Nobody wants another centralised regime in Syria, says Kurdish leader Salih Muslim Muhammad
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the jihadist group led by Abu Mohammed al-Jolani (also known as Ahmed al-Sharaa) that captured power in Syria in December, wants to establish a Salafi regime in Damascus, but the country's minorities are opposed to it, says Salih Muslim Muhammad, Syria's main Kurdish leader. In an interview with The Hindu, Mr. Muslim, co-chairman of the Democratic Union Party (PYD)— the main party of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria— said the HTS was trying to establish another centralised regime in Damascus with a different ideology. The Kurdish people support a decentralised, democratic Syria, he said. He also spoke about the role of Turkey in the Kurdish question, the resurgence of the Islamic State (ISIS) and the Syrian Kurds' ties with Israel. Edited excerpts.
Syria has seen dramatic developments in recent months. It took just 12 days for the HTS to capture Damascus after they launched an offensive in Aleppo in late November. How do you look at the changes in Syria?
Everybody followed what happened [in Syria]. Groups who are located in Idlib, most of them are jihadist groups, just went to the places occupied by Turkey and underwent training, helped by the Turkish side. And suddenly they woke up, went on to Aleppo, and then to the other cities, and they reached Damascus on December 8. Everybody should know that those groups are jihadists. We know them very well because we were fighting against them — Jabhat al-Nusra and then ISIS and the other groups. They have promised that they are going to change and make democratic changes in Syria. We are waiting to see what they are going to do. If they make [the promised] changes, we will be helping them. And there was some other group — the Syrian National Army (SNA), which is under the control of Turkey. So HTS went to Damascus, and the other group [SNA] just marched towards Kurdish places. Since December, the fighting has been going on. We are still waiting for a proper ceasefire deal. And on March 10, there was a kind of a deal between our people and them--I mean, Mazloum Abdi (commander of the Kurdish led-Syrian Democratic Forces] and Jolani (or Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria's interim President], containing about eight points to be executed within one year. And we are still trying to implement the deal.
The Kurdish people in Syria have enjoyed relative autonomy in recent years. Now that Assad is gone and HTS is in power in Damascus, do you think that the autonomy is under threat?
We have about 20 parties [in north and east Syria], and our party [the Democratic Union Party, or PYD] is the main and the oldest party among them. Now we are trying to unify all those parties so that we can unify the demands of the Kurdish people and even the Arabs in our areas, to reach some solutions with the new government. There have been a lot of struggles. The latest one was those massacres happened in the coastal area in western Syria against the Alawites [the minority sect to which the deposed President Bashar al-Assad belonged to], because they don't like this regime. They don't want those Islamic groups to control the country. We are supporting them. Also, we have Druze in the south of Syria. Syria is a mosaic society. So you have to find a formula where all those people can live together — nobody wants to go back to pre-2011 situation when Syria had a centralised regime. They are now looking for a decentralised government — it could be federalism or self-administered areas. The Alawites, Druze, the Kurdish people, and other minorities, everybody is looking for freedom. Those who are controlling Damascus insist on forming a very strict, centralised regime as it was before, but with a different ideology — before there was a Baathist regime, and now they are trying to make it a Salafi regime. This is not acceptable for the Syrian people. We are trying to democratise Syria; we think a democratic and decentralised regime will help everybody.
Kurdish fighters were on the frontline of the battle against ISIS. What is the status of ISIS today in Syria?
There are ISIS-linked groups located in Idlib and areas occupied by Turkey. They have changed their names. Even this Jolani [Syria's interim President] was ISIS before. But after he went to Idlib, he changed his [organisation's] name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). The other groups also took different names, but they all practice the same ideology. By the name of ISIS, we still have some groups in our areas, in Deir ez-Zor, and especially in the western side of Euphrates, which is not under our control. It was under the control of the [Assad] regime and the Russians, but they could not eradicate them from those areas. Now, after the regime fell, those groups got a lot of weapons. They are organising themselves again. We have a camp called Al-Hawl, which is mainly for the families of Daesh [ISIS] members. We also have about 10,000 ISIS members in our prisons. ISIS is trying to get the prisoners released and get into the camp. They have their plans. And we also have sleeping cells everywhere. So the struggle is continuing. Daesh is not finished. It's been just driven underground.
Turkey has also seen interesting developments of late. For example, Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), has called for a ceasefire and disarming his organisation. Does it have anything to do with your Democratic Union Party?
We are not PKK. Ideologically, maybe, we are friends or brothers, but our party was established in in Syria with the Syrian people, Kurdish people mainly. We have our plans and programmes. So we have nothing to do with Turkey. We always extended our hands for peace in Turkey because we are neighbours. But because of the Kurdish issue, Turkey has a kind of Kurdophobia. They don't accept the existence of the Kurds anywhere. They look at the Kurds as a danger for Turkey and they fight the Kurdish people everywhere — in Iraq, Iran and Syria. We can solve our problem with the Syrian government, but Turkey has always been an obstacle. And they are accusing us that we have a relation with the PKK, which is not true at all. Even When we established our defence forces, we did it against ISIS, which was attacking us in our areas. We never attacked any Turkish interest. And now, when Mr. Ocalan announced his call for peace, we hope peace would prevail between the PKK and Turkey, because it will relieve us, too. If they solve their Kurdish issue inside Turkey, then they cannot blame the others. We heard some voices saying we should give up the weapons, too. If we do it, we will have to do it as part of our agreement with the Syrian regime, not with them.
Are you getting any support from other countries?
We have the international coalition in the area and they extended their hand to us. It's a kind of a partnership against Daesh [ISIS]. And it happened in 2015 when the international coalition couldn't find anybody fighting Daesh seriously other than us. So we said, OK, and this is still going on.
This coalition is led by the United States, isn't it?
Yes, led by United States. And they are in the area. They don't dictate to us to do anything. We are partners only for fighting against ISIS and terrorism, nothing more than that. They didn't promise to protect us. And of course, as everybody knows, when Turkey attacked our areas, they [the coalition] did nothing. We were attacked by the regime forces as well, by those Salafi jihadists. They didn't defend us. Only they are helping us as partners for fighting against Daesh. And they continue to do so.
Israel has repeatedly voiced its support for Syria's minorities, particularly after the fall of the Assad regime. What is your relationship with Israel? Is there any kind of cooperation between your Autonomous Administration and the state of Israel?
There are Jewish people living in our areas. The Kurdish people don't have any enmity towards the Jewish people. This is historical. The Kurdish people are natural allies of the Jewish people. They are part of the Middle East [West Asia]. And we have to live together. This is our belief. But of course, there are no connection till now between the Kurdish people and the Israeli government. Recently, there were telephone conversations between our Foreign Affairs Committee and the Foreign Minister of Israel. If we make any relations, it's ordinary because several Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Gulf countries have already established diplomatic relations with Israel. So we don't know what will happen in the future.
But how do you look at the war on Gaza?
We think this is not the way to solve the problems. They were just fighting, killing... it doesn't solve any problem. If they sit together for dialogue without any terrorism, they can resolve it. And we believe for the Palestinian and Jewish people, a democratic nation, which is what our project is, is convenient for them. But they have to believe in this democratic nation to live together — a democratic nation project for everybody.
You're saying you support a single democratic nation for the Arabs and the Jews?
Yes, a democratic nation project for everybody, for different ethnicities and even different beliefs, where they can live together. They have to accept each other.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Erdogan's neo-Ottoman foreign policy
Türkiye, a long-standing Cold War ally of the West, has significantly expanded its presence and influence across West Asia and the Caucasus in recent years. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ankara has pursued an Islamist-leaning foreign policy aimed at building stronger ties with Muslim-majority countries and repositioning Türkiye as a regional power — all while maintaining its alliance with the Western bloc. The rise to power of the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Syria has helped Ankara expand its reach close to the Israeli border. Türkiye already maintains a military presence in Qatar, the rich Sunni Gulf kingdom, underscoring its growing strategic footprint in the region. During the recent flare-up between India and Pakistan, Türkiye stood by Islamabad. Is this blend of Islamism with a pro-Western tint helping Türkiye remake itself in a volatile world? Erdogan's era When the Republic of Turkey was established in 1923 on the remains of the Ottoman Empire, the country's new rulers adopted sweeping reforms aimed at democratising polity, secularising society and conciliating foreign policy. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder of modern Türkiye, adopted a 'peace at home, peace in the world' foreign policy. After the Second World War, Türkiye joined the western bloc. Its geographical location as a Black Sea basin country with access to West Asia, the Mediterranean and the Caucasus made Türkiye a strategically important ally for NATO. All Turkish leaders, both military dictators and elected leaders, followed this establishment consensus on foreign policy — until the rise of the Islamists. Mr. Erdogan's AK Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi) that came to power in 2002 also followed this path in the initial years. The AKP came to power after years of political and economic instability, and Mr. Erdogan's immediate focus was to stabilise the economy. Mr. Erdogan, then Prime Minister, sought close cooperation with the U.S. and integration with the European Union. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S.'s illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Mr. Erdogan wrote in The Wall Street Journal that 'My country is your faithful ally and friend'. Türkiye would take a more ambitious foreign policy turn in the early 2010s — with the onset of the Arab Spring protests to be precise. Ideological and historical roots Ittihad-i Islam (Unity of Islam) was a declared foreign policy doctrine of theOttoman Sultan Hamid IIwho reigned from 1876-1909. During this period, Constantinople sought Muslim unity against enemies in the West. The Islamists in Kemal's Türkiye, who were more or less politically marginalised until the rise of the AKP, had always advocated for stronger ties with Muslim nations. Before Mr. Erdogan's rise, perhaps the most influential Islamist voice in Türkiye's politics was that of Necmettin Erbakan (1926-2011). Erbakan, who had served as Prime Minister briefly in 1996-97 and was later banned from politics by the Constitutional Court for violating the country's secular laws, argued that Türkiye should protect its religious values, build closer relations with Muslim countries and combat western imperialism. For him, the European Union was 'a Christian club'. Erbakan formed different political parties (of which the Welfare Party was the most prominent one) but never managed to break through Türkiye's political and foreign policy consensus. When the Welfare Party was banned, Islamist politicians formed the Virtue Party in 1997. One of the leaders of the Virtue Party was Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The AKP was formed in 2001 after the Virtue Party was found unconstitutional. In the 2002 election, Mr. Erdogan did what Erbakan couldn't — he brought the Islamists to power. It was only a matter of time before the AKP turned to Erbakan's foreign policy doctrine. From theory to practice 'The people's calls and their most humane demands' must be paid attention to, Mr. Erdogan said in February 2011 amid a mass uprising in Egypt against the rule of Hosni Mubarak. By openly backing the protesters, Mr. Erdogan risked unsettling Türkiye's relationship with Arab countries. But when the Mubarak regime fell, Türkiye suddenly found strategic depth in its new approach, and it started seeing street protests in Arab countries as a vehicle for ittihad-i Islam. Then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu put this policy tilt in a historical perspective in March 2011, saying the mass protests could break 'the template drawn by Sykes-Picot' (the Sykes-Picot Agreement was a treaty between the U.K. and France in 1916 where it was decided to divide the territories of the Ottoman Empire following World War I) and bring power to the parties 'that truly represent the people' of the region. Türkiye started backing these parties, hoping that their revolutionary ascent could open corridors of influence for Ankara in a region which was ruled by the Ottomans for hundreds of years. When the Muslim Brotherhood, another Islamist party with which the AKP shares ideological and political similarities, came to power in Egypt, Mr. Erdogan's doctrine was put to practice. When protests broke out in Syria in 2011 against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, Türkiye backed anti-Assad groups — first the Free Syrian Army and then different Islamist outfits. In Libya, which was divided between two governments — one based in Tripoli in the west and the other in Tobruk in the east — Türkiye supported the Tripoli government dominated by Islamist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, after the Gaddaffi regime was toppled by a NATO invasion in 2011. Assertive yet pragmatic Mr. Erdogan did not blindly follow ittihad-i Islam. He mixed his Islamist ideology with pragmatism. He was aware of Türkiye's limitations. It is no longer the Caliphate and doesn't enjoy any politico-religious command over the Muslim world. Geographically, it is only a fraction of what used to be the Ottoman Empire. It is also a treaty ally of NATO. It hosts several Western military bases, including U.S. nuclear weapons at Incirlik. While Mr. Erdogan was ready to risk some friction in Türkiye's ties with the West, he was cautious not to lead those frictions to a break. At the same time, he saw Türkiye's support for Islamist groups as an opportunity to rebuild the country's influence in the Islamic world. Syria is a case in point. When Mr. Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, started turning the tide of the civil war in 2016, Türkiye offered protection to the HTS, the anti-Assad Islamist group that had taken over Idlib. HTS was formerly Syria's al-Qaeda branch. But Türkiye strongly opposed any military action against HTS. It entered into an agreement with Russia to maintain order on the Turkish-Syrian border. It carved territories on the border, creating a buffer between the Turkish Kurdish regions and the Syrian Kurdish province. And in November 2024, when the Syrian regime was reeling under repeated Israeli strikes, HTS launched an offensive and captured Damascus within 12 days. This further raised Türkiye's profile in West Asia. Azerbaijan is yet another example. When Armenia and Azerbaijan went to war in 2023, Türkiye backed Azerbaijan against Armenia, a Russian treaty ally. When Russia, preoccupied with its own war in Ukraine, was unable to help Armenia, Azerbaijan, with Turkish support and Turkish-made drones, made quick gains. Türkiye supplied drones to Ukraine, but refused to enforce sanctions on Russia. Its decision to buy Russia's S400 missile defence system had irked Washington. But Mr. Erdogan managed to reset ties and extract concessions from the U.S. when he supported the accession of Sweden and Finland into NATO. Mr. Erdogan has thus been playing a tricky game — balancing between the West and its rivals through traditional diplomacy, while at the same time reasserting itself in the Muslim world using Islamist foreign policy. Formidable challenges While Türkiye's geographical location, its membership in NATO and its Islamist foreign policy allow the country to portray itself as a major force, its Achilles heel is the economy. Mr. Erdogan, who delivered on the economic front in the first decade of his rule, has ever since struggled to keep the ship afloat. Türkiye has experienced a prolonged period of hyperinflation, and the Turkish lira has depreciated significantly in recent years. Amid high inflation and high unemployment, social unrest has spread, frequently leading to violent crackdowns. Mr. Erdogan, who changed the Constitution turning Türkiye's political system into an executive presidency from parliamentary democracy, has amassed huge powers in his own hands. He has suppressed political opponents, independent media, and other voices of dissent. Earlier this year, Turkish authorities arrested Ekrem Imamoglu, the popular Mayor of Istanbul, who is the opposition's candidate for the 2028 presidential election, which Mr. Erdogan can't contest under the current Constitution. While on the foreign policy front, Mr. Erdogan's bets have paid tactical results as of now, it is to be seen how Türkiye is going to build on these gains for long-term strategic dividends. True, the regime change in Syria is a huge advantage for Ankara, but Syria is far from being stable. So is Libya, where violence resurfaces frequently. In the Gulf, Qatar is Türkiye's powerhouse partner. While Ankara has improved ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE in recent years, old mistrust still lingers. And in the Caucasus and the Black Sea, Türkiye will have to take Western and Russian sensitives into consideration in its foreign policy decisions. Its support for Pakistan provides Ankara some legroom in South Asia, but Türkiye remains an insignificant player in the subcontinent. While Türkiye seeks to expand its strategic footprint in different directions, with a neo-Ottoman tilt and within the framework of the western security umbrella, it also risks turning itself into an authoritarian Islamist regime with a weak economy and political instability.
United News of India
12 hours ago
- United News of India
Iran-US to hold nuclear deal talks round 6 in Muscat Sunday
Tehran/Washington/Muscat, June 10 (UNI) The sixth round of indirect nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington are scheduled to take place in Oman on Sunday, said Iran's Foreign Ministry Tuesday. Iran and the United States have held five rounds of talks so far, three of which were held in Muscat and two in Rome since the beginning of Tehran's talks with the US on coming to a possible deal on its nuclear programme and the lifting of sanctions. The fifth round was held on May 23 in Rome. In late May, the United States presented a proposal to Tehran through Oman for a potential nuclear deal with Iran. While both sides have acknowledged some progress, a decisive breakthrough has yet to be achieved, due to disagreements on uranium enrichment. While Iran views it as critical to its programme, the US is staunchly against any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. Amid the ongoing negotiations, the US has called for the dismantling of all Iranian infrastructure built for the process, while Iran has denied American demands, insisting the programme will continue. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he does not expect talks with the US to yield results and asserted that Iran 'needs no one's permission' to enrich uranium, reports Turkish agency Anadolu Ajansi. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the US proposal was not the outcome of the previous rounds of negotiations, and Iran would submit its proposal to the United States through Oman, according to Xinhua. He stressed that any proposal disrespecting Iran's national rights, including its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and effective sanctions relief, is unacceptable. Baghaei said Iran's forthcoming proposal would be "reasonable, logically sound, and balanced," urging the United States to consider it seriously. "Accepting this proposal serves the interests of the United States," he added. UNI ANV SSP
NDTV
17 hours ago
- NDTV
Israel Seized Gaza-Bound Ship With Greta Thunberg On Board. Can It Do That?
Quick Read Summary is AI generated, newsroom reviewed. A Gaza-bound ship carrying humanitarian aid and activists like Greta Thunberg was seized by Israel. Israel has allegedly violated international law by intercepting the ship. Israel has also had a history of blockading aid entering Gaza as a form of resistance. Jerusalem: Israeli naval forces, far from the country's shores, intercepted and seized a Gaza-bound ship carrying international activists, including Greta Thunberg, in an early morning raid Monday. The operation sparked accusations that Israel's actions, apparently in the high seas, were a breach of international law. The activists say their journey was meant to protest Israel's ongoing war in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there. The ship was carrying aid destined for people in Gaza, including baby formula and food. The activists, including Thunberg, were detained and were headed to Israel for likely deportation. It's not the first time Israel has halted ships carrying aid bound for the Palestinian territory. A raid in 2010 descended into violence between activists and Israeli commandos, leaving eight Turks and one Turkish-American killed. Most of the other operations against Gaza-bound boats have ended uneventfully, with ships diverted and activists detained. Israel says the latest ship planned to violate its blockade on Gaza and says it acted in accordance with international law. Can Israel storm a ship in the high seas? Here is a look at the legal debate. Intercepted Far Off The Coast Of Gaza The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organized the latest ship, says the Madleen was intercepted in international waters some 200 kilometers (124 miles) off the coast of Gaza, a claim that could not be independently verified. Israeli authorities have not disclosed the location where the ship was halted. Robbie Sabel, an international law expert and former legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a state only has jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles (19 kilometers) from its shores. In general, states don't have the right to seize ships in international waters, but there are exceptions, including during armed conflict, Sabel added. He said that even before the latest war, Israel was in an armed conflict with Hamas, allowing it to intercept ships it suspected were violating its longstanding blockade of Gaza, which Egypt also enforced. Rights groups have long criticized the blockade as unlawful collective punishment against Palestinians. Sabel cited a U.N. report on the 2010 raid that ended in activist fatalities, which stated that "attempts to breach a lawfully imposed naval blockade place the vessel and those on board at risk." The debate over the legality of Israel's blockade remains unresolved among legal experts. The U.N. report urged states to be cautious in the use of force against civilian vessels and called on humanitarian missions to deliver aid through regular channels. It said a country maintaining a naval blockade "must abide by their obligations with respect to the provision of humanitarian assistance." A Debate Over Israel's Right To Act Yuval Shany, an expert on international law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said that so long as Israel's blockade of Gaza is "militarily justified" - meant to keep out weapons - and the ship intended to break it, Israel can intercept the vessel after prior warning. Whether the blockade is militarily justified is also up for debate. Suhad Bishara, head of the legal department at Adalah, a legal rights group in Israel representing the activists, said Israel was not justified in acting against a ship in international waters that posed no military threat. "In principle, Israel cannot extend an arm into international waters and carry out whatever action against a ship there," she said. Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Oren Marmorstein said that "everything that was done was done in accordance with international law," referring to the ship takeover. Gaza And Israel's Obligations Under International Law Rights groups say the legal questions are complicated by Gaza's unique status. The United Nations and much of the international community view Gaza as Israeli-occupied territory, along with east Jerusalem and the West Bank, all of which Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want the three territories to form their future state. Israel argues that it withdrew from Gaza in 2005, when it pulled out its soldiers and settlers, even though it maintained control over Gaza's coastline, airspace and most of its land border. Hamas, which does not accept Israel's existence, seized power in Gaza two years later. Amnesty International says Israel has an obligation as the occupying power to make sure that Palestinians in Gaza have enough access to humanitarian supplies, something Amnesty says Israel was preventing by not allowing the Madleen through. Amnesty and other groups see the seizure of the Madleen as part of a campaign by Israel throughout the war to limit or entirely deny aid into Gaza. Israel says it has allowed enough aid to enter Gaza to sustain the population and accuses Hamas of siphoning it off, while U.N. agencies and aid groups deny there has been any systematic diversion. Israel's aid policy during the war has driven the territory toward famine, experts say, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is accused by the International Criminal Court of using starvation as a method of warfare by restricting humanitarian aid into Gaza, charges he has rejected. "By forcibly intercepting and blocking the Madleen, which was carrying humanitarian aid and a crew of solidarity activists, Israel has once again openly disregarded its legal obligations towards civilians in the occupied Gaza Strip," Amnesty International's secretary general, Agnes Callamard, said in a statement. The group called for the immediate and unconditional release of the activists, who it said were on a humanitarian mission.
