叙利亚总统巴沙尔·阿萨德
据“今日俄罗斯”9月17日报道，叙利亚总统巴沙尔•阿萨德罕见接受了俄罗斯媒体的集体采访，谈及全球和叙利亚面临的恐怖威胁，团结一致反恐的必要性，欧洲难民危机，以及实现叙利亚和平等问题。环球视野网禾田摘编部分内容如下：
问题15：如果不介意，我想回到关于叙利亚政治前景的问题。总统先生，您的政敌依然坚持叙利亚和平最重要的条件是你下台。作为总统和一名叙利亚公民，你怎么看?
阿萨德：除了你说的之外，西方媒体从一开始就不断宣传导致叙利亚问题的根源是总统。为什么?因为他们想把叙利亚的问题和某个个人相联系，因此，许多人的天然反应便是，如果问题在个人，那么个人就不应该比整个祖国更重要。所以如果那个人走了，问题就迎刃而解了。西方是这样把问题简单化的。就这点而言，叙利亚所发生的事情类似于俄罗斯的情况。自乌克兰政变后，西方媒体怎么宣传的?普京总统从西方朋友摇身一变成西方的“敌人”，被描述为“沙皇”，镇压反对派的独裁者，更有甚者，说他是通过非民主方式上台的，而全然不顾普京是民选的事实，何况西方本身也承认选举是民主的。但现在就不民主了，这就是西方的宣传。他们说，如果总统下台，事情就会好转。这背后的实质是什么?对西方来说，这意味着只要你还在位，我们将继续支持支持恐怖主义，因为西方现在在叙利亚、俄罗斯及其他国家遵循的原则是总统变换、政权更迭。为什么?因为他们不接受合作伙伴，也不接受独立自主的国家。俄罗斯、叙利亚、伊朗的问题在哪?他们都是独立国家。西方希望某个代表他们利益而非本国利益的人上台。对我们来说，总统是人民的选择，是选举的结果，如果要总统下台，也必须通过叙利亚人民，而不能是因为美国的决定、联合国安理会的决定、日内瓦会议或日内瓦公报。如果人民需要他，他就会继续服务，如果人民拒绝他，他就应该立即下台。这就是我看待以上问题的原则。
问题16：叙利亚内战持续了四年多，在你看来，有没有一个关键点让你意识到战争不可避免?谁启动了战争机器?是美国亦或是中东邻国的影响?有没有你自身的错误?有没有事情让你感到后悔的?如果有机会重来，你会不会改变?
阿萨德：每个国家都有错误，或许每天都有，但这些错误不构成关节点，因为它们一直都存在。所以，究竟是什么让这些错误突然导致今天叙利亚的局面，纠结这点没多大意义。如果我说，叙利亚局势的关键点是许多人都不曾想到的，你可能会感到惊讶，它就是2003年美国入侵伊拉克的战争。我们强烈反对入侵伊拉克，因为我们清楚那会导致社会分裂和国家动荡。我们是伊拉克的邻国。当时，我们看到这场战争使伊拉克沦为教派国家，致使社会分裂。叙利亚以西是另一个教派国家黎巴嫩。我们处于中心，深知自己将会受到影响。因此，叙利亚危机的祸根在伊拉克战争和形成教派格局时就已种下，伊拉克的内战和教派局面部分移到了叙利亚，用教派煽动一些叙利亚团体显得容易。其次，是西方上世纪八十年代在阿富汗正式采取恐怖主义手段，称恐怖分子是“自由斗士”，继而在2006年，当“伊斯兰国”在美国赞助下出现在伊拉克时，西方没有对其进行打击。所有这些事再加上西方的支持，海湾国家(尤其是沙特阿拉伯和卡塔尔)的资金，土耳其的后勤支持，造就了我们今天动荡的局面。
我再次重申，叙利亚有错误，错误会导致漏洞和弱点，但仅这些并不足以形成目前的局面，也无法合理解释所发生的一切。如果是，那么这些错误为何没有导致海湾国家的革命?尤其是在对民主一无所知的沙特阿拉伯?我相信，答案不言自明。
英文原文：
Question 15:If you don’t mind, I would like to go back to the question about Syria’s political future. Mr. President, your opponents, whether fighting against the authorities with weapons or your political opponents, still insist that one of the most-important conditions for peace is your departure from political life and as president. What do you think about that - as president and as a Syrian citizen? Are you theoretically prepared for that if you feel it’s necessary?
President Assad: In addition to what you say, Western propaganda has, from the very beginning, been about the cause of the problem being the president. Why? Because they want to portray the whole problem in Syria lies in one individual; and consequently the natural reaction for many people is that, if the problem lies in one individual, that individual should not be more important than the entire homeland. So let that individual go and things will be alright. That’s how they oversimplify things in the West. What’s happening in Syria, in this regard, is similar to what happened in your case. Notice what happened in the Western media since the coup in Ukraine. What happened? President Putin was transformed from a friend of the West to a foe and, yet again, he was characterized as a tsar. He is portrayed as a dictator suppressing opposition in Russia, and that he came to power through undemocratic means, despite the fact that he was elected in democratic elections, and the West itself acknowledged that the elections were democratic. Now, it is no longer democratic. This is Western propaganda. They say that if the president went things will get better. What does that mean, practically? For the West, it means that as long as you are there, we will continue to support terrorism, because the Western principle followed now in Syria and Russia and other countries is changing presidents, changing states, or what they call bringing regimes down. Why? Because they do not accept partners and do not accept independent states. What is their problem with Russia? What is their problem with Syria? What is their problem with Iran? They are all independent countries. They want a certain individual to go and be replaced by someone who acts in their interests and not in the interest of his country. For us, the president comes through the people and through elections and, if he goes, he goes through the people. He doesn’t go as a result of an American decision, a Security Council decision, the Geneva conference or the Geneva communiqué. If the people want him to stay, he should stay; and if the people reject him, he should leave immediately. This is the principle according to which I look at this issue.
Question 16:Military operations have been ongoing for more than four years. It’s likely that you analyze things and review matters often. In your opinion, was there a crucial juncture when you realized war was unavoidable? And who initiated that war machinery? The influence of Washington or your Middle East neighbours? Or were there mistakes on your part? Are there things you regret? And if you had the opportunity to go back, would you change them?
President Assad: In every state, there are mistakes, and mistakes might be made every day, but these mistakes do not constitute a crucial juncture because they are always there. So what is it that makes these mistakes suddenly lead to the situation we are living in Syria today? It doesn’t make sense. You might be surprised if I tell that the crucial juncture in what happened in Syria is something that many people wouldn’t even think of. It was the Iraq war in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. We were strongly opposed to that invasion, because we knew that things were moving in the direction of dividing societies and creating unrest. And we are Iraq’s neighbours. At that time, we saw that the war would turn Iraq into a sectarian country; into a society divided against itself. To the west of Syria there is another sectarian country - Lebanon. We are in the middle. We knew well that we would be affected. Consequently, the beginning of the Syrian crisis, or what happened in the beginning, was the natural result of that war and the sectarian situation in Iraq, part of which moved to Syria, and it was easy for them to incite some Syrian groups on sectarian grounds. The second point, which might be less crucial, is that when the West adopted terrorism officially in Afghanistan in the early 1980s and called terrorists at that time ‘freedom fighters’, and then in 2006 when Islamic State appeared in Iraq under American sponsorship and they didn’t fight it. All these things together created the conditions for the unrest with Western support and Gulf money, particularly form Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and with Turkish logistic support, particularly since President Erdogan belongs intellectually to the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, he believes that, if the situation changed in Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, it means the creation of a new sultanate; not an Ottoman sultanate this time, but a sultanate for the Brotherhood extending from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean and ruled by Erdogan. All these factors together brought things to what we have today. Once again, I say that there were mistakes, and mistakes always create gaps and weak points, but they are not sufficient to cause that alone, and they do not justify what happened. And if these gaps and weak points are the cause, why didn’t they lead to revolutions in the Gulf states - particularly in Saudi Arabia which doesn’t know anything about democracy? The answer is self-evident, I believe.
相关文章
头条焦点
精彩导读
关注我们
【查看完整讨论话题】 | 【用户登录】 | 【用户注册】