QAMISHLI, Syria - Talks between the Kurdish-led administration in northeast Syria (Rojava) and the interim government in Damascus are progressing but have not yet reached the stage of formal negotiations, a senior Rojava official told Rudaw.
Elham Ahmad, foreign relations co-chair of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES), told Rudaw’s Dilbixwin Dara in an interview from Qamishli, that discussions with Damascus remain in their early phases and that “one cannot call them outright negotiations.
“They are a form of dialogue” which “falls within the framework of how we can address the Syrian issue,” Ahmad said.
In recent months, the Rojava administration has been engaging in talks with Syria’s interim government over integration into federal institutions - including the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - based on a March 10 agreement between interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa and SDF chief Mazloum Abdi.
Following his appointment as Syria’s interim president, Sharaa in late January pledged to form an “inclusive transitional government that would reflect Syria’s diversity.” However, he has faced criticism from both domestic and international observers for allegedly sidelining minority communities in the governance process.
Kurdish leaders have long advocated for a decentralized system within Syria. Ahmed argued in the interview aired on Sunday that centralized rule in Syria has long caused suffering, and decentralization would lighten the central government's burden by giving regions responsibility for services, culture, language, and internal security.
On the regional front, Ahmad confirmed that there are ongoing discussions with Turkey through an “open channel,” calling the engagement “positive and constructive.” She emphasized the need for dialogue to prevent further escalation and to explore peaceful solutions.
She also voiced strong support for the peace process between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), describing it as a historic opportunity “not only for Kurds but for the entire Middle East.”
The senior Rojava official further extended her appreciation to Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani, citing his “genuinely positive role” during what she described as “sensitive and challenging times” for the people of northeast Syria.
Below is the full transcript of the interview with Elham Ahmad.
Rudaw: We are in Western Kurdistan (northeast Syria) and I am presenting a very important interview here with a distinguished guest - a diplomat and official of Western Kurdistan, the foreign relations co-chair of the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES), Elham Ahmad. Ms. Elham, welcome.
Elham Ahmad: Welcome, thank you. Welcome.
It is interesting that neither of us is from Qamishli. Although you are from Afrin and I am from Kobane, we are closer together. Thank you very much for accepting this interview. Ms. Elham, you are very active, very vibrant in your work. You have a massive responsibility you're shouldering, isn't it?
It's a national responsibility, a revolution that has reached a level where we must now see results from it and fulfill our duty.
I want to start by asking about the negotiations and exchanges between you and the interim leadership in Damascus. What are they about? These meetings that are happening in Damascus - are they negotiations, dialogue? What is exactly happening in Damascus?
Yes, actually, what is happening in Damascus is at its beginning, but one cannot call them out right negotiations. They are a form of dialogue - meaning, they fall within the framework of how we can address the Syrian problem. When the [Bashar al-Assad] regime was in charge, that regime represented one side, it was clear, and that regime was the Baath regime.
Did you have talks then?
Yes, there were. Much effort was exerted to truly save Syria from that crisis. Those [engagements with the toppled Assad regime] cannot be called negotiations either. They were also a form of dialogue about how we could exit the crisis, but those [engagements] did not work.
Now, the new administration in place, the interim administration [led by Ahmed al-Sharaa], wants to bring [the different] Syrian parties under its umbrella, understand all the diverse components and communities within [the Syrian] society, include them [in governance] and accordingly establish a new Syria together. Through these engagements, we wish to reach partnership in this country. We believe we are Syrian. We are Kurdish and Syrian, we are Arab and Syrian, we are Syriac and Syrian. Our common identity that brings us all together is being Syrian. Within this framework, we are asking how can we build a new Syria together?
For this, [I can say], the engagements [between Rojava and Damascus delegations] can be described as dialogue. Through this dialogue, we can find the path to resolution. Syria has yet to exit this fundamental crisis and has yet to save itself from this [thorny] situation. We ask: how can we save Syria from this crisis, bring it to a stable situation and an agreed-upon situation? At this stage, the talks [between the delegations] are taking place within that framework.
Is there someone supervising or monitoring these negotiations?
Indeed, there are mediators. [The latest meeting] marked the first time an American representative participated, a French representative also participated, and Britain was also involved indirectly. But the parties that sat down - including our representatives and the interim administration’s - we sat together following [agreement] on several main points that are required to reach a resolution, and held discussions about what measures can be agreed on following the March 10 agreement signed in Damascus [between Sharaa and Syrian Democratic Forces chief Mazloum Abdi], to implement the items of that agreement. How can we implement [that accord]? By adopting which approach? Our discussions centered on that.
Are you satisfied with the role of US Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack? What is his role in these negotiations? What does he do?
It was the first time that both of us - [DAANES and Damascus representatives] - saw Mr. Barrack in the meeting.
Did you attend the meeting?
It was the first time he participated in the meeting in person. In my opinion, as I mentioned in other places, to be able to play a positive and good role, knowing the parties is very important… I think he was hoping that some decisions would come out of the meeting. We also said one or two decisions must come out of this meeting, but they didn't.
Why?
Because of [lack] of closeness in understanding of integration. In the March 10 deal, we agreed on integration [and] participation. However, each side interprets this [integration] differently. Our definition of integration is that it must entail mutual recognition. That means that the Damascus government must recognise us as we accept them.
Don’t you accept them?
What kind of acceptance? Now they represent an interim administration. They assumed rule and became the interim administration [with their own decision]. This [decision] has not been approved by the Syrian community. But they came, ousted Assad and became the interim administration. For example, they declared an interim constitution which they drafted [on their own]. They also formed an interim government and now preparations are underway to form a parliament. These were all unilateral measures.
So they did not hold consultations with you when doing these things?
There were no consultations, neither with us nor with other Syrian components or parties. These steps are all taken unilaterally. There is one party that has declared itself as the interim administration, and we are in dialogue with this side to properly and truly implement the March 10 agreement.
You were in the meeting and I think they want the SDF to join the Syrian army? How do you view this matter? Are you against the SDF becoming part of the Syrian army? Tom Barrack wants this from you, doesn't he? For the SDF to dissolve and join the army?
There is such a decision in the March 10 agreement. It says integration, meaning the SDF must also become part of the army. There is such a decision, there's an agreement.
Under its own name [as the SDF]?
This matter is up for discussions. When discussions start, what form we will agree on will be taken as a basis. It is not like they can just come and say ‘surrender your weapons’ or ‘bring all these fighters you have and hand them over and thank you.’ The issue isn't like that. The integration we are talking about is different. We say that the Damascus administration must recognize the will of the people here [in Rojava]. In terms of security, how do these people protect themselves? Or how do they want to reach a way with Damascus to bear the responsibility together? Damascus must see all the people as Syrians. What emerged in the meeting is, as we noted, that the people here are under an administration - today this administration is called DAANES, tomorrow it might be something else - but there is [an administration] with institutions serving this community and serving the people. [The integration the Damascus leadership has in mind] is that when this integration in institutions [takes place], the people in those institutions are not accepted as employees of state institutions by the interim administration in Damascus. Their perception is that there are people here, they’ll come and replace them, they’ll take charge. That's it, the other side will have no role anymore.
And you don't accept this? You don't accept that the Syrian interim government comes and administers this region?
No, that's not true. Regarding the integration [issue], Kurds are still lacking an identity. They have not been officially recognized. They have not been recognized as a ethnic group in Syria with their district history in the constitution[tional] declaration. And regarding their right to self-administration, the people of northern and eastern Syria have been in a system where they've both protected themselves and managed themselves for 13 years. They've presented massive sacrifices and given martyrs. They have suffered greatly and have been displaced.
As they say, ‘We suffered under the [Baath] regime,’ the people here [in Rojava] have also suffered under that regime, made sacrifices, and fought against the Islamic state (ISIS), Daesh. This is why, in Syria's general national issues, no one can say, ‘I've done more and I deserve to take charge of everything.’ The issue isn't like that. They are also tired, they have also made sacrifices, everyone has made sacrifices, so they must sit together and figure out how do we rebuild this country, how do we manage it? A common thinking must be created.
You have no intention of dividing Syria? I am asking this because many parties accuse you as the autonomous administration of wanting to divide Syria.
The division must have a reason [to call for it]. Why division? There must be reasons for that and those reasons become the basis for a society to think about separation and the main reasons [usually] come from the center. If the center truly recognizes the rights of this community, treats them as equals and respects their will, then why would they seek separation? For years, it has always been said about this community, about the Kurds, that ‘they are dividing Syria.’ Today, the same is being said about [the Druze community in the southern province of] Suwayda. In Suwayda, under Assad's Baath regime, the people who sidelined themselves the most and did not participate in [the Syrian civil] war and did not kill anyone and remained peaceful were the Druze. But what are those people being exposed to today? They are facing extermination, accused of being ‘infidels who must be exterminated’ and of ‘wanting to divide Syria.’ Suwayda is a city - if it were to be divided from there one day, where would it go? If Syria is divided, where would it go?
So the people of Suwayda don't want to separate, do they?
No, our relations with the Druze are very good. Until now, we haven't heard from any of them saying, ‘We want to divide Syria.’ There's no such thing. They keep repeating [the claim]. Yesterday, Hakan Fidan [Turkey's Foreign Minister], again said that they won't allow division.
You mean the foreign minister?
Yes. He says if Syria is divided, it means Turkey will be divided. Why are such statements made when a people want to live in peace and want to reach an agreement with the current government?
The idea of Kurdish separation hasn't come from anyone's mouth until now, it's not in anyone's intention, but if, when rights are demanded and this is called ‘separation,’ this means the intention of the person speaking this way is bad.
What kind of Syria do you want? Do you want a federal Syria? Do you want a Syria where you're autonomous? Do you want a decentralized Syria? What kind of Syria do you want?
We've always openly stated in our projects or goals: the centralized state has brought nothing but pain and suffering to this society for decades. We, the people living in northern and eastern Syria, along with other components, with the advancement of democracy, with the advancement of different systems that express democracy, this shows that a decentralized system that shares state powers, meaning the duties of the central state, with regions, fundamentally lightens its own burden.
So you insist on a decentralized system?
Yes, a decentralized system that lightens Damascus's central burden. Give responsibility to the regions. If problems arise tomorrow, say, ‘We left it to them. Whatever there is, you solve your own problems.’ Education, health, internal security, and economy. All these must be decentralized, give duties to regions, cities, and provinces. For example, give it to them so they can manage themselves and the people there bear responsibility. If there's always a centralized system like before, someone says, ‘according to the decision I make, and it's imposed on everyone,’ this deepens the crisis. The previous system did it and caused the crisis. If they do the same, problems will deepen [again].
You won't surrender your military forces, meaning the SDF, you won't hand over the DAANES, you won't hand over your institutions to Damascus, you won't give your borders to Damascus, you won't give the airports to Damascus. What will you give to Damascus? Have you and Damascus reached some common points between yourselves?
Yes, there are [mutual points]. The things we see as right. But when we say decentralized, it doesn't mean nothing is centralized. We know some things are centralized: country borders, for example, let's say border crossing, airports, passports, identification cards - these are all tied to the center in all federal countries. We are not saying ‘everything must be decentralized.’ No, but the services aspect, cultural aspect, and language aspect - all these must be decentralized. For example, today there are many Kurds here, the Kurdish language can be primary here, but in another city, another place, it doesn't have to be Kurdish.
So you're saying the Kurdish language should be first in Western Kurdistan?
Yes, let it be first alongside Arabic, let the Kurdish language be first. There are Syriacs, let there be Syriac language, but the cultures here might not exist in Idlib. In Idlib, Arabic is enough, in coastal areas, Arabic is enough, but in Afrin, Kurdish is primary. When there are decentralized systems, they fundamentally make the situation much easier, eliminate internal problems, cause people to truly feel they have rights, have character and will, and participate in this state by their own will, meaning they're within this state, not always by force, like ‘No, you must be Arab!’ But I'm not Arab. No, if I speak Arabic, I might not be able to express myself well.
Your Arabic is good. It is better than mine… But your Kurdish is better [than your Arabic].
My Kurdish is good. Society should not be administered by force. Damascus and those states which have influence in Damascus must understand this. We have not said we won't surrender, but the issue of surrender is itself problematic. We want participation to be the basis; voluntary participation. If the SDF participates in the army, for example, which army exists in Damascus now?
There is no army.
What is in Damascus now? We can establish it together. Let's establish it together. Are we creating an internal security system? The same way our hearts are set on Qamishli, at the same time let them be on Hama and Homs and Latakia too. We see their security like your own security. For that, the internal security system - we voluntarily participate in it, create it together, and create regional councils together. This isn't difficult. The idea that ‘Only I exist, I am the state, I am everything’ - this idea must change.
The Qamishili airport is under your control. Its name is written in Kurdish too.
It is written in three languages.
Three languages. Kurdish was not there before. Now it is in Kurdish, Arabic…
Syriac and English. Four languages.
Will you manage the airport in the future?
We are not fixated on that. We know the airports issue is a sovereignty matter, meaning they're connected to the central government and managed by it. But here, which province it's in, there's a kind of guarantee or let's say a way of how this airport can best serve society? This needs discussion.
We talked about decentralization. Kurdistan Region President Nechirvan Barzani has also spoken about it with Sharaa and with Tom Barrack. He said there must be a decentralized Syria. You made a visit to Erbil, and I saw you met with President Barzani. I wanted to know his role - how do you see his role?
His role is truly appreciated. It's a positive role, especially given the problems Rojava - or northeastern Syria - is facing today. His personal relationships with world leaders and his dialogue with the interim administration in Damascus are significant. From what we've seen and through our direct contact - including phone calls - we can say his role has been positive and deserves thanks. We also hope his involvement grows even further - so that, in these critical and challenging times, we can support each other more and work more closely to help resolve the crisis in northeastern Syria.
Recently, I heard you say, ‘We have direct contact with Turkey.’ Have you visited Turkey?
There are discussions, there's an open channel. There are direct discussions and dialogue, and there's a need for these dialogues, and we see them as important too - especially when there was war between us, and hell was breaking loose. Very intense attacks were made, and great resistance was made. Now at the negotiation level, at least, instead of using weapons directly, there's talk. There's negotiation - what's the problem, how can this be solved, how do we understand each other? This exists.
But I want a clear answer - did you go to Turkey? According to my information, you met with the deputy head of Turkish intelligence (MIT). Is this true?
Let's not overshare - there are negotiations, and we see them as good and positive. We are focused on removing the obstacles [hindering development] in the region, and our discussions are ongoing.
So, will these discussions continue?
Yes, we fundamentally want the dialogue to improve further. Rather than relying on threats, we must sit down, understand each other, and talk about what the actual issues are - what do they want? Their talks with Damascus are truly very deep. We know this. To some extent, sometimes it even feels like they speak more on Damascus's behalf than Damascus does itself. We understand this too. But today we are, at least, thinking about all of Syria, and they say they are too. Northeastern Syria is part of Syria, so relations must improve on that level.
Have you had any negotiations with [jailed PKK leader] Abdullah Ocalan?
We directly receive updates. An opportunity was created at a sensitive time for Leader Ocalan to be in contact [with relevant parties] and announced such a brave and significant initiative. In my opinion, this initiative isn't just for Kurds, it's for the entire Middle East. It is a peace process that is like no other in history. At a time when everyone was saying, ‘It's over, it's gone, and it is weakened’ while its [PKK’s] resistance was strong. Despite this [high] level [of resistance], he said: ‘The era of armed conflict is over and the time of the party is over. It [PKK] has played its role, and now change is necessary.’ He presented such an initiative.
Again, I did not exactly get the answer to my question. Have your negotiations with Ocalan taken place directly? Have you or another official spoken with him? I think he spoke with you. I am not sure.
Maybe or maybe not.
Diplomats make such replies. But at least it has taken place?
Let me put it this way. There has been an engagement, and we do receive information. What is most important is that the initiative he proposed has had a major impact and brought very important results for Rojava and northeast Syria. For solution project [peace process] is important for Northern Kurdistan (southeast Turkey] and all four parts of [Greater] Kurdistan.
Ocalan has called on the PKK to lay down arms. Has he asked you to do the same?
Laying down arms is not on our agenda - it is not on our agenda at all. Syria’s situation is still dangerous. In front of the eyes of the world, people are still being killed and massacred. Asking the SDF to disarm under these conditions is like telling them to walk into death. Therefore, it is very dangerous. In the framework of the [discussions] to resolve Syria’s issues, what role will Kurds, the autonomous administration and the SDF play in rebuilding Syria… These issues should be addressed during discussions.
Ocalan recently said he wants to meet with Kurdish leaders, including you. Are there plans for you to visit him? This is truly very important for Kurds.
I would truly like to meet him. If it happens, it would be very positive, but…
Is this on your agenda?
We haven't been informed officially. Personally, I see it as a necessity. If it happens, I believe it will have a very positive impact.
Did you watch Ocalan’s video message from Imrali prison?
Yes.
What was your reaction to the speech from Imrali?
His ideas, the spirit and morale he conveys - even at his age - with such determination and clarity on peace, democracy, and justice, are incredible. His proposals are inclusive, not just for Kurds, but for all communities whose rights have been denied. He speaks of a new democratic system that reorganizes states and re-establishes republics.
The Kurdish Unity Conference was held here in Qamishli. A committee was formed to hold talks with Damascus. The committee did not go [to Damascus]. The autonomous administration delegation went instead. You and Mr. Mazloum Abdi went too. Everyone was expecting the committee to go but it did not. Wasn’t the committee ready to go or Damascus was not ready to receive them?
The delegation is ready. The paper [of the topics on their agenda] is also ready. But Damascus has not yet prepared itself to receive them. Work is being done on that. We anticipate that in the future a time must be set for a meeting to take place if Damascus is ready.
Is Damascus ready? Are there any issues?
Until now, there's no problem with the delegation.
Your visits to Damascus won’t block the Kurdish delegation’s visit?
No, I don’t think so.
Some think you're going to Damascus alone without them.
No, I don’t think so. The current delegation that is holding talks with Damascus represents the general framework of the autonomous administration. The intra-Kurdish delegation, on the other hand, is focused on Kurdish rights - constitutional recognition, the Kurds’ role in the new system and new Syria.
You also go to Damascus. Don’t you go for Kurdish rights too?
We mostly go for a decentralized system and SDF or how Syria’s administrative system would be. We also discuss the role the SDF will have in the new Syria.
Is the autonomous administration under the threat of new attacks?
We truly hope not because Syria has had enough wars. Still, there are forces trying to stir conflict. There are parties that want to ignite a war by any means. For example, the ‘tribal mobilization’ - the call made to the tribes prompting them to go to Suwayda [to fight the Druze]. They [tribal fighters] went from this region too. Those who get grouped with only a whistle and go [indicate] a very dangerous situation.
Does this not pose a threat to the autonomous administration?
Yes, it does. Despite this, I can say that there was not a significant response from our region to the whistle [the call on tribes to fight the Druze]. Some did go to retrieve the dead bodies [of the tribal people]. Such a danger exists. I can say that our Arab brothers have to be cautious in this regard. This region is stable; people look after their lives, even if things are difficult, they manage themselves by their own will. Why should they leave their areas and go to Suwayda to get themselves killed? Why disrupt the situation here? There are those capitalizing on this, within the interim administration, there are people pulling these strings. In neighboring countries, too, there are those who are pulling strings too. This will not end well so I stress that not falling into this trap is very important.
Let’s talk about unpleasant possibilities too. If there’s an attack on Rojava like what happened in Suwayda or with the Alawites - massacres [in the coastal regions] - who will protect you?
We’ve always protected ourselves - with support from the [anti-ISIS] coalition forces. We have had the support of Kurdish [political] forces. Even from now on, for us to protect ourselves, we have a community and international relations. We also have intra-Kurdish relations. In such a scenario, I think there will be a general mobilization among Kurds and Syrians as a whole. There is a need for such a thing. I think that the spirit of Kurdish identity and responsibility exists.
So you see such an attack on Rojava as unlikely?
It should not happen. It should not happen.
Which country do you see as closest to you?
You mean foreign ones?
In Europe and the West…
If I name them, it might not be very objective. Until now, for example, our relations with France are strong. We have engagement with some other countries, such as Germany. I would not be objective to mention them. We have good relations. In tough times, some of them reach out to us themselves, asking how they can help.
If something urgent arises, do you have high-level contacts in those countries?
Yes, with many countries. For example, in the US, we have contacts at the White House and the Pentagon - at many different and high levels.
You are from Afrin. I want to ask about Afrin, Sare Kani (Ras al-Ain), and Gire Spi (Tal Abyad). What do you see as their future?
Regarding Afrin, Sare Kani and Gire Spi, discussions are ongoing. We agreed to establish a committee. It was also included in the [Abdi-Sharaa] March 10 agreement. There was a special item regarding the return of displaced persons to their homes. We formed a committee for Afrin, but after that, Damascus did not hold a meeting. A meeting was required to officially discuss the official return of the displaced persons.
There are groups from Deir ez-Zor who are now living there [Afrin] should return to their homes. We have said they can return and we guarantee nothing will happen to them. In return, our people in camps - living in dire conditions - must be allowed to return [to Afrin]. Regarding Sare Kani and Gire Spi, we’re in talks with Turks and Damascus so that people can return. The Turkish side says ‘we handed it over’ [to Damascus], but we believe that some groups continue committing violations there. Sari Kani and Gire Spi have yet to be handed over to the government and fighters who see themselves affiliated to Turks are still there. Therefore, the future of these areas must also be discussed so that people can return home.
When will we see you in Afrin?
I want to go in the near future. That’s my hope. We're putting all our weight to resolve this situation as soon as possible.
So you believe Afrin’s people will return and the demographic changes won’t be permanent? Will we see pre-occupation Afrin?
People will return. There's no alternative. They have to return. The destruction is massive, but we believe our people will rebuild it again when they return.
You've traveled across many parts of Kurdistan, especially Rojava. Which city did you love the most?
Afrin is very beautiful - its nature and people. All our cities are good, but Afrin is very special, both geographically and in terms of beauty. I’ve also visited cities in South, North, and parts of Eastern Kurdistan. There are very nice cities.
Is there a city that holds a special place in your heart?
It is obvious.
Is it because you hail from Afrin?
It has a distinct nature. It is not just a geographical thing. It is history and memories. Every place in Kurdistan is beautiful.
So you want to visit Afrin soon? Is it possible for you to go now?
It's difficult. The security situation is problematic, and there’s no official permission from the other side that would allow such a visit for now.
You travel a lot, visiting Kurdistan, Europe, and America. But I asked earlier whether you've been to Turkey recently, and you didn’t give a clear answer.
I’ve been before.
But I'm asking about recently - in the past few days. Is there any danger to your life during these travels?
Yes, there is danger. But we also take security precautions to protect ourselves.
I was truly happy to interview you. Thank you for giving us time. It was very nice to do this interview here in Qamishli. I’ve always seen you on TV, but this is the first time meeting you face-to-face. Kurds praise you a lot and have even given you affectionate nicknames - some call you ‘our diplomat.’ That kind of recognition also places a heavy burden of responsibility on your shoulders.
That’s absolutely true - it’s a very heavy responsibility that’s been placed on us.
Is your diplomatic team strong?
It is fine, but it still needs to improve and get stronger. Whatever strength we have, we put it in service to our people. Whatever resources, whatever capacity we have, we dedicate it to serving our people. We see ourselves as servants of the people - that’s how we define our role. We understand that we’re living in historic times, and we carry a historic responsibility. We must see it through to the end. The accountability for this is heavy - we know this well. And because of that, we approach everything with a spirit of responsibility and a hope that we can rise to the level of our people's expectations.
