Salih Muslim welcomes Syria’s rapprochement with the Arab world

Muslim revealed that during the conflict, 13 Kurds were killed at the Beaufort Crusader Castle, emphasising the Kurds' involvement in the resistance alongside Palestinians. Despite being asked to leave by the Syrian army upon their return to the camp in Bekaa, the Kurds refused to comply. 

Muslim did not express concern about potential Syrian-Turkish cooperation against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the autonomous administration, which is supported by the US-led coalition and governs northern and north eastern Syria.

However, he expressed relief at the Arab rapprochement with Syria.

"We are not upset with the Syrian-Arab-Kurdish ties," Muslim said.

"We welcome them."

Yet, he emphasised the importance of ensuring that this reconciliation and rapprochement do not come at the expense of the Syrian people.

He noted that the regime's goal of restoring the pre-2011 Syria is impossible and suggested that Arab states should seek the implementation of democratic laws or, at the very least, respect for the Syrian people and the country's political factions, as outlined in UN Resolution 2254, and others.

He expects Arab countries to set conditions that Damascus must meet before progress can be made.

When asked about dialogue with the Syrian government, Muslim said: "We had dialogue a while ago, but now there is no dialogue. We hope that the Arabs will contribute to this matter by urging al-Assad to discuss the issue and reach a specific solution." 

He added, "The SDF has made great sacrifices to protect Syria and its sovereignty, perhaps greater than the Syrian army. However, there is a dispute over the regions liberated by the SDF, between Turkey and terrorism. The SDF is more effective than the Syrian army. So why doesn't it become the nucleus of a future army in a democratic Syria?" 

On the SDF's relationship with the United States, Muslim said, "Some people believe that we are puppets of the United States."

"This is not true. We are not puppets of America, and we have never taken its commands. America went to Syria because its interests demanded it, and our interests demanded cooperation." 

He said that if America withdraws from Syria, this will not be called "treason." He explained that betrayal occurs when someone gives you a promise and then breaks it.

America never promised the SDF protection, and they have publicly stated that they will not protect, defend, or fight Turkey on the SDF's behalf.

Regarding Russia, Muslim said, "Of course, we have an old relationship with Russia. We hoped that the Russians would be mediators and impose a solution by virtue of their relationship with the Syrian government."

Here's the full interview conducted over the phone on April 18:

The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria  has launched a political initiative. How do you see the future of this administration in north and northeastern Syria?

A: The AANES is a formula for resolving the complex problems in the Middle East. The region has been plagued by disputes since World War I, and the concept of the nation-state has not been successful in enhancing stability.

The AANES presents a Western model for peaceful coexistence among diverse populations. We hope to successfully implement this model, deepening and solidifying it as an example not only for ourselves but also for Syria and the wider Middle East.

Are you suggesting that this formula would serve as an alternative to the nation-state model?

In the early 20th century, there were three warring empires: the French, the British, and the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire was known as the 'sick man of Europe.' At that time, an alternative to this faltering empire was proposed—a nation-state in which 'we put our surrogates' to control their resources.

Read more: The coup that brought down the Ottoman Empire

The French and British mandates aimed to teach people in the region how to manage their affairs, while ensuring that the appointed rulers didn't obstruct their interests. Nation-states were primarily created to serve the global hegemonic powers.

These nation-states monopolised power and shared resources with external global powers, leading to ongoing disputes among them even after World War II. Now, people desire self-determination and power derived from and accountable to the people.

Europe has recognised this issue. It realised that the nation-state model, which originated with the French Revolution and spread across Europe, only fuelled conflicts among countries, resulting in the deaths of millions.

The solution was found in recognising each country's national peculiarities and establishing the European Union, which removed borders and transformed competition into a financial rather than bloody rivalry.

This is the global direction. People have become aware that internal strife is futile and only benefits those seeking to monopolise power and resources.

But the underlying foundation of the AANES  is indeed rooted in Kurdish ethnicity. How so how can we remove any contradiction between the two issues?

A: The Kurdish people have endured immense suffering throughout their history. The historical Kurdish homeland has been a place where various ethnic groups have coexisted, and many individuals have assimilated with the Kurds over time.

Despite this rich tapestry of cultural blending, when it came time to establish a Kurdish state, the recognition of Kurdistan and the acknowledgment of the Kurdish right to exist were denied.

This denial of Kurdish rights is evident in the actions of multiple parties in Iraq, Turkey, and Iran, as all of them have marginalised and oppressed the Kurdish population. All of them have rejected Kurdistan. 

Read more: The Kurds of Iraq and their painstaking quest for legitimacy

Having suffered the most from massacres and the oppressive nature of fascist nation-states, the Kurds are among the most passionate seekers of freedom and a decent life, free from humiliation.

They have come to recognise that coexistence as neighbours and sharing resources is far more beneficial than engaging in power struggles and conflicts. 

This principle forms the foundation of the autonomous administration established in northern and north-eastern Syria.

Therefore, the [AANES] recognises and honours the Kurdish heritage and the hardships they have faced. However, it is equally committed to inclusivity, diversity, and peaceful coexistence among all ethnic and religious groups within its territory.

The administration's overarching goal is to build an inclusive society where every individual can exercise their rights, live with dignity, and contribute to a future marked by mutual respect and shared prosperity.

By transcending potential contradictions and embracing diversity, the autonomous administration seeks to create a harmonious and equitable environment for all its constituents.

What about your relationship with the other Kurdish regions in their different statuses? 

A: Our relationship with other parties in Kurdistan is one that should be built upon the recognition of our shared heritage, language, and culture.

However, it is disheartening that since the beginning of the 20th century, every part of Kurdistan has been under the control of foreign entities. The Baathists in Syria, Kemalists in Turkey, the late Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the former shah in Iran have all governed different parts of Kurdistan.

Each of these entities has pursued resolutions that serve their own interests, often pitting Kurdish groups against each other. They have exploited the Kurds and sowed divisions among us whenever it suited their agendas. 

In light of this, it is crucial for us to come together and reach an understanding among ourselves. We must not allow outsiders to exploit us or allow brotherly conflicts to occur. We do not seek to blame other parties; rather, we strive to avoid confrontation and maintain our bonds of fraternity and friendship.

It is essential that we cooperate and support one another, not only within specific regions but throughout all of Kurdistan.

What about the relationship with the PKK chief Abdullah Öcalan? 

A: Öcalan is a profound thinker and philosopher who emerged from the depths of the Kurdish struggle.

His personal experiences have intimately connected him with the tragedy endured by the Kurdish people from an early age. With his intellect, wisdom, and intellectual prowess, he has become an influential figure.

In 1973, during the Nowruz holiday, he conceived the idea of forming a party with a group of loyalists, which eventually led to the establishment of the PKK in 1978. The party rapidly gained momentum and in 1984, initiated a military struggle in northern Kurdistan.

Over time, the party expanded its activities and gained immense popularity across Kurdistan. Öcalan's leadership has been a source of inspiration and motivation for the Kurdish people, who take pride in having a leader with such remarkable qualities and the ability to guide the democratic process. 

Abdullah Öcalan's leadership transcends that of a mere field commander; he is a prolific producer of thoughts and philosophy.

His ideas have convinced and resonated with numerous individuals and parties within and outside of the opposition. His philosophy has spread on a global scale, finding appeal not only within Kurdistan but also in broader contexts.

It is important to note that Öcalan is currently detained in Turkey, which, along with other countries, accuses the PKK of being a terrorist organisation.

Öcalan's capture in early 1999 was surrounded by allegations of an international conspiracy involving various global powers, including Nato and affiliated cells.

He was apprehended after being expelled from Syria in 1998, and during his capture, European airports denied landing rights to the aircraft in order to prevent Öcalan from being taken to the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands. 

These events suggest a coordinated effort by Nato powers to capture Öcalan and hand him over to Turkey.

It is worth noting that Turkey serves as the custodian of his imprisonment, while the isolation imposed on Öcalan is seen as a directive from the global hegemonic powers overseeing Imrali Island prison.

The PKK, as an organisation, does not stand in the way of the Kurdish people's demands in north Kurdistan and Turkey. The decision to take up arms was a result of all legitimate channels being closed off, politically, diplomatically, and even culturally.

When faced with a besieged, oppressed, and imprisoned population, individuals often seek alternative means of resistance.

It was in this context that some Kurdish youth decided to take refuge in the mountains and defend themselves. It is possible that some of them engaged in combat against individuals collaborating with the enemy forces that confronted them in their homeland when the conflict first emerged in 1984-1985.

Turkey is a member of Nato, an alliance of nations that represents various global powers.

As part of this alliance, Turkey has collaborated with other members to designate the PKK as a terrorist organisation, even though the party has not carried out attacks specifically targeting Europeans or Americans.

The rationale behind European countries designating the PKK as terrorists seems to be primarily driven by their desire to show solidarity with Turkey.

However, the PKK has not conducted any operations against any country or individuals, such as blowing up towers or killing troops. It is worth noting that the PKK still maintains training centres in the Kurdish regions, which they claim are meant to protect the Kurdish people exclusively.

The decision to detain Abdullah Öcalan in 1998 was seen by some as part of an international conspiracy. It was believed that Öcalan had the potential to disrupt the establishment of the Greater Middle East, a geopolitical plan that was pursued by external powers.

Öcalan had successfully united 50 million Kurds throughout the Middle East, presenting them as a unified force, which threatened the interests of those seeking to establish the Greater Middle East.

Detaining and handing him over to Turkey was an attempt to eliminate this perceived obstacle to their plans.

There was an old relationship between the PKK and Damascus—and then the relationship was severed. Now, there's Russian mediation between Damascus and Ankara and Syrian-Turkish security meetings. Are you concerned about this cooperation?

A: The cooperation between the PKK and the Syrian regime can be attributed to historical developments and specific circumstances that influenced their interactions.

When PKK appeared in 1978, Turkey was experiencing a period of instability with concerns of a potential military coup. Similarly, the Turkish left had established connections with Palestinian organisations during the 1970s.

When a military coup did occur in Turkey in 1979-1980, the Kurds sought ties with Palestinian organisations, operating within their framework in Lebanon. Some PKK members even obtained Palestinian IDs to facilitate their relocation.

During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, both the Kurds and the PKK actively resisted alongside the Palestinians.

When the Palestinians sought refuge in Beirut, which subsequently came under a four-month siege, it was primarily the Kurds and the PKK, among various resistance organisations, who fought and defended the country. They had camps in the Bekaa Valley and showed strong determination in their defence efforts.

Had Öcalan fought the Israelis?

A: Some comrades from the PKK engaged in fighting against the Israelis, and tragically, thirteen of them were killed at Beaufort Crusader Castle.

The Israelis were aware that Kurds were fighting alongside the Palestinians. After their return to the Bekaa camp, the Syrian army insisted that, like the Palestinians, the Kurds should leave. However, the Kurds refused, stating that their comrades had been martyred in Lebanon, and they would not be forced to leave.

Eventually, Syria offered the Kurds a specific location to set up their camp.

Relations between Syria and the PKK, including fighters and combatants, were established after the invasion in 1983-1984. Syria sought to build friendships to gain an advantage over Turkey, which has been a hostile nation towards the Kurds.

It is important to note that no one can claim that Syria provided the PKK with money or weapons. However, Syria's influence could prevent others from targeting Kurdish targets, while simultaneously allowing Turkey to fight against the Kurds.

Additionally, they assisted in facilitating the movement of individuals and groups between Lebanon and Syria, including obtaining mission cards for those crossing the border from Lebanon.

The relationship between the PKK and Syria was characterised by political coordination, serving the interests of both parties. Syria did not supply the PKK with financial support or weapons, but rather there was a strategic alignment based on mutual goals and necessities.

Turkey has long been hostile towards the Kurdish people, and the mention of Kurdish empowerment angers the Turkish government.

The Turkish authorities are well aware that an empowered Kurdish population may seek revenge for the massacres inflicted upon them by Turkey since 1925, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Kurds.

The Kurds hold deep grievances and a sense of betrayal.

Are you concerned about any Turkish-Syrian cooperation against you?

A: The meeting between Bashar al-Assad and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as well as the potential rapprochement between the Syrian and Turkish regimes, has been characterised as a 'marriage of convenience.'

The longstanding enmity between the two sides traces back to historical events, including the annexation of Alexandretta and the era of the French Mandate. Syrians have endured numerous grievances inflicted by the Turkish state and Turkish fascism, which cannot be easily erased.

Regarding the Öcalan issue, the signing of the Adana Agreement in 1998, between the heads of Syria's Political Security Division and Turkish intelligence, aimed at eliminating anything related to the Kurdish issue within Syria.

The fear of the Kurdish issue has grown among them. The Ba'athists have a well-known policy, as seen in their actions against Kurds.

Although there are significant differences between Turkey and Syria, they share a common hatred towards Kurds. While the achievement of an agreement between them remains uncertain, it is evident that the necessary conditions and balances are not currently in place.

As Syrians, including Kurds, we demand rights for all Syrians and seek a democratic space to breathe. There is no inherent hostility with the Syrian state. The [AANES] has recently announced its platform, which emphasises the call for democratic values.

Therefore, any rapprochement between the Syrian regime and Turkey is likely to come at the expense of the Kurds and the Kurdish people.

Read more: Kurdish Rojava region in northern Syria faces uncertain fate

In such a scenario, our only option would be to resist, as we do not have any other means available is understandable to have concerns in this situation.

What will the future of the autonomous administration look like in case of cooperation between Ankara and Damascus?

A: In terms of military matters, I don't have direct involvement, but based on my knowledge of our people, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) is capable of defending itself.

However, we must remain cautious and prepared, considering the slight possibility of cooperation between Ankara and Damascus. I believe the likelihood of such cooperation is less than one percent.

Turkish elections will take place in May. Do you anticipate a Turkish military involvement in northern Syria, or a Syrian-Turkish agreement this month?

A: I am uncertain of the situation. It is unclear and there are many obstacles to the meeting. I will have a say in the upcoming elections. The Turkish ruling system has reached rock bottom economically, politically, and diplomatically.

The Kurdish issue and Turkey's eight-year war against the Kurdish people are to blame for Turkey's economic, diplomatic, and political collapse. All villages in Kurdistan's mountains, north, west, and south, were devastated.

This war destroyed Turkey. Any country that enters a war pays a high price. This is in addition to the problems that Turkey faces on a global level as a result of its violations of human rights and lack of commitment to any moral or humanitarian principles or international agreements, to the point where the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are not implemented in Turkey.

Erdogan is weak both internally and externally, and everyone awaits the moment he leaves. As a result, he can do anything, including launching a military intervention in Syria, to boost his popularity.

I do not expect that Turkey will stay put in the current situation, so we must be ready and prepared to protect ourselves.

An Arab summit will be held in May, and Arab normalisation with Damascus will take place. What are your thoughts on Arabs-Damascus normalisation?

A: We welcome the Syrian-Arab-Kurdish relationships.

As members of the National Coordination Committee [a Damascus-based Syrian opposition coalition], we were among the first to advocate for an Arab League discussion of the Syrian crisis in order to avoid outside intervention.

We were perhaps the first party to advocate for this, and we went to the Arab League. We are not dismayed by the rapprochement.

However, we find it difficult to believe that the Arab world will reestablish relations with the Syrian regime as if nothing had happened, despite the catastrophes, devastation, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of martyrs, and the displacement of millions.

We find this difficult, and it is unjust to the Syrian people.

We hope that this reconciliation or rapport does not come at the expense of the Syrian people. The regime still behaves in the same way we know and deal with. It still wants to restore the situation that prevailed before 2011 in the country. This is impossible.

Therefore, I believe that the Arab countries' position must be adopted after setting a number of conditions related primarily to democracy, or at least respecting the Syrian people, as well as the other factions when implementing the political solution and the UN resolutions.

I believe that Arab countries will set some conditions for restoring ties with the Syrian regime.

Is there any dialogue between you and Damascus?

A: We had dialogue a while ago, but now there is no dialogue.

We hope that the Arabs will contribute to this matter by urging al-Assad to discuss the issue and reach a specific solution. There was dialogue until recently.

There have been meetings over the past months, but the regime's mindset has not changed. They are still demanding the restoration of the pre-2011 status quo.

We are part of Syria. The Syrian uprising broke out to demand democracy and freedom for the Syrian people. We are committed to democracy and peaceful resolution.

The most important project is the democratic autonomous administration. It is a model for the future Syria. We call for and demand different Syrian regions to have autonomous administration within a single state with a central government and local governments.

Another point is that the Syrian citizen no longer accepts anything unless he is a partner in the political decision-making. It is no longer possible for a certain council to be exclusively entrusted with political decision-making.

The will and decisions of the Syrian people must be respected.

What about SDF's future? 

A: The SDF has made great sacrifices to protect Syria and its sovereignty, perhaps greater than the Syrian army.

However, there is a dispute over the regions liberated by the SDF, between Turkey and terrorism. The SDF is more effective than the Syrian army. So why doesn't it become the nucleus of a future army in a democratic Syria?

Do you believe that the turmoil in Sudan, Libya, and Iraq has increased the determination of Arab governments to consolidate the authority of the central government?

A: Here is the mistake. We believe that there is a monopoly of power. Arab armies, under nationalist regimes, protect power and resources rather than the people.

Armies protect those in power. It has never happened that they protected the people.

We have seen in Syria how the army left other regions and marched towards Damascus to protect the regime and the Ba'ath Party. This is not the army we want. The SDF wants an army that protects the people, not those in power.

We see the consequences of monopolising power in Sudan.

The overpowered and defenceless people are disorganised and do not know how to handle the turmoil. There are no institutions in the state. Other forces, as a result, came and exercised repression against the people. 

Read more: Sudan's perilous road ahead

Both Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan continue to dispute over who has the right to represent the interests of the Sudanese people. Each of them monopolises a portion of power and resources and attempts to retain it. 

If the central government is not of the people and based on certain criteria, and if it does not represent the people, then it will be a huge burden on it. The central government and army that protects power and resources is far from the army that protects the people and the state.

There remains an important aspect: the relationship with the Americans. US Chief of Staff Mark Milley was present in north-eastern Syria. Did he give you assurances that the US presence is ongoing?

A: The US Chief of Staff visited the region to discuss military issues, specifically the fight against terrorism.

He met with his counterparts to discuss this issue, and no other. We, as politicians, only learned of the visit after he had left Syria.

The relationship between the two sides is based on mutual interest. The US has its interests, and we have ours. The common interest is fighting terrorism in Kobane. The US intervened and found that we are truly committed to fighting terrorism.

It is a matter of survival for us. They have found that we are the most effective force. So they decided to cooperate with us, and this cooperation is still continuing.

The US attempted to find another force willing to cooperate with it in the war against terrorism in the Middle East. It attempted to establish training battalions and gave money and weapons, but all efforts failed.

If they truly want to eradicate terrorism and protect their interests in the Middle East, they must be an honest partner in their efforts. The relationship with the US will continue on this basis as long as we are present and fighting terrorism.

I believe that the collaboration will continue as long as terrorism, Islamic State, and terrorists pose a threat to us. Terrorists use terrorism, and countries that support terrorism, such as Turkey, continue to give weapons to terrorists.

Some people believe that we are puppets of the United States. This is not true. We are not puppets of America, and we have never taken its commands. America went to Syria because its interests demanded it, and our interests demanded cooperation.

Take Raqqa as an example. We should have reclaimed it from Islamic State. If we had done it alone, without the international coalition, it would have taken five or six years, with unknown losses.

We saved time and money by working with the international coalition to defeat Islamic State and liberate Raqqa in five months. So why wouldn't we work together? 

We did not liberate Raqqa for America or the international coalition's sake. We captured it because the car bombs that exploded in Kobane and Qamishli originated in Raqqa.

Are you afraid of an American betrayal or stab in the back?

A: Everything is possible, depending on their interests.

They went there with specific objectives, and upon achieving or failing to achieve their goals, they departed. In Ras al-Ain and Tal al-Abyad, they engaged in these actions alongside us. We did not solicit their protection, but they made promises to remain and fight.

Paradoxically, they also gave Erdogan the green light to attack us, which he has already done. Nevertheless, we have resisted, even in Afrin. Despite the efforts of the Russians and the international coalition, Turkey's occupation of Afrin could not be prevented.

They made agreements based on their own interests, and while we recognise the flaws in these arrangements, we cannot rectify the mistakes of others.

However, we strive to mitigate these mistakes as much as possible. If the US determines that its interests necessitate leaving Syria, we will be left with no choice but to rely on ourselves. Presently, we are already dependent on ourselves and taking the necessary precautions.

Do you call it betrayal? 

A: Betrayal occurs when someone breaks a promise they made. In the case of the Americans, they have never explicitly promised to protect us.

Publicly, they have stated that they will not defend us or fight Turkey on our behalf. If their interests require them to leave, they will do so.

However, we believe that it is in their interest to remain in the Middle East and continue combating terrorism alongside us. We consider ourselves highly capable in carrying out this mission.

You are caught in the cross-fire amid growing tensions between the US and Russia. How can you manage this relationship? 

A: We have a long history of ties with the Russians, and we are hopeful that their close relationship with the Syrian government will enable them to act as intermediaries and facilitate a resolution.

While they have made promises in the past to impose a solution, unfortunately, those promises have not been fulfilled. It seems that they are acting primarily in a pragmatic manner, particularly in their relations with Turkey.

We do not believe that this pragmatism will ultimately benefit either the Russians or us. Given their position as a major world power, we hope that they can contribute to finding a resolution and exert pressure on the regime to engage in meaningful political negotiations.

Are you really caught in a crossfire? 

A: We are not caught in a crossfire. We have shared bases with the international coalition, but we defend ourselves, not them, in case of an attack.

An Iranian attack was carried out against one of our bases. If they want to fight, they can fight elsewhere, away from us. The Iranians are not present on our territory at all.

They maintain a presence in the regime's lands. We are not in a crossfire, but the whole region is flammable and we must address this reality.