In Part 1, the Kurdish-Syrian leader Sipan Hamo spoke of his upbringing, politicisation, and participation in armed struggle, which led him to found the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), and to several periods of detention, both in Syria and abroad.
Recognised as a hardliner and known as a former member of the PKK (globally recognised as a terrorist organisation), he was the surprising choice to become Syria’s new Deputy Minister of Defence for the Eastern Regions, a post he took up in recent days. One of his main tasks now is to integrate armed Kurdish brigades into Syria’s new national army, at a time of tension and clashes in the north.
In this second instalment of a fascinating and wide-ranging interview, he speaks about the history of Kurds in Syria, both how they played a part in the foundation of the modern state and how they will play a part in the rebuilding work required today. A realist and pragmatist, he shares his hope that better days lie ahead.
Hamo told Al Majalla why he has been impressed with Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa so far, but warns that there are those who seek to pull Syrians apart. He also addresses the idea that there is an inherent conflict between Arabs and Kurds, an idea he dismisses as nonsense. They have been partners in the past, he says, and can be partners again. As long as the Arab majority does not seek to marginalise the Kurdish minority, the Kurds will defend Syria until their dying breath.
It is a fascinating conversation with someone who could be pivotal in the task of integrating a well-armed minority in Syria’s north-east, a process that is now underway. Success in this would have a big impact on Syria’s territorial integrity and internal cohesion, at a time when there are also problems with its Druze minority in the south.
Below is the second and final part of the interview, conducted by phone on 21 March.
Clashes broke out in January (between the government and the SDF). What was your take on that?
Frankly, mistakes were made on our side. We assumed that the international community was with us, and that if any dispute arose, it would stand by us. That proved mistaken. The Syrian situation had changed, and the fall of the regime amounted to the complete end of the Sykes-Picot order. We are entering a new phase and should have read the situation more carefully.
We assumed certain parties would not abandon us, given that we had fought the Islamic State together, but their interests drew them towards Damascus, and international opinion stood with Damascus across the board. Had we understood that, we could have negotiated more effectively. The latest clashes were unnecessary.
Were some betting on Israel intervening on the SDF’s behalf? Did Washington's abandonment come as a shock?
Yes, perhaps there was a wager on Israel or America, on the grounds that we fought alongside them. It is even said that we helped Trump get re-elected because of the victories against IS. But popular sentiment is one thing; policy is another. Europeans and Americans may feel sympathy for the Kurdish people or appreciate the Kurdish position, but politics differs from public emotion. Some misread the situation. It is now clear that Israel is focused on southern Syria, where it is almost in full control. It does not want the theatre to expand further in ways that might slip beyond its control.
Do you feel that the Americans betrayed the Kurds?
I would not use the word betrayal. I see it as a matter of interests.
The agreement was reached on 29 January. The last person anyone expected to be appointed deputy minister of defence was you, because you are seen as the hardline figure. Is that an unfair impression of you?
Honestly, I don’t consider myself especially hardline.
The perception is that you are the representative of Mount Qandil, the man who wanted to fight the Syrian army. Are you a military man, or a man of peace?
I support conciliation and peace. True, I am a military man, but understanding cannot be achieved by military means. No one can reach civilisation, development, or progress in that way. Countries that emerged from conflict later went on to develop. I came only to build very good, positive relations between us and the new state on that basis, but that image (of me) spread. Perhaps the world wanted to take its precautions until matters reached this point.
