The World: Assad: Other Routes to Peace

Interviewing President Hafez Assad in Damascus last week, TIME Beirut Bureau Chief Karsten Prager and Correspondent William Marmon asked the question on everyone's mind — would Syria renew the Golan Heights mandate? "No decision, no decision," answered a grinning Assad in English. Prager and Marmon found Assad visibly delighted by the suspense he had created over the situation. Otherwise, though, the Syrian President was thoughtful and straightforward as he sketched his views on the prospects for a Middle East peace settlement. Excerpts from the 2½-hour conversation:

THE TWO SCENARIOS: There are two ways to achieve a just peace. The first is through the [United Nations] Security Council, which would convene to deal with the Middle East problem, including the question of the Palestinians. A just peace in the area requires complete Israeli withdrawal from Arab territory taken in 1967 and recognition of the national rights of the people of Palestine. The second possible way is through the Geneva Conference, with the participation of the P.L.O. on an equal footing with other parties.

We prefer the Security Council. Either alternative rules out step-by-step negotiations. We do not object to a phased step if it is not an individual step. The Sinai agreement did not open new doors toward peace. On the contrary, it closed doors that were open. We say we want peace, and we show more than one way toward peace.

THE U.N. MANDATE: In Syria, the observer force is not in a neutral zone between armies. The zone is controlled by Syrian authorities who exercise full administrative powers. There are Syrian police and administrative personnel in the zone; only the Syrian army is not there. The situation is thus different from the Sinai, where the force is present in a buffer zone under the control of neither Egypt nor Israel.

HIS VIEWS ON PEACE: Security Council Resolution 338 [which called on the belligerents in 1973 to stop fighting and return to peacemaking under the 1967 Resolution 242] stipulates an end to the state of war, and we adhere to the provisions of Security Council resolutions. When you end the state of war, there is a state of peace.

RECOGNITION OF ISRAEL: This has nothing to do with Resolution 338. This is not a requirement for peace. Recognizing another state is a matter of sovereignty.

FEDAYEEN RAIDS ON ISRAEL: We do not plan fedayeen actions. They have full freedom in our country. Those who want to discuss the fedayeen should go to the P.L.O. I don't believe any reasonable man can imagine that we would charge our army with protecting Israel against displaced Palestinians.

THE U.S. AND THE P.L.O. My first reaction is sorrow that a superpower with special responsibility for world peace and immense interests in this region ties its decisions to those of Israel. Particularly because the P.L.O. is recognized by the great majority of world countries as sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, who are at the core of the Middle East problem. Israeli propaganda tries to make people believe Israel should not negotiate with the P.L.O. because the P.L.O. does not recognize Israel and intends to destroy it. How can we ask a displaced people to take the initiative in recognizing those who displace them?