New Delhi: Syria has been witnessing protests against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad for about a year. The Syrian government labels the violence as terrorism, pointing a finger at the Al Qaeda for what it says is insurgent-driven unrest. But the international community seems unconvinced, given the mounting death toll that has topped 5,000 since March 2011, according to UN estimates. Last week the UN General Assembly passed a resolution strongly condemning the violence in Syria and backing an Arab League plan calling for Assad to quit. India, long seen as a friend of Syria, was among the 137 nations that voted in favour of the UN resolution. It came after a similar vote by India at the UN Security Council on 4 February.
In an interview, Syria’s ambassador to India Riad Abbas spoke about how the majority of Syrians were still backing Assad and accused the Western press of biased reporting about the situation in his country. Edited excerpts.
What is your reaction to India’s votes on the Syrian crisis at the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council?
Facing unrest: Riad Abbas.
Before answering your questions, I should refer to the current situation in Syria, which is quite different from what is reported by Western newspapers. Since the beginning of the events that took place more than 10 months ago, there are two major cities, Damascus and Aleppo, supporting the regime, and have not witnessed any disturbances noting that these two cities constitute half of the population of Syria besides other cities. This means that the majority is with the regime. But the Western press and those who revolve in its orbit talk only about groups backed by the West and some Arab countries to undermine Syria. It is also announced by the Council of Istanbul that there are armed groups belonging to it in Syria, as the report of the Arab observers pointed out to the existence of armed groups shooting the security forces, and civilians, and this explains the number of deaths given by some newspapers without any reference to which party they belong. Are they from the military or the civilians? Are they with the regime or the opposition?
Here, it must be pointed out that in Syria, more than 3,000 military officers have been killed, so who killed them, I leave you to the conclusion, and how they were killed and who killed them?
On ties between Syria and India, since independence, relations are friendly and often the positions of the two countries were identical on many issues in international organizations. What happened in the Security Council regarding India’s vote with the resolution is a private issue of the Indian side and I do not have a lot of details about it, but in any case we respect the view point of our Indian friends.
Syria has been supportive of India’s stand on Kashmir at the Organization of Islamic Conference, so do you feel let down at India not backing Syria during the UN votes?
We in Syria respect the position of India who supported Syria since the beginning of the events in last March, and that India’s vote in favour of the draft resolution in the General Assembly of the United Nations is its own. We respect our Indians friends’ opinion. It will not affect the relations between the two countries. Here we must note that this resolution is not different in substance from the Security Council draft resolution which aims to interfere in interior affairs of Syria to prevent Syria from its duty in imposing security and protecting its citizens from crimes of cross-border, foreign-backed terrorist armed groups, which back in its origins to Al Qaeda. The leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has announced that explicitly.
Has the UNGA vote on Thursday added pressure on President Assad to quit?
The Syrian President will not resign and people do not accept his stepping down because the majority is with him. So we are not worried from the outside. If the president of each state that experiences same problem and fights terrorism on its territory will be asked to step down, then chaos would prevail in the whole world. Syria is determined to fight terrorism and go on in reform process until the end.
How do you look at the role played by the Arab League?
Since the establishment of the Arab League, its role in taking care of Arab interests was not effective. The attitude of the league was weak when America invaded Iraq, as well as its position when an Arab country invaded another one, and its failure to solve the Palestinian issue. Surprisingly, there is no regional organization that sacrifices its members during crises, as the Arab League has done throughout its history. The Arab League stands with one side against another in the Syrian issue, as it is under the control of some countries that obey orders of the west side and revolve in the American orbit, so its role is a negative and unbalanced one in the Syrian crisis. It was the league who requested from several countries, to put pressures on Syria to accept Arab observers’ mission but when Syria accepted all these matters the Arab League rejected the mission’s report and transferred the Syrian issue to the Security Council in order to complicate the issue. Therefore, we believe that the Arab League stands with terrorist armed groups.
Regarding the sanctions imposed by the League of Arab countries on Syria, they certainly affect the people of Syria. Regarding the request of the League for democracy and regime change in Syria, this means that they interfere with the Syrian internal affairs which is unacceptable. We do not accept other country teaching us democracy while they don’t have any constitution or parliaments.