down, so why not the
principles? Mr Bush is teaching us Christianity and Mr Bin Laden
is teaching us Islam, so everybody is having his own way.
Q180 Chairman:
Ambassador, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank
you and your colleagues for answering our questions so fully this
morning. It has been very important for us to get a picture before
we to go to Brussels next week to meet Mr Solana. In view of some
of the things you have said, it is also very fortunate that we
are meeting the day after the important visit of Mr Solana to
Damascus which does suggest there is a new opportunity for the
European Union to play an active part, not only in other parts
of the region but also in its relations with Syria. Thank you
again very much. We have appreciated your presence with us today.
Ambassador Khiyami: Thank you very much. Thank
you for your patience to hear my point of view.
|
