[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 71 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4938-S4939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     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

[[Page S4939]]

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.

                          ____________________