![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sana.sy\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/3-62-300x200.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is the same. \u00a0Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with the reality. \u00a0When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and say that we will send the army to face the Americans. \u00a0We are talking about a super power. \u00a0Do we have the capabilities to do that? \u00a0I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians. \u00a0Do we choose resistance? \u00a0If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their fate in Iraq. \u00a0But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of resistance. \u00a0The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents of foreigners – Syrian traitors. \u00a0Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes. \u00a0We should be dealing with those Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors. \u00a0To ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a mere difference over a political issue. \u00a0We should all be united against occupation. \u00a0When we reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be able to remain in Syria. \u00a0This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq at a later stage. \u00a0I think this is the right solution.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Last week, you made a tour of the front lines in Idlib with which you surprised the Syrians and the world. Addressing the soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army, you said that the battle is in the east, but Idlib is an advanced outpost of the enemy in the west which aims at dispersing the forces of the Syrian Army. Some saw the visit as the go-ahead sign, or the zero hour for the coming battle of Idlib. Is it so?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: No, there was no link between my visit and the zero hour. \u00a0First, I conduct tours every so often to the areas which are considered hot spots and dangerous, because these heroes are carrying out the most difficult of tasks, and it is natural for me to think of visiting them. \u00a0This has been common practice for me; the visit to Idlib in particular was because the world perhaps believed that the whole Syria question is summed up in what is happening in the north, and the issue has now become a Turkish Army incursion into Syrian territory, and forgetting that all those fighting in Idlib are actually part of the Turkish Army, even though they are called al-Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham and other names. I assure you that those fighters are closer to Erdogan\u2019s heart than the Turkish Army itself. \u00a0We should not forget this, because politically and in relation to Turkey in particular, the main battle is Idlib because it is linked to the battle in the north-eastern region or the Jazeera region. \u00a0This is the reason – I wanted to stress that what is happening in the Jazeera region, despite its importance and despite the wide area of operations does not distract us from the significance of Idlib in the overall battle.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: You say, Mr President, that there is no link between your visit to Idlib and the zero hour but is there a link between your visit to Idlib and the meeting which took place on the same day between Turkey and Russia?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Actually, when I was there, I had forgotten completely that a summit was being held on the same day. \u00a0I did not remember that. \u00a0I knew that a summit would be taking place and that it would be on Tuesday but\u2026<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: But your statements gave the impression that it was a preemptive rejection or something against the meeting.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0That is true.<\/p>\nJournalist: <\/strong>Or against this meeting.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: Some articles and comments even said that there was a feeling of anger against the summit, and that the summit was against us. \u00a0The fact is that I was not angry, and my statements against Erdogan are continuous. \u00a0I said that he was a thief, and from the first days he started stealing everything related to Syria. So, he is a thief. \u00a0I was not calling him names; I was describing him.\u00a0 This is an adjective and this description is true. \u00a0What do you call somebody who steals factories, crops and finally land? \u00a0A benefactor? \u00a0He is a thief, there is no other name. \u00a0Previously in my speech before the People\u2019s Assembly, I said that he is a political thug. \u00a0He exercises this political thuggery on the largest scale. \u00a0He lies to everyone, blackmails everyone. He is a hypocrite and publicly so. \u00a0We are not inventing an epithet; he declares himself through his true attributes. So, I only described him<\/p>\nAs to the agreement, as I said a while ago, we believe that Russian involvement anywhere is in our interest, because our principles are the same and our battle is one. \u00a0So, Russian involvement will certainly have positive results and we started to see a part of that. \u00a0Contrary to what you said, we were happy with this summit, and we are happy with the Russian-Turkish relationship in general, contrary to what some people believe, that the Russians are appeasing the Turks. \u00a0It does not matter whether the Russians are appeasing the Turks or not or whether they are playing a tactical game with them. \u00a0What is important is the strategy. \u00a0That is why I can say that there is no link at all between my statements and the summit.<\/p>\n
Journalist: <\/strong>\u00a0Remaining with Idlib, but from a different perspective, the UN Special Envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, and in an interview with a newspaper about the situation in Idlib, described it as complicated, and I\u2019ll mention the points he made: he called for a solution which guarantees the security of civilians. \u00a0He also talked about the presence of terrorist organizations and the importance of avoiding an all-out military campaign which, in his opinion, will, far from solving the problem, have a serious humanitarian consequence. \u00a0What do you think of what he said, and will the operation be postponed or stopped because of international pressure or based on Pedersen\u2019s remarks?<\/p>\nPresident Assad: <\/strong>\u00a0If Pedersen has the means or the capacity to solve the problem without an all-out military operation, it will be good. \u00a0Why does he not solve the problem? If he has a clear plan, we have no objection. \u00a0It is very simple. He can visit Turkey and tell the Turks to convince the terrorists, or ask Turkey to separate the civilians from the militants. \u00a0Let the civilians stay in one area and the militants in another. \u00a0It would be even easier if he could identify who is a militant and who is not. \u00a0Fighting terrorism is not achieved by theorizing, making rhetorical statements or by preaching. \u00a0As for postponing, had we waited for an international decision \u2013 and by international decision I mean American, British, French and those who stand with them \u2013 we would not have liberated any region in Syria since the first days of the war. \u00a0These pressures have no impact. Sometimes we factor in certain political circumstances; as I said, we give political action an opportunity so that there is no pretext, but when all these opportunities are exhausted, military action becomes necessary in order to save civilians, because I cannot save civilians when they are under the control of the militants. \u00a0Western logic is an intentionally and maliciously up-side-down logic. \u00a0It says that the military operation should be stopped in order to protect civilians, whilst for them the presence of civilians under the authority of terrorists constitutes a form of protection for the civilians. \u00a0The opposite is actually true. \u00a0The military intervention aims at protecting the civilians, by leaving civilians under the authority of terrorists you extend a service to terrorists and take part in killing civilians.<\/p>\nJournalist:<\/strong> You are not waiting for an international decision but are you waiting for a Russian one? Can the Russians delay the beginning of the military operation? We saw earlier that military operations were stopped in Idlib, to the extent that some people said that the Russians put pressure every time to stop the operations as a result of special understandings with the Turks. \u00a0Is that true?<\/p>\nPresident Assad:<\/strong> \u00a0\u201cPressure\u201d is not the right word. \u00a0We, the Russians and the Iranians are involved in the same military battle and the same political battle.\u00a0 We are always in talks with each other to determine the circumstances which allow for an operation to go ahead. \u00a0On several occasions, we agreed on a specific timing for a certain operation, which was later postponed because of military or political developments. \u00a0This dialogue is normal. \u00a0There are issues we see on the internal arena, and there are issues seen by Iran on the regional arena and there are those issues seen by the Russians on the international arena. \u00a0We have an integrated approach based on dialogue. \u00a0In the past month, I have held five meetings with Russian and Iranian officials, so less than a week apart. \u00a0Between each two meetings there were military and political developments such that what had been agreed in the first meeting was then changed or modified in the second, third and fourth meetings and the last of which was yesterday. \u00a0The fast pace of developments makes it necessary sometimes to postpone operations. \u00a0On the other hand, we have contacts with civilians in those areas. \u00a0We really try hard to make it possible for civilians to move from those areas into our areas in order to save lives; moreover, if a political solution was possible, and sometimes we succeeded in finding such a solution, it would save the lives of Syrian soldiers, which is a priority that we should not ignore. \u00a0So, there are many elements, which are difficult to go into now, which affect this decision and postpone it; it is not a matter of pressure. The Russians are as enthusiastic about fighting terrorism as we are, otherwise why would they send their fighter jets? \u00a0The timing depends on dialogue.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: But President Putin announced the end of major military operations in Syria. \u00a0Would Russia be with us in Idlib? Would it take part in the military operation?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Russia was with us in liberating Khan Skeikhoon and its environs; announcing an end to military operations does not mean an end to fighting terrorism. \u00a0Indeed, the major battles have almost finished, because most areas either surrender voluntarily or are subject to limited operations. \u00a0The Khan Sheikhoon operation might look on the map as a major battle, but there was in fact a collapse on the part of the militants. So, maybe this is what was meant by the end of the major operations. \u00a0Their statements that Idlib should return under the control of the Syrian state and their determination to strike at terrorism have not changed.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Remaining in Idlib and on the same point, because there is a lot being said about this. Concerning the terrorists in Idlib, and they are the same terrorists Pedersen talked about, how are they going to be handled? Are they going to be deported? \u00a0There have been cases like this before: terrorists being deported from different regions in Syria to Idlib. \u00a0Now, terrorists are in Idlib. Would the Turks accept the terrorists to be deported to Turkey, or how are they going to be dealt with?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0If Turkey does not accept that, it is Turkey\u2019s problem and it does not concern us. \u00a0We are going to deal with them in the same way we have in the past. Some might ask: in the past there were areas to which terrorists were permitted to retreat to, but now there is no other place to which terrorists might be sent from Idlib. \u00a0So, where should they go? \u00a0If they do not go to Turkey, they have two options: either return to the Syrian state and resolve their issues or face war. \u00a0There is no other choice, neither for us nor for them. These are the two only options.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Some media outlets have circulated leaks about meetings with the Turks. \u00a0Is that true, on what level, and what was the outcome of those meetings, if they had taken place?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: All those meetings were held between security officers but at different levels. \u00a0Few meetings, probably two or three, were held in Kasab inside the Syrian borders or close to the joint borders, and one or more meetings were held in Russia. \u00a0I do not recall the number exactly, because they took place in the space of the past two years. \u00a0But there have been no real results. \u00a0At least we had expected to reach a solution concerning the withdrawal agreed upon in Astana for fifteen kilometers west and north in the de-escalation zone in Idlib. \u00a0It did not happen.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: So, you confirm that there have been meetings with the Turkish side, but that was before the agreement\u2026<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: Of course, there were tripartite meetings with Russian mediation and Russian presence. \u00a0We insisted on the Russian presence because we do not trust the Turks, so that there are witnesses.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: not bilateral meetings?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: No, trilateral meetings.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Trilateral, with the Russians present? Was that before the last Russian-Turkish meeting?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: Of course.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Are you prepared today to sit with the Turks after the aggression and after the agreement?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0If you are asking me how would I feel if I, personally, had to shake hands with a person from the Erdogan group, or someone of similar leanings or who represents his ideology – I would not be honoured by such a meeting and I would feel disgusted.\u00a0 But we have to put our personal feelings aside when there is a national interest at stake. \u00a0If a meeting would achieve results, I would say that everything done in the national interest should be done. \u00a0This is the responsibility of the state. \u00a0I do not expect a meeting to produce any results unless circumstances change for the Turks. \u00a0And because the Erdogan-type Turks are opportunists and belong to an opportunist organization and an opportunist ideology, they will produce results according to changing circumstances, when they are under pressure, depending on their internal or external circumstances or maybe their failure in Syria. Then, they might produce results.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: The sensitive question in this regard is: the Turks are occupiers, so if I am willing, or if I have the chance, or if I believe that I might meet the Turks, the Turks are occupiers, exactly like Israelis, so it would be possible to meet the Israelis. This is a sensitive issue, but it is being raised.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: It was actually raised when we started these meetings: how can we meet occupiers in Afrin or other areas, even if there are not occupiers, they support terrorism; they are enemies in the national sense. \u00a0The difference between them and Israel is that we do not recognize the legitimacy of its existence as a state. We don\u2019t recognize the existence of the Israeli people. There is no Israeli people except the one that existed for several centuries BC, now they are a diaspora who came and occupied land and evicted its people. \u00a0While the Turkish people exist, and they are a neighbouring people, and we have a common history, regardless of whether this history is good or bad or in between; that is irrelevant.\u00a0 Turkey exists as a state and it is a neighbouring state. \u00a0The Alexandretta issue is different from the situation in which a people without land replace a land and a people; the comparison is not valid. \u00a0Even when we negotiated with Israel in the 1990s, we did not recognize it. \u00a0We negotiated in order to achieve peace.\u00a0 If this was achieved and the rights were returned, we would recognize it; as I said, the comparison is invalid. \u00a0Turkey will continue to exist and the Turks should remain a brotherly people. \u00a0Erdogan was betting at the beginning to mobilize the Turkish people behind him in order to create hostility with the Syrian people, and consequently be given a free hand. \u00a0We have to be careful not to look at things in the same way. \u00a0I stress again that some people, not the political forces, but within the Turkish Army and security institutions are against Erdogan. \u00a0This was the reason behind our drive to meet them.<\/p>\nFurthermore, and this was the subject of discussion with our Russian and Iranian friends \u2013 who said that yes, we are defending you, but in the end, you are the owners of the cause.\u00a0 This is true, the land is ours, and the cause is ours and so we have a duty to carry out by meeting them directly, even if we do not expect results.\u00a0 Maybe there will come a day when we can achieve results, particularly with changing circumstances inside Turkey, in the world and within Syria.<\/p>\n
Journalist<\/strong>: Concerning Israel, some people describe it as the absent present in the events in Syria, the greatest beneficiary of what happened in Syria. Indeed, it is more comfortable now than in any other time before in comparison with weakening Syria, Hizbollah and Iran, as analysts say.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0It is the always-present. \u00a0It has never been absent. \u00a0It might be absent in terms of language, because we fight its proxies, agents, flunkies or tools, in different ways, some military some political. \u00a0They are all tools serving Israel directly or through the Americans.\u00a0 Since the battle on the ground is with these forces, it is normal that the terminology describes these forces and not Israel. \u00a0Israel is in fact a main partner in what is happening, and as an enemy state, that is expected.\u00a0 Will it stand by and watch? \u00a0No. it will be proactive, and more effective in order to strike at Syria, the Syrian people, the Syrian homeland and everything related to Syria.<\/p>\nJournalist:<\/strong> Benefiting practically from what happened?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>:\u00a0 This is self-evident. \u00a0Even if we do not discuss it, it is one of our national givens in Syria.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: After all the aggressions carried out by the Israeli enemy on Syria, we have never seen an Arab position, and the Arab League has never moved. When the Turkish aggression started, the Arab League met at the level of Foreign Ministers. The first impressions were good, and the final communique was described as positive. In return, we have not heard a statement from the Syrian state.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>:\u00a0 Do you recall when Syria\u2019s membership in the Arab League was frozen? \u00a0Did we issue a statement? We did not. \u00a0So, if we did not issue a statement as a result of Syria\u2019s departure from the Arab League, why would we issue one when they started discussing Syria\u2019s return to the Arab League? I think the implications of my answer are clear for all those who want to understand. \u00a0I do not think that your viewers believe that raising this issue merits more than the few sentences I have just said.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0True. If we move to pure politics concerning the constitutional committee. \u00a0What is your explanation of the criticism made by the other side to this committee, although it has been one of their demands for years?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Very simply, they believed that we would reject the formation of this committee, and maybe they were shocked that we were able to form it, because they used to raise obstacles and blame the Syrian government. \u00a0We dealt with these obstacles in a specific diplomatic manner, not making concession on fundamental issues, but on some issues which we consider related to form. \u00a0They were shocked in the end, and that is why they launched a severe attack on it. \u00a0That is what happened, in brief.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: The Syrian state made no concessions under Russian or Iranian pressure?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0No. Had we made real concessions, they would not have attacked it. \u00a0They would have praised the formation of the committee. \u00a0Their attack shows that we have not made any concessions and no concessions can be made. \u00a0The constitutional committee and the outcomes it might produce later would be used as a launching pad to attack and strike at the structure of the Syrian state. \u00a0This is what the West has been planning for years, and we know this. That is why it was not an option to concede on fundamentals and particular stances related to Syria\u2019s interest. \u00a0There were other details which were insignificant, like the fact that they camouflaged themselves under the umbrella of the so-called moderate opposition.\u00a0 In many instances, they proposed names affiliated to al-Nusra Front, which we rejected because of this affiliation.<\/p>\nJournalist: <\/strong>Terrorists?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: They are terrorists. \u00a0In the end we agreed to a number of those, which might have come as a surprise. \u00a0We determined that the result would be the same regardless: the same background, the same affiliation, the same master.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: True<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>:\u00a0 And decision maker, and so the signal for the decision would be from the same source. \u00a0So, what difference does it make?<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Puppets, no more.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Exactly. \u00a0We agreed. \u00a0This is only an example. \u00a0There are many other details, but this is what surprised them. \u00a0We have not made any concession on fundamental issues.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0Pedersen talked about meetings of the constitutional committee in Geneva saying that it would open the door to reaching a comprehensive solution to the Syrian crisis, and in his view, that solution includes holding parliamentary and presidential elections under the supervision of the United Nations and in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2254. \u00a0He also talked about ensuring the participation of Syrian expatriates. Would you accept international supervision on parliamentary and presidential elections? \u00a0And is this issue within the preview of this committee? \u00a0And who has the right to vote, practically?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: For him to say that this committee prepares the ground for a comprehensive solution, this is not true. \u00a0It provides part of the solution, maybe. \u00a0But by saying this he ignores the presence of the terrorists. \u00a0A constitutional committee while the terrorists are still there will solve the problem – how? This is impossible; it is rejected. \u00a0The solution starts by striking at terrorism in Syria. \u00a0It starts by stopping external interference in Syria. \u00a0Any Syrian-Syrian dialogue complements, contributes and plays a certain role, but it does not replace the first and second elements. I am saying this in order not to leave part of the statement as if we have agreed to it.<\/p>\nIf he believes that Resolution 2254 gives the authority to any party, international or otherwise, to supervise the elections, this means that they are returning to the era of the mandate. \u00a0I would like to recall that the first part of the resolution refers to Syria\u2019s sovereignty, which is expressed by the Syrian state alone and no one else. \u00a0The elections that will be held will be under the supervision of the Syrian state from A to Z. \u00a0If we want to invite any other party – an international body, certain states, organizations, societies, individuals or personalities, it will still be under the supervision of the Syrian state and under the sovereignty of the Syrian state. \u00a0The constitutional committee has nothing to do with the elections it is only tasked with the constitution. \u00a0If they believe that they will return to the days of the mandate, then that would only be in their dreams.<\/p>\n
Journalist<\/strong>: Again, on Pedersen\u2019s statements, he said that the mere acceptance to form the constitutional committee is an implied acceptance of the other side and constitutes a joined commitment before the Syrian people to try and agree, under the auspices of the United Nations, on the constitutional arrangements for Syria. Some people objected to this implied acceptance of the other side by the committee, since it does not represent the Syrian people and is not elected by the Syrian people. What is your response to that?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0All your questions are valid, at least from a legal perspective. \u00a0First, let us identify the first party and the second; some people believe the first party is the Syrian state or the Syrian government. \u00a0No, this is not the case, the first party represents the viewpoint of the Syrian government, however the Syrian government is not part of these negotiations nor of these discussions.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: The first party is supported by the Syrian government.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Exactly. \u00a0The government supports this party because we believe that we share the same viewpoint. \u00a0They are people who belong to the same political climate of the Syrian government. \u00a0This does not imply that the government is part of the negotiations.\u00a0 Legally, we are not a part of the constitutional committee and this does not imply the government\u2019s recognition of any party; this issue is should be clear. \u00a0So, he is referring to a side which represents the viewpoint of the Syrian government. \u00a0Here we have to question: what does he mean by \u201cimplied acceptance,\u201d what is it we are accepting?<\/p>\nThe first party initially accepted to be part of Sochi and to sit down with the second party in Sochi; it later accepted to set up a constitutional committee and discuss ideas regarding the constitution. \u00a0Accepting to sit down with them, does not imply that we accept their nature.\u00a0 The first party exists in Syria, lives in Syria, belongs to all segments of the Syrian people; similarly, there is a state which has the same viewpoint, is elected by the Syrian people and enjoys the support of the majority of people. \u00a0The second party is appointed by whom? \u00a0It is appointed by Turkey. \u00a0Why was the formation of the constitutional committee delayed? For a whole year, we have been negotiating with Turkey via the state-guarantors, Russia and Iran. \u00a0The second party was not appointed by any Syrian side; a few represent the terrorists and the majority represent the states which imposed them; it is exclusively Turkey, and of course those standing in the background, the Americans and others.\u00a0 And there is the other party, which, as I said, represents the terrorists. So, what is it I am accepting? \u00a0I accept the terrorist to be a patriot, or I accept those appointed by others, or I accept agents to be patriots. Let us speak frankly. \u00a0Why should we lie and speak diplomatically? \u00a0The reality is that there is a patriotic party dealing with a party which is an agent and a terrorist, its as simple as that. But in order to be diplomatic and to not anger everyone, I will call it a Syrian-Syrian dialogue, but only in terms of an identity card, passport and nationality. \u00a0But as for belonging, that is a different discussion, to which we all know the answer too aside from the diplomatic discourse.<\/p>\n
Journalist<\/strong>: Pedersen considered that the launch of the work of the committee is actually a return to Geneva. Have we returned to Geneva after four years? And what about Sochi and Astana?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0No, we have returned to Geneva only geographically, whereas politically, we are part of Sochi, and everything that is happening has its frame of reference as Sochi and is a continuation of it. \u00a0There is no Geneva, it is not part of this process. \u00a0The fact that the UN is represented and participates in Sochi gives it an international dimension, which is necessary; but it does not mean that Geneva undercuts Sochi. \u00a0There is no Geneva.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Could Pedersen\u2019s statements, all the statements we have reviewed here, aim at preempting the work of the committee, or are they completely outside the context of its work? And concerning the constitution, in particular, is what is happening a complete change of the constitution, a discussion on the constitution, or the amendment of some provisions of the constitution?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0There will be an attempt to direct the work of the committee in a certain direction. \u00a0This is for sure, and we are fully aware of this and won\u2019t allow it. \u00a0That is why everything announced outside the committee has no value; it is absolute zero, as simple as that. \u00a0Therefore, we should not waste our time on such statements or give it any importance. What is the second point?<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0About the nature of the committee\u2019s work: is it discussing the provisions of the constitution, amending some provisions or a complete change of the constitution?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0This constitutes a large part of the discussion on setting up the constitutional committee: shall we amend the constitution or have a new constitution? \u00a0Our position was that when we amend a provision of the constitution and put it to a referendum, it becomes a new constitution. \u00a0So, there is no real difference between amending the constitution or having a new one, because there is nothing to define the new constitution, a completely new constitution.\u00a0 This is all theoretical and has no real meaning. \u00a0What concerns us is that everything produced by the meetings of this committee and is in line with national interest – even if it is a new constitution from A to Z, we shall approve. \u00a0And if there is an amendment of a single provision in the constitution, which is against national interest, we would oppose it. \u00a0So, in order not to waste our time in such sophistry, we should focus on the implications. \u00a0We are fully aware of the game they are going to play. They aim to weaken the state and transform it into a state which cannot be controlled from within and, consequently is controlled from the outside. \u00a0The game is clear, as is happening in neighboring countries which we don\u2019t need to mention. \u00a0This is not going to happen; but they will try and we will not accept. \u00a0This is the summary of months of future dialogue, and maybe longer, I don\u2019t know. Of course, I mean future dialogue.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0We discussed at length the constitutional committee and all the statements made about it. I will move to talking about the internal situation in Syria, since we are talking about attempts to influence, what matters is the internal situation. \u00a0During the war years, the Syrian\u2019s suffered from high prices, lack of production, shortage of job opportunities, many consequences of terrorism, the sanctions, and the difficult military situation over large parts of the Syrian territory. \u00a0The natural outcome was a deterioration in the living conditions of Syrian families. \u00a0But now, conditions on the ground militarily have improved, most of the land has returned to the control of the Syrian state. \u00a0What about the living conditions? Are there signs of an improvement of this situation, or will the situation remain as it is until all Syrian territory is liberated?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0If the cause was only due to the situation on the ground, terrorism, etc., then yes, it is better to wait. \u00a0But this does not make sense. \u00a0As you know, some people tend to blame everything on the security situation and whilst there is no doubt that it has a great impact, but it is not absolute. \u00a0This answers the last part of the question. \u00a0Do we wait? \u00a0No, because if we were to wait, even if the situation on the ground changed, living conditions would not improve. \u00a0Living conditions will not improve unless we move, very simply, as a state and as a society on all levels. \u00a0Liberating some areas might have an impact on the economic situation if these areas were employed and integrated into the development and economic cycle in Syria.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0Areas in which there are resources in particular.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0There might be resources, or it might be a tourist area. \u00a0Currently there is no tourism, so this area will not have an impact on the economic situation, but an agricultural area like the northern regions, this is essential; today we import some of the things which we used to export and because they are imported in a round-about way in order to circumvent the sanctions, we are paying more for them.\u00a0 If we take Aleppo for instance, it is the heart of Syrian industry, and with Damascus they are the centre of the Syrian economy. \u00a0So, areas are different but if we liberate areas without taking the necessary measures to invigorate the economy, things will not improve. \u00a0So, as a state, we need to accelerate the rebuilding of infrastructure – like restoring electricity and other utilities, and the role of state institutions, in order to facilitate the return of the productivity cycle. \u00a0Here I am not referring to major industries and large projects. \u00a0Even before the war, we had the view that large projects are important but they are not the solution. \u00a0For a country like Syria, the strength of its economy lies in small and medium-sized enterprises. This will help invigorate the economy. \u00a0The problem is that some people wait; they say that let us wait to see what happens. \u00a0If we are to wait, then we should not expect to see the signs that you referred to.\u00a0 Are there signs? Yes, of course, there are improvements, there are industries which have emerged, workshops that have returned to work.\u00a0 The number of people who have returned to the country is higher than the development of the economy, and consequently some might say these improvements are intangible, this is correct.\u00a0 The challenge now is to integrate these people into the economic cycle. \u00a0The answer to the question: (can we do it?) of course, we can. \u00a0We should not say that circumstances prevent us, no; we have some laziness, we have some dependencies and sometimes we do not have the vision of how to move. \u00a0And by we, I mean all of us as a society, as a state and as citizens. \u00a0The state is responsible to provide the necessary conditions and the infrastructure, but it cannot open all the shops, workshops, and industries.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0If we can, why do we not see a real response by the government to your continued directives to the ministers to deal transparently with the citizens. \u00a0Why is this indifference and improvisation in the work of government institutions and the absence of any planning or a preemptive alternative, as some people say, some people who hold the government responsible directly for squandering the blood of the martyrs and the wounded and the sacrifices of the Syrians.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0First, if we want to address government institutions, and in order to be objective, I cannot talk about them collectively; there are those ministries that are working, while there is laziness and inefficiency in others. \u00a0Within ministries, there are institutions which are functioning properly and others which are not fulfilling their duties. \u00a0So, if we want to talk objectively, we need to identify specific sectors in order to distinguish between them; any generalities do not properly reflect reality. \u00a0In our own private discussions, we can talk in general terms – the state is not functioning, the government is not functioning etc., but I am an official and I cannot but speak in a scientific, objective and tangible manner. \u00a0In reality, there are cases of negligence and there is the opposite. \u00a0If I look at the positive aspects, if all the institutions are not working, where are we getting salaries from? \u00a0How do students go to school? \u00a0There are martyrs in the education and electricity sectors. \u00a0Electricity plants were targeted and then problems solved and solutions found. \u00a0Despite the difficulties due to the sanctions, we are able to provide basic commodities like oil, wheat and others. \u00a0So, there is work being done.\u00a0 Of course, you will tell me that it is only normal for talk about pain. \u00a0This is natural and I do not expect people to refer to the positives. \u00a0It is human nature to talk about pain. When I am healthy, I do not talk about being in good health every day, but when I\u2019m sick, I will talk about my illness; again, this is only natural.\u00a0 \u00a0But in order to evaluate properly the situation we should consider all angles.\u00a0 As to the negatives, the challenge lies in distinguishing between causes related to the crisis and the war and causes related to our dereliction? When people criticize the state, they speak as if there is no war. \u00a0\u00a0Similarly, when an official speaks, they often blame everything on the war; the challenge is how to separate the two. \u00a0This is what we are doing now. When we had the gasoline and diesel crisis, the problem was indeed caused by the sanctions and our ability to provide these resources. \u00a0The problem is that the state itself is under sanction, so it cannot import. \u00a0It imports using other channels, which I won\u2019t divulge, to source these resources. \u00a0Most of the time we succeed, but other times we do not; these latter cases are beyond our control. \u00a0As for electricity, the plants and infrastructure are continuously targeted, do we hold the officials responsible for the terrorist rockets? \u00a0We need to be objective about certain issues, for example we were able to reclaim some gas wells, which improved the electricity situation, but the needs of the returnees and the workshops which have reopened are much larger than the electricity we were able to restore. \u00a0We need to see all these issues. \u00a0So, we are able to produce, but we go back to the same question: how do we distinguish between dereliction and valid causes. \u00a0This is what we should be considering, but we are not discussing the situation from this perspective.\u00a0 At the level of the state, we are trying to reach these results, and we have been able to reach them in relation to dereliction. \u00a0Officials who do not fulfill their duties should be removed; dereliction should not be given an opportunity to continue. \u00a0There is also the issue of corruption. \u00a0Dereliction of duty is one thing and corruption is something else. The outcome may be the same sometimes, but here I am referring to an official who is not corrupt but is either unable to carry out their duty or does not have a clear vision. \u00a0When it becomes apparent that they do not have either of these qualities, then they should leave immediately.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0On this subject of having a clear vision, if we talk about the rate of exchange for the dollar, it is logical that during the war the exchange rate increases if not as a result of the war itself, as a result of the embargo and the economic sanctions on our country, but recently rises are incomprehensible and affect the details of the daily life. \u00a0What is your explanation of this incomprehensible rise?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0As I said some issues are self-evident, first, sanctions have an impact on state revenues in dollars or hard currency in general. \u00a0This affects the exchange rate, which in turn affects prices. \u00a0State revenues have also receded as a result of fewer exports and the lack of tourism; no tourists will visit a country during a war. \u00a0Countries that we depend on for exports are contributing to the sanctions in one way or another.\u00a0 Nonetheless, we have managed to identify unofficial channels for exports, which has contributed to the inflow some hard currency. There is also the speculation game, some of which happens inside Syria and some of which happens outside; additionally, there is speculation on social media, which we get dragged into.<\/p>\nThe most dangerous of these factors is the psychological. \u00a0When we hear that the Syrian pound has dropped, we rush to buy dollars. \u00a0We believe in this way that we have saved money by turning our pounds into dollars, but as a consequence, the exchange rate drops in a severe and accelerated manner and consequently prices rise significantly; what citizens have saved by converting pounds to dollars they have lost due to higher prices. \u00a0There are many aspects to this issue. Now, can the state intervene? \u00a0Yes it can, but with limited revenues and tremendous demand – due to higher prices of basic commodities like wheat, oil, fuel and others, there is a trade off between exhausting dollars on speculation or spending on basic needs.\u00a0 If dollars are exhausted, this will mean we will have no wheat and oil; this is our reality.\u00a0 Our revenues are not what they used to be and as such our priorities have been on focused on arms and ammunition and squeezing what we can in order to provide the necessary weapons.<\/p>\n
Journalist<\/strong>: \u00a0Are there no measures that the state can take to control the rate of the exchange?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Of course, there are. \u00a0If you compare our situation with other countries in our region, when the dollar exchange rate is affected, you find that it increases multiple times in a matter of days. \u00a0So, it is a miracle that the exchange rate, which was in the upper forties or fifties before the war, is still around six hundred nine years on. \u00a0This does not make sense; the pound was expected to collapse at the end of 2012. Had it not been for particular methods, which unfortunately I cannot divulge due to their covert nature, the pound would have collapsed. \u00a0Let me give you an example: one factor which people are not aware of, is that the liberation of an area does not necessarily serve the Syrian Pound, because by liberating an area, we are removing its access to dollars which were paid to the terrorists to cover their needs and expenses.\u00a0 This is one of the tools we benefited from. I mean that things are not absolute, and we cannot say that terrorists were serving us in this regard. \u00a0Not every positive step has a positive impact. \u00a0That is why I am saying that the issue is complicated. \u00a0Some experts say that there is a process of drying the region up of dollars and the whole region is paying the price of the dollar. \u00a0But notice the difference between us and neighbouring countries. \u00a0The Turkish Lira, for instance, lost about two percent of its value in the last few days; yesterday I believe, due to a decision taken by the American Congress. \u00a0Countries are totally subject to these fluctuations. \u00a0Despite our circumstances, we do not succumb entirely – we suffer, we defend, we fight all the whilst having a war waged against us.\u00a0 Whereas these other countries do not have a war waged against them, yet they can barely support their currency, and moreover, the currency is supported by external financial and political measures. \u00a0So, there are challenges but once again the solution is not difficult. \u00a0The solution is not the dollar game, but an economic game. \u00a0If we go back to your first question and start to look at the economic cycle as being the foundation, not speculation. \u00a0If we are able to get the economic cycle moving, then we can create more tools for the monetary authorities and for society to improve the economic conditions and reduce dependency on the dollar. \u00a0Small or medium-sized industries help us reduce our dependency on importing materials and hence reduce the pressure on the Syrian Pound. \u00a0We have many tools which we can use, but the speculation game is not the solution. This is what I believe.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: So, I understand from what your excellency said that these policies or measures might take a longer time to produce results, but they are more effective and successful.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: What I want to say in answer to all economic questions is that the solution is there. There are those who say that when I present all these factors, it is because we do not have a solution. \u00a0No, solutions do exist and are not impossible and what we have done proves that they are not impossible; but this does not mean that we have done our best. \u00a0This is the starting point and this requires an economic dialogue, I am presenting the larger headlines that we are capable of achieving. \u00a0Actually, the dollar, the economy and the living conditions are all part of one cycle. \u00a0They are not separate parts. \u00a0The solution lies in accelerating state services and facilities to push projects forward and this is what we are doing; we are waiting for a response, because there is a lot of pressure on foreign investors not to invest in Syria.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: And the solution also lies in fighting corruption. There is a lot of talk about that now. There is talk about a wide-ranging campaign which included a number of business men and officials who are suspected of corruption. Is that true, Mr President? Is this campaign part of the measures taken to combat corruption, and would it include other individuals?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0That is true, but it is not a campaign, because the word \u201ccampaign\u201d gives the impression that we have just started, because a campaign has a beginning and an end, and is temporary. \u00a0This is not true, for either we used to accept corruption and suddenly we don\u2019t accept it any longer, or we did not acknowledge it.\u00a0 No, it is visible, and the beginning is now over three years old. Why? \u00a0Because at the start of the war the internal situation was not a priority at all. \u00a0We used to think of providing our basic needs, just to live, but there was process of tearing up the state and the homeland by terrorists and, on a larger scale, by the corrupt. \u00a0That was the problem. The country cannot stand it and the state cannot stand it.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: We just wanted to stay alive.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0In the first years. \u00a0Afterwards when the tearing up increased, we returned to fighting corruption which we had started before, but the circumstances were different before the war, and priorities were different.\u00a0 Now fighting corruption was given priority because of the economic conditions we are living and because this reservoir, which is the state, is punctured in many places, so any revenues going into it were syphoned out and so we were not able to benefit from them.\u00a0 Where did we start? We started with the military establishment. No state starts accountability at the heart of the military establishment during a war; this institution is sacred.\u00a0 However, because it is sacred especially during the war, and because it stands for discipline, this establishment doe not allow itself to be, at the same time, be a symbol of corruption. \u00a0So, accountability started in the military establishment and many high-ranking officers were put in jail with other officers at different levels. \u00a0Those who were proven innocent were released and there are those who are still being tried up till now and after many years; so, there was no favouritism. \u00a0The question was raised: is it possible while the military establishment is involved in a war. \u00a0We said that the military establishment is fighting terrorism and fighting corruption. It fights everything, and because it is the military establishment it should be at the forefront in everything. \u00a0The same process was also followed in the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Telecommunications. Many institutions were involved.\u00a0 But, the issue was raised because there are aspects of society, personalities and institutions which are the subject of people\u2019s attentions, in the spotlight of society, the issue was given prominence, while in actual fact, there is nothing new. \u00a0As to accountability, it is an ongoing process. \u00a0In answer to your question, yes, it is ongoing.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0Are we going to see other individuals brought to account?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0As long as there is corruption, fighting it we will continue. That\u2019s for sure. In these circumstances and in other circumstance. \u00a0This is part of developing the state. We cannot talk about developing the state in terms of administration and other aspects without fighting corruption. This is self-evident.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: there are those who floated the idea that the state needed money, or that our allies asked the state to pay for debts, so the state appropriated money from merchants, in a vengeful way, to the extent that some people described it as Ritz Carlton Syria. \u00a0How do you comment on this?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0They always describe Syria as a regime. \u00a0They do not say a state. Their objective by saying so is to make us appear as a gang, a junta, etc. \u00a0Whereas the state has basic principles, a constitution, regulations, clear controls. \u00a0We are a state, not a sheikhdom as is the case in some countries. \u00a0The state has a constitution and a law. \u00a0The first thing in the constitution, or one of its most important provisions, is the protection of private property.\u00a0 We cannot tell somebody, under any title, we take this property.\u00a0 There are many appropriations of properties belonging to terrorists, which have been appropriated temporarily, but they have not become state property, because there is no court decision, although these individuals are terrorists, there is still a need for a court decision. It doesn\u2019t mean that this property goes automatically to the state. It needs a court decision. \u00a0In this framework, the state cannot say, under any title, \u201cyou are corrupt, so give me your money.\u201d \u00a0This is at odds with the basic principles of the state.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: These are measures taken on legal grounds.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Of course. \u00a0There are many cases which people confuse. \u00a0There was a meeting between a group of business men and state officials in order to support the Syrian Pound when it started to drop quickly because of the state of fear and anxiety. Otherwise, there was no economic cause for the collapse of the Syrian pound.\u00a0 They were asked to help state institutions, particularly the Central Bank, and they did it.\u00a0 This does not mean that they made donations to the state, they contributed hard currencies and took Syrian Pounds in return. Nobody offers the state anything for free.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: Just moving the economy.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Yes, in a certain way and according to a certain agreed plan. They did it and it gave quick results. There is also corruption fighting which you asked about a short while ago. \u00a0There are officials and individuals in the private sector, because corruption is done in partnership.\u00a0 In the private sector, all those who squandered state money were asked to return it because the objective is to get the money without necessarily being vindictive, before we prosecute and go to the courts for years. There are documents. Are you prepared to return state money? Many of them expressed a willingness to do so. So, there are aspects to the issue.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: But why was the issue promoted, or people understood sometimes the reasons you mentioned to mean that prosecution or accountability targeted business men only, but we have not heard about officials. We heard only about merchants or business men.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0And that is why I said that accountability started in the army, the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Transport and other institutions and it is still ongoing, all of this targeted officials in the firs place. \u00a0And all those in prison are state officials at different levels. \u00a0You cannot prosecute one party when they have another partner. There is always a partnership, but sometimes the name of official is not mentioned because people are not interested or the name of the person from the private sector is not mentioned because people don\u2019t know this individual. The question is that of media marketing, and we have never relied, and will never rely, on media marketing or propaganda to say that we are fighting corruption.\u00a0 We are more interested in actually fighting corruption rather than making a big fuss abut it.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0That is why there is talk of a law on disclosure of financial assets of all those working in the public sector.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Discussions started a few months ago, and there was a workshop last week under the auspices of the Ministry of Administrative Development. \u00a0It is an important law. In fact, this is not new. It was raised a year before the war but at that time it was not formulated as a law. It was rather in the form of a decision for any individual employed by the state to disclose their financial assets so that this declaration becomes a frame of reference for the assets he gains during his employment. \u00a0Many people were asking why state officials were not being asked about their assets and how they were acquired.\u00a0 To do so, would require a legal framework and that is what we are doing at the moment.\u00a0 The essence in fighting corruption lies in the laws. By disclosing financial assets means this law which will constitute an important reference for any person employed by the state; after one year or twenty years you can ask them how they acquired their assets.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: What are the measures that will be taken in this regard?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>:<\/p>\nThe law for the disclosure of financial assets is part of it, prosecuting corrupt individuals for certain wrongdoings is another.\u00a0 However, if you go back to the discussion about corruption, particularly on social media, people talk about everything except the source of corruption. \u00a0In our case, the source lies in the laws and the related executive decrees and measures etc. \u00a0The legal structure of corruption is the problem, most of the cases referred to the courts are found to be an implementation of the law, which is very vague and has many loopholes.\u00a0 As long as this is the case, even if you are fully-convinced that they are corrupt, they are legally innocent, because they have \u2018implemented the law.\u2019\u00a0 Our laws give far reaching authorities, and allow for many exemptions.\u00a0 This is why in my previous meeting with government, after the reshuffle, I talked about setting up a committee to amend the laws and in particular cancelling exceptions. \u00a0Exceptions are not necessarily in the form of allowing for officials to issue them but also in the form that they may implement in various manner at their own discretion.\u00a0 I might implement it in good faith and create discrepancies between people, and I might implement it in bad faith and receive money and consequently become corrupt in the financial sense of the word. \u00a0That is why we started by focusing on the exceptions given to the President of the Republic.\u00a0 By allowing for exceptions, if I wanted to implement the law fairly, I cannot because I will give you the opportunity to implement the provision in a certain way while somebody else is deprived of this possibility, because I did not encounter him or he did not have access to me. \u00a0As I said we started by canceling the exceptions of the President of the Republic. \u00a0Furthermore, any exceptions that are required in particular areas, for example the Customs Law; in these instances, there should be clear boundaries and controls over these exceptions. They should not be left to the discretion of any official regardless of their seniority. \u00a0So, we used to have so many exceptions without any controls, including in employment and other areas.\u00a0 Again, our laws are full of loopholes which need to be fixed by passing new laws. \u00a0This has already begun, particularly with local administration laws because the violations we see everywhere are partly legal. \u00a0This is what we need to do. We are focusing on the anti-corruption law because what we are doing now in terms of fighting corruption is merely addresses the symptoms but does not solve the problem.<\/p>\n
Journalist<\/strong>: So, it is about fighting the corrupt environment and not the corrupt individuals.<\/p>\nPresident Assad: <\/strong>Exactly.<\/p>\nJournalist: <\/strong>And here I ask about our role in the media, finally, and thank you for your patience with us, Mr President, and for answering all these questions.<\/p>\nMr President<\/strong>: Not at all, you are welcome.<\/p>\nJournalist<\/strong>: \u00a0As the media, within the framework of fighting the corrupt environment, do we have a role and how do you see it?<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0You have a crucial role in two areas. \u00a0By the way, my last meeting with the government was dedicated solely to the role of the media.\u00a0 First because I know that the media will have many enemies from within the state, especially when it addresses the question of corruption.\u00a0 This is for many reasons, not only because of interests but also because it is our nature and our culture that we do not like criticism. \u00a0Even when it is general, we turn it into something personalized, and reactions start to appear, which create a great number of problems – either through fighting the media in principle or fighting the information which you need in order to do your job in this case.<\/p>\nSo, the meeting was dedicated to advancing the state media; first because it constitutes the most important tool in fighting corruption. \u00a0Corruption is wide-ranging and includes many sectors, the relationship between people and the state, the relationship of different sectors within the state is not only a daily relationship, it is manifested on an hourly basis. \u00a0Consequently, we cannot, using any mechanism, follow up on all these cases. Here comes the role of the media, since the media are supposed to be in all corners of society. \u00a0So, it constitutes a major auxiliary instrument to expose cases of corruption. \u00a0The more important point which I touched on earlier when I referred to the laws, is the environment which needs radical reform. \u00a0The media should lead the dialogue around this reform. \u00a0The state has brought in legal experts to study the flaws, but legal experts do not necessarily have the vision.<\/p>\n
Lawyers can formulate the laws, which is only part of the process.\u00a0 The other part is the vision. \u00a0Who has this vision? \u00a0The officials alone – no. \u00a0There are details that officials, in their experience and position do not see. \u00a0And every individual in society, by virtue of their presence in a certain domain cannot see the whole solution, they can see part of the solution. \u00a0The media can bring us together to discuss this solution. From another perspective, we are seeing the chaos of discussion on social media.\u00a0 Here is the role of the national media to shift this discussion from superficiality, personalization, gloating, revenge and manipulation from the outside, even unknowingly.\u00a0 The media can create a real methodology for a serious dialogue, a mature dialogue, a national and consequently productive dialogue. \u00a0In fact, there are great hopes pinned on you, although you are still at the beginning through the programmes which you have started recently.\u00a0 The opportunity to upgrade this dialogue, to fight corruption, address the laws, and the corrupt – the horizons for you are broad and open for you to play an important role. I personally pin great hopes on you and support the official media in this regard.<\/p>\n
Journalist<\/strong>: \u00a0Thank you for your support, Mr President, which is practically empowering but also entrusts us with a great responsibility.<\/p>\nPresident Assad<\/strong>: \u00a0Thank you. I am happy to have this dialogue with two important and major national media institutions.\u00a0 No doubt people have high hopes on the role of officials and the state in the future of Syria, whether in fighting corruption, fighting terrorism or the many other issues which you have tried to pass through the views of the Syrian citizens; \u00a0In turn we pin our hopes on you in the media to be \u2013 as you have been \u2013 part of the battle against terrorism, against corruption and against any flaw which might take the country backward instead of moving it forward.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sana.sy\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/1-167.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n