Kocher warns about ignoring Syrian components in political process and Damascus authorities’ recent decisions

On January 30, Abu Muhammad al-Julani declared himself the president of Syria during what he called a "victory conference" attended by the leaders of "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham" only and other leaders of the Turkish occupation mercenaries. What does that decision or that measure mean concerning the future of Syria, its repercussions on the future of the country, and in what form is the relation going to take in the time coming between the DAA North and East Syria and the powers in Damascus? During the broad discussion with his deputy co-presidency of the Executive Council of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, Hassan Kocher, ANHA's agency was able to pose several questions.

Text of the dialogue:

: You are also following the events in Syria, especially the so-called "Victory Conference". Before announcing this conference, there was talk about the necessity of involving all components of the Syrian people and political spectrums in the political process that followed the fall of the former Syrian regime. After all this talk, there was a step that contradicted the statements issued by "Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham" and international demands. You in NE, Syria, like the Autonomous Administration, how do you explain this step?

It was supposed to be based on a national dialogue conference, yet we were surprised with a purely military meeting with the participation of the leaders of armed factions whose hands were stained with the blood of Syrians. During this conference, Ahmed al-Sharaa was announced president of the Syrian Republic. This also violates international rights and laws.

Transitional governments come into the context of national dialogue conferences to build a transitional government where all components of cultures, political blocs, political parties, and national figures are included, to build, on one side, a transition government, to build, as well, the committee which was supposed to write the constitution, but we've been surprised about this issue. This is a meeting that was attended by the leaders of the armed factions only, and the approval was through a military group only; this is against international rights and laws.

The revolution is not a military revolution.

The revolution begun in 2011 by the Syrian components for achieving a democratic system and freedom did not include all the components;

this step went wrong since all the components did not participate in this meeting, especially the women's movements were not present, nor the youth, and all of this contrasts the social situation in Syria. This meeting was one-sided, by the armed factions. Among them were those whose hands were stained with Syrian blood, like "Abu Amsha" and Hatem Abu Shakra, the killers of Hevrin Khalaf, the Secretary-General of the Future Syria Party. This is a betrayal of aspirations and a stab in the back of the peoples of the North and East of Syria region in the first place, and a shame to any free and democratic person. In the sense that holding this meeting is against all laws, rights, and political definitions.

We, as the Autonomous Administration, believe that any national dialogue conference, unless it is joined by the components present in North and East Syria or other components like the Alawites, the Druze, the Christians, and all components and religions, Syria will head towards the absence of a solution and to the deepening of the crisis, so let everyone know and understand this, which is an important thing for the future of Syria, while the future of Syria should be within the hopes of the Syrian people who had carried out the Syrian revolution in 2011.

We are done with a dictatorial and tyrannical regime, and the Syrian people were glad to see that regime fall. But then we were surprised to see this meeting being convened. First, there were such statements-like what was pronounced-there will be a national dialogue, and we said that all components and all spectra in Syria must join it in order to reach a transitional government. Because without this meeting, representing the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria means that it is a one-sided government and not representative of all Syrians with their various components.

Will There Be a Shift in the Autonomous Administration’s Approach Toward "Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham"?

You had previously put forth an initiative following the regime's collapse, and there had been communication between the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham prior to the conference. However, in the wake of this "conference," will there be a shift in the Autonomous Administration’s approach to the new reality in Damascus?

No, our primary objective remains engagement with the new government. However, the Damascus authority must refrain from marginalizing the regions of NE Syria in the same manner as the Ba'athist regime did. If they claim to be convening a national dialogue conference, then we must be included in this conference, as must all existing components of Syrian society.

The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria had previously presented an initiative, with our fundamental goal being the unity of Syrian territory and the establishment of a decentralized and democratic system based on a democratic constitution. This remains our principal aim, and any discussions with the Damascus authority will be directed toward achieving this end.

How Do You Interpret the International Silence Following the "Victory Conference"?

Before this conference and immediately after the regime’s fall, there were international stances advocating for the inclusion of all components in a comprehensive political transition in Syria. Of course, there exists UN Resolution 2254, which stipulates an 18-month transitional process, despite the fact that what has been termed the "Victory Conference" contradicts this resolution, we have not heard any objections or clear stances from the influential international actors in Syria. How do you interpret this silence?

From the outset, as an Autonomous Administration, we have affirmed our commitment to this resolution and reiterated this stance in numerous statements. A political transition conducted in this manner will ultimately be detrimental to the Syrian people as a whole. In fact, there are already reactions emerging from the Druze, the Alawites, national figures, and even certain political parties, all expressing their rejection of this government in its current form. If the ruling authority continues to approach various components in this manner, it will inevitably provoke strong reactions. Therefore, the Damascus authority must recognize the necessity of convening an urgent national conference that includes all components of Syrian society—this is our primary objective.

Regarding international positions, many of the factions that participated in this conference are still designated as terrorist organizations by the international community and remain on such lists to this day. The countries concerned with the Syrian dossier, particularly Arab and European nations, must recognize the necessity of a political transition—one determined by the Syrian people in all their diversity. Any alternative approach will only hinder the country’s transition and obstruct a viable resolution.

A comprehensive political transition must be inclusive of all societal components, sects, religions, cultures, and national figures within Syria. Thus, major powers and stakeholders in the Syrian issue must heed the will of the Syrian people and allow the transition to be guided by this will. However, as we observed, the people’s will was entirely absent from this conference. While many nations claim that the Syrian people must determine their own future, in this instance, they were not given such an opportunity. Instead, a limited faction convened and imposed a decision—this is both flawed and incomplete. The international community must recognize the grave issue of excluding large components of the Syrian population from decision-making processes.

Will There Be an Escalation of Reactions Against This Measure?

The city of Suwayda has explicitly rejected this measure, and an initiative has been put forward calling for the restoration of public freedoms in Syria. The petition advocating for these freedoms was signed by 65 prominent individuals, including artists, filmmakers, intellectuals, and writers. In your opinion, if "Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham" and the new Damascus authority insist on maintaining their stance and continue along this path, do you foresee an escalation in reactions against this measure?

Undoubtedly. This will lead to a gradual yet forceful escalation of opposition. The Syrian people still hold onto the hope of building a new Syria—one where their will serves as the foundation. The establishment of a representative parliament and a transitional government capable of managing the country and drafting a democratic constitution is the aspiration of the Syrian people as a whole, not just the population of North and East Syria. The exclusion and marginalization of these components in critical decision-making processes will inevitably provoke strong reactions, as the people's primary hope is to attain a free life under a decentralized, democratic, and pluralistic system.

Syria is a mosaic of diverse cultures, religions, and identities. Ensuring the participation of all these components in the decision-making process is of paramount importance. If they are excluded from future conferences, the reaction will only intensify. The Syrian people have already rejected the authoritarian rule of Bashar al-Assad and his unilateral decision-making. It is imperative that this history is not repeated.