Fateh Jamous: finding a solution to Kurdish Cause is a national mission

Syrian dissident and former prisoner “Fateh Jamous,” a leader in “Peaceful Change Path Movement” from inside Syria recently sent an open letter to the Syrian Democratic Council, in which he made some proposals, including returning to the national dialogue, forming and launching a serious and courageous internal national opposition, their acceptance as a movement, or (Fateh Jamous) as a person in position of the minority and the opposition within the framework of "SDC" while specifying rights and duties in this and taking into account our multiple differences, in addition to other proposals.

To talk about this message, the Syrian crisis, the position of Kurdish cause's solution in Syria, and how to end the Turkish occupation of the Syrian territories, Hawar interviewed Fateh Jamous who confirmed that the global context is a contradictory one, not an understanding or consensual one, pointing out that SDC has capabilities that would constitute an important factor for the opposition, and he made it clear that the Autonomous Administration once it takes developmental steps, SDC will have a greater share in the interactive solution to get out of the crisis.

The Syrian crisis is a mirror of the crises in the Middle East which the nation-state has not been able to solve. In your opinion, what is the best solution to the crises of the Middle East as a whole and the Syrian crisis in particular?

In general, I think that the countries that have tried to solve a variety of crises in the Middle East, including Syria are not the nation-state that you meant in your question. In very rare cases in the Middle East, some states can be considered the nation-state. Perhaps it is possible to partially note the Iranian and Turkish situation which claimed the adoption of nationalist thought and ideology in their orientation, and therefore it was obvious in the historical sense that they could not address the crises.

In Syria, the nation-state was not established, but rather a national state and authority which adopted the nationalist ideology and ambition to reach the nation-state as a goal, and just as its authorities used to oppress other nationalities, it was subjected to severe pressures from the global capitalist centers allied to the Zionist entity.

The Syrian crisis has now become very complex, and at a high degree of complexity. The homeland has become in a state of danger. The best solution for the Middle East is a theoretical and mental solution represented in the democratic co-existence of its peoples for a long time in a civilized and refined manner, until the conditions of national fanaticism are eroded and no longer existed, especially the erosion of the Zionist project. In Syria, the protection of the entire geography of the homeland, its unity, its state and the sovereignty of this state must be considered in conjunction with an internal national dialogue to raise all issues for dialogue and solution as a package of tasks interlinked with the existence of tasks that have priority in confronting the solution, and now the priority is to resist occupations, defeat fundamentalist fascism and its tools, progress in democratic, peaceful, consensual, gradual and safe change and its legal form, and pay rescue attention to the living situation of the majority social bloc, then to raise the rest of the issues and solve them democratically and in a fair manner, such as issues of identity, nationalities, and the national debate...etc.

One of the reasons for your arrest - as you explained in your letter to SDC - which lasted for more than 22 years was your view of the Kurdish issue, and the necessity of solving it within the national framework, and now in the midst of the crisis in Syria, do you still maintain your position about the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people or have you retracted about it? If not, what is the best solution to the Kurdish issue in Syria?

Certainly I still do, and without any change in the concepts, values, the nature of transitional solutions and the historical strategy towards the Arab and Kurdish national issue. In both cases I consider that we have a divided nation, and in both cases there is a necessity for the establishment of a state - a national and democratic authority, and a nation-state in the historical perspective with national rights stipulated in constitutions, with the inevitability of the existing condition in Syria, and perhaps the region which never allows basic or final historical solutions. Such proposals will be faced with fanatical responses, and they will enter into the negative, neglected conditions in the crisis to help its continuity and focus the de-facto formulas for division and continuing violence.

Some say that Fateh Jamous is against UN Resolution 2254, is this not considered a contradiction with what you adopt regarding the necessity of a comprehensive radical change in the structure of the political system in Syria?

When someone like me sees that there is a complete absence in the field of international consensus, but rather that there are serious contradictions and conflicts so far by proxy, and that there is not a single hot arena in the world in which a process of international consensus took place, in this case that decision becomes a means and an excuse to spend time to improve sites in conflict. The most important aspect for me is the assumption that international consensus would have been achieved, and the assumption of the implementation of UN resolutions in Syria, in this case, the implementation of the resolution will turn into an actual, deep and comprehensive cake-sharing between two parties, dictatorship on the one hand and fascist fundamentalism on the other, and such a solution will be at the expense of the supreme national interest and the interest of the popular majority bloc.

If we follow the possible scenario in implementing the resolution, i.e. a transparent electoral process supervised by the United Nations, i.e. a democratic ballot box process, the question is, would the process of democratic change actually happen? I firmly believe that the victorious powers to which power will be transferred would be the electoral public of the Turkish flag, and the Saudi flag, and in the end, some of the liberal elites under the American flag, and some of the warlord and corrupt class of power. Would this bring and achieve the process of democratic change? Absolutely no, rather, this is impossible. Therefore, there is no democratic solution except by defeating fascist fundamentalism and its occupying allies first, in conjunction with a process of internal national dialogue which would come when we turn into a courageous, effective and serious internal national opposition force that considers the regime a very important party in that dialogue, and through a peaceful, gradual, consensual, participatory, cumulative and safe process, democratic change would be achieved by changing the approach, structure and nature of the authority with an alternative participatory authority, in addition to the development of the internal national forces’ relations, and the course of their dialogues and decisions regarding their figures, here and in this context, the process of democratic change would  be achieved.

Many say that the current stage is the stage of floating the ruling regime in Syria because its alternative is political Islam which is rejected by the majority in the Middle East. What are the alternatives that you have developed as a leftist movement, and what is your responsibility in finding an alternative system for both of them?

Those who float the regime and help it reproduce itself are its allies and advocators, and there is not a single international process from the conflicting parties to float it, there is no collusion or conspiracy for that, and political Islam is never rejected by everyone, but the majority of the American, Turkish, Saudi rank wants a form of political Islam, at least it wants political Islam in order to continue the process of total destruction. For our part, we have developed a system of political and programmatic thinking when a non-revolutionary struggle would begin between two exceptional projects (that is, non-democratic and non-revolutionary), a system with a special road map, the basis of which is that fascist fundamentalism is more dangerous than a historical perspective, dictatorship, and the central task lies in its defeat with its occupying allies, and to impose the course of the internal national dialogue. This is the correct and available process for a different and safe regime as well. The nature of the crisis and challenges on the other hand will not allow the authority to reproduce itself as dictatorial and repressive as before. This is also an objective opportunity for the internal opposition.

You mentioned more than once that the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) can attract the opposition. What are the characteristics that distinguish SDC from others? Have you taken steps to unite the opposition and take advantage of the energies of SDC?

The most important features and factors that make SDC follow our efforts to be a center of attraction for the internal national opposition, and for national action in general are: (a) its physical presence, and the presence of its social incubator within the geography of the Syrian homeland. (B) It has an opposing approach and position on the authority, which is the normative basis for the concept of opposition despite our differences over the central mission and position on the US occupation. (C) A deep intersection over the seriousness of the Turkish authorities’ position and their occupational and supportive role for fascist fundamentalism, in addition to an agreement on the need for a serious Syrian national opposition to confront it. (D) There is also a deep disagreement about the danger of fascist fundamentalism and the necessity of defeating it. (E)The assumption that there is a high political and valuable impact and appreciation of the stage of alliance with the Syrian authority in the face of the Turkish authority and the water issue, (1980 to 1999) and the concept of brotherhood in arms, all of this makes us appreciate that there is difficulty in the contradiction with the authority reaching the point of violent military confrontation, and this is a very positive factor and will help us in our joint dialogues to strive to change SDC central mission and alliances, to focus on internal factors and forces and internal struggle, and to form a rank and a serious internal national opposition system. (Finally) SDC has large financial and logistical capabilities that would constitute an important factor for the internal opposition.

Now let's get to the message you sent to SDC. You sent an open letter to SDC indicating your readiness to join. Why did you choose to keep the message open? And why at this time?

It's a little different from the well-known term accession, which you used in your question, no doubt it's a form of accession, but with the content that I meant, and I asked friends if they were willing to discuss it, it represents an unknown request and desire in the life of organizations, it needs contemporary democratic organization, and it needs, for our part, careful behavior that needs to be agreed, with confidence and comfort, and I suppose both things are. our acceptance as a party, or me as a person, of the position of minority and opposition within the framework of SDC, with the definition of rights and duties in it, and the consideration of our multiple differences, "so there is an idea, and if they agree to discuss it, we will jointly define rights and duties, and it will be a new and unique democratic experience

As for why the letter is open, because it is part of a set of letters, as a means of interacting in a national dialogue project that I am putting forward, going to many useful Syrian parties, including specifically the Authority and the Presidency, including the Supreme Negotiating Body, with the exception of the violent armed parties, and there are others, as well as others, open to my deep moral belief, that no action can now be taken on the popular majority, And, basically, I like and prefer to be completely public, and so I don't connect the message to being open, but why now all these messages and this talk project, because of my deep conviction and fear of the prospect of catastrophic development in the Syrian homeland, things of a rescue nature must be put forward and done.

Did you get a response from SDC about your letter? And how was the response and your impression of it?

Of course, so far there is no real and final response, or so-called "formal" relations, but there is also a different interest from that of the Authority and the Presidency, and that of the Supreme Negotiating Body, and there is a promise of interest and interaction, which is important and essential, with all parties wishing to have such a character.

You were one of the participants in the dialogue sessions held in Ain Issa and Kobani in previous years, organized by SDC. And you were on the committee writing the final communiqué at the May 2019 meeting, why did the dialogues stop? Is joining to SDC a strategic goal for you?

The dialogue stopped first with regard to the policies of SDC and the surrounding conditions, as well as the belief of SDC that they are no longer useful, and I see their continuation as very useful. SDC is the supportive party. Support and calls have been stopped, such as those dialogue events. The internal national opposition has been unable to provide logistical insurance. And the invitation of SDC to another geographical area, some of which took place in Aleppo, but it did not have the same momentum and did not pursue itself.

SDC project is one of the projects at home with the Syrian crisis and the context of its exit. There is no project that will be fully verifiable on its own. So all of these are crisis projects that are changing and taking off with them. My proposal for that form of accession cannot be strategic. It is in itself transitional, mobile and interactive, at least we are in our current system and road map, and we have very high confidence in that, and my proposal in that form of accession would allow me to be more effective in putting forward our system and in identifying our common intersections.

How can active and balanced internal opposition that recognizes all residents of Syria and their legitimate rights be developed? To what extent can the system of AANES be the solution to the crisis in Syria?

Just through continued stalled dialogue, agreement on a unified framework and system, through dialogue and identification of intersections, and actual practice on issues of programmatic intersections, even if they start small.

The project of AANES needs many steps in developing itself, its system, its allies and its central mission in the struggle. It needs to effectively emerge from the system of reliance on United Nations resolutions, and rely on external allies, the enemy of the Syrian State, to the system of creating an effective internal national opposition center, starting with aspirations and practices that represent the majority Syrian people's mass and its interests, thus becoming more likely to have a greater share in the interactive solution.

According to the Syrian opposition, the Kurdish issue is a national issue that must be resolved. Some say it's time to resolve it, others say it must be resolved after the crisis is over and the form of governance is crystallized. You see this solution as part of the whole package of the solution issue in Syria? Or do you see it in the front or the back, in other words, your appreciation for the location of the Kurdish case?

I see it in the package of tasks, with the dialecticism of those challenges and tasks, with the moment of the central task and the efforts it assumes, as well as the other basic tasks, and in any case, the subject must be brought up in connection with many issues, the issue of the Constitution, the nationalities, the national and national debate, the subject of identity, so it is not in the lead, and it is impossible to be in the back, because it is really not in this location, most important. If the majority Syrian people's bloc feels that there is no use of the catastrophic crisis requirement to achieve special objectives, and even more dangerous if they are of a historic strategic, I mean specifically on the national issue, I think that we must avoid any requirement and fanatical behaviour, and anything that opens up national wars, will go ahead in the future and into the future all peoples and nationalities to achieve their right goals, and must proceed safely, and that is our responsibility.

There is a conclusion from what Syria is going through, that neither power in Damascus has brought Moscow, nor AANES has brought the United States of America, but a new world order is taking shape. Is this extraction right and how do you see it?

From this very important point of view, we must look at the implicit alliances or understandings of the parties, at least from the point of view of the international legitimacy of the State and the Syrian regime by calling on Moscow to intervene. There are very explicit documents, as are the other documents of the International Bill. While American intervention outside that context was valuable, political and moral, apart from the fact that, unlike Moscow, it was one of the most antagonistic enemies of Syrian State, which, unlike Moscow, broke laws and the International Bill, why should we give it any legitimacy? As SDC does? At the very least, there must be constant criticism of this open occupation, and then any form of alliance or compromise must be broken with it, and logistical and political reflection must be taken together. With the need for logistical and political reflection together, so that extraction is a fabrication, it actually wants to legalize and justify the relationship with America. Can and wants SDC to do the same with the Turkish occupation?!

Finally: What are your practical and practical solutions for eliminating Turkish fascism and ending its occupation of Syrian territory?

By rapidly and seriously developing an effective Syrian national resistance, with a national structure, approach, objectives, slogans and designations, as well as a unified position in theory and politics on genuine occupation, and by immediately returning to the approach and effectiveness of the old coalition between the PKK and the Syrian Authority and considering the Turkish arena as the focus of political and geopolitical action, and this time, and replacement of SDC instead of PKK, the resistance is concentrated in Syria. There is a historic opportunity to free Syria from Turkey's fascist occupation, and it will be the most important opportunity to lift together the Kurdish national tide in more than one square, as the Arabs, and it will help to secure many transitional nationalist goals. There is no problem in uniting a broader front against Turkish occupation.

D.H , T.S

ANHA