The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNITED STATES-SYRIA RELATIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S4938-S4939 on June 4, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNITED STATES-SYRIA RELATIONS
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to talk briefly about a United States-Syria dialogue, which was held two weeks ago at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Texas. I attended the conference, characterized as a dialogue. It was directed at trying to find some way of improving United States-Syria relations. Quite naturally, the conversation focused on terrorism.
I have had the opportunity to visit Syria on many occasions since the mid-1980s and have always believed that Syria was a key to a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East. During the course of those visits, I came to know President Hafez al-Assad. I saw, with almost yearly visits from the late 1980s until I attended President Assad's funeral in June 2000, a subtle but decisive shift in Syrian thinking so that Syria did attend the Madrid Conference in 1991. Syria was engaged in very extensive discussions with Israel at a time when Prime Minister Rabin was in office. Those negotiations were conducted in a somewhat curious way, through President Bill Clinton. Syrians would not talk directly to the Israelis. The Israelis made efforts to talk directly to the Syrians. However, whatever format those negotiations took, they came very close to an agreement, with Israel committing to a return of the Golan Heights. Security arrangements had not been quite worked out and the precise boundary form had not been laid, but they were very close.
Regrettably, with the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and with other leadership in Israel, there was a time when the relationship was very difficult. In 1996, the Syrians had some maneuvers on their border near Israel at a time when Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel would hold Syria accountable for what was happening with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. At any rate, the peace talks disintegrated.
When I had a chance to visit the new President, Bashar al-Assad, in March 2002, I suggested to him while the time might be not exactly right now, with the problems with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, those negotiations ought to be resumed at an early date. I reported that conversation to President George W. Bush and made the suggestion that President Bush might be determinative and influential, as President Clinton had been. While no commitment was made, that is something that would be considered by the Bush Administration when the time was right.
Edward Djerejian had been Ambassador to Syria, and when he visited President Bashar al-Assad early this year, he had a discussion with President al-Assad about having this United States-Syrian dialogue, and the James A. Baker III Institute hosted it. Former Ambassador Djerejian is the executive director there. Their plan is to have another Syrian-
United States dialogue in the fall. I made the suggestion to the Syrians in attendance, former Secretary of State James Baker, who attended, and also former Ambassador Djerejian, that a good time to schedule another dialogue would be right after the elections this November, perhaps the Thursday following the Tuesday election. That is about the only time Members of Congress are somewhat uncommitted. I received a comment that they might be willing to consider that. So, in addition to the Presiding Officer, any of my colleagues who may be listening on C-SPAN, may reserve the Thursday after the elections to join a congressional delegation to travel to Syria and participate in these important discussions.
Regrettably, Damascus has not been a hot spot on congressional travel. However, I think that visits there could be very useful.
At the conference two weeks ago, the focus was in trying to define terrorism. It seems to me pretty clear that when civilians are targeted, that constitutes terrorism and that is unacceptable. There is a disagreement on that subject, a disagreement which I had with the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, who visited Washington. I hosted a small dinner for him several months ago as part of an effort to have a visit by Parliamentarians from the House and Senate with the Iranian Parliamentarians, a suggestion which goes on again, off again. It is a little difficult right now with President Khatami responding in somewhat of an unfriendly tone to some of what the administration has had to say about Iran being part of the ``axis of evil.''
At any rate, the Iranian Ambassador to the UN emphasized the point that he thought Hezbollah had a right to undertake military activities against the Israelis because of what he terms ``the occupation.'' It is a discussion which needs a lot of work. I think ultimately there can be a definition of terrorism to include attacks on civilians.
However, the issue of having a dialogue is one which is very important. The three-day session in Houston was closed to the press, but I think it is within the bounds to comment that terrorism was the focus of attention. It is always salutary when people get together and talk. It is my hope that we can have some influence on Syrian activities, having Hamas and Hezbollah and other organizations, which we consider terrorist organizations and on the terrorist list, to have them ultimately ousted.
There has been a recognition by the State Department about Syria's help on al-Qaida. There has been a recognition that Syrian assistance has, in fact, saved American lives. Much, much more needs to be done, but the dialogue at the James Baker Institute is a good start. If we could get a significant congressional delegation to go to Damascus in the fall, I think it would help that very important effort.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
