SULAIMANI, Kurdistan Region - The Kurdish administration in northeast Syria (Rojava) is ready to continue negotiations with the interim government in Damascus, but wants to have Western guarantors to ensure any agreements are implemented, Salih Muslim, a senior member of Rojava’s ruling Democratic Union Party (PYD), told Rudaw in an interview on Saturday.
Rojava and Damascus delegations were set to meet in Paris in the presence of French and American representatives earlier this summer, but the Syrian government called it off after the Kurdish administration hosted a conference of minorities calling for decentralization.
Muslim said the meeting has not been canceled but postponed.
"We say it was postponed because the other side did not want the meeting to take place in Paris despite our insistence. France and America - Britain is reluctant as it doesn't want it - and us all insist that the meeting happens. For us the place isn't important, for us what's most important is that there be guarantors," he said.
He said that they are ready to hold talks with Damascus anywhere, but want Western allies to act as guarantors for issues that require permanent solutions.
Damascus has claimed that the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the de facto army of Rojava, violated the March 10 agreement signed between SDF chief Mazloum Abdi and Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. That deal seeks to integrate the SDF into the Syrian state apparatus and recognizes the Kurds as an integral part of the country.
Salih touched on several issues in the interview, including the future of Rojava, saying that they will not compromise on issues like Kurdish language, the special status of the SDF and Rojava institutions, and women’s rights.
The veteran politician also said that ongoing peace talks between Ankara and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) have had a positive impact on Rojava's ties with the Turkish government. He said they are in direct talks with Turkish officials.
The following is the full transcript of the interview with Salih Muslim:
Rudaw: When you go to the martyrs' cemetery in Kobane, you can see martyrs from all four parts of [Greater] Kurdistan in the cemetery. A Peshmerga was martyred. The Peshmerga together with fighters and with the help of Americans liberated Kobane. Kobane truly united the Kurds.
Salih Muslim: Not just united, but the speciality and battle of Kobane had an impact on the societal, international and national level, from many aspects.
We said Kobane brought Kurds unity. Kurds from all four parts of Kurdistan gathered in Kobane. Are Kurds in Rojava now moving toward unity or toward separation from each other?
Not just in Rojava, we said Kobane was a beginning. It was the unity of Kurds. As you mentioned, the Peshmerga and YPG became one. At that time, the Syrian Democratic Forces did not exist. People were happy and it caused people's hopes to grow. At that time, martyrs from all four parts of Kurdistan united them. Following the call that Leader Apo [Abdullah Ocalan, jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party] made and the coming of people from all four sides of Kurdistan to Kobane united Kurds. Kobane united Kurds. Since then, wherever they are, they have become one.
Now it's up to us. When we say unity, some people don't understand well. That is, unity doesn't mean unity of political parties. We say unity of the people. Every society has its institutions and political parties are one of those institutions. Also, society itself is an organized society. It has its institutions, has its places, has its centers, has its work and activities. All of these are one, they have become one and close to each other. The Kurdish people in general are with Kobane in their hearts and this is what makes Kobane unique. What remains is for the political parties to unite.
Haven't the political parties united yet?
They have united, yes, but here too some people have misunderstood. They think all political parties must say one thing, but it's not like that. The issue is that there should be unity. That is, now in any country and any state, look at the party bylaws. Every party has its bylaws, which include how we can serve the people, how we can serve this state. That is, they have goals, but we Kurds don't have them. Our problem is here.
That is, when we say let our lines be recognized and our parties work within there. Now in Rojava we have 22 parties all saying we want to protect the Autonomous Administration. Okay, there is alignment. We want this alignment to happen in all of Kurdistan. Unity is just for political parties. There are social institutions, economic institutions and religious ones, all their goals should be one, how we can protect this country and its people.
You talk about parties and institutions of the Autonomous Administration, but outside the Autonomous Administration and PYD there are other parties. For example, there are parties of the Kurdish National Council (ENKS) and parties outside you and the Council. You held a big conference in Qamishli that all parties attended.
This is for our alignment.
You made decisions…
This thing that happened at the Kurdish Conference in Qamishli, we wanted it to happen for a long time. We want this to expand and happen in all of Kurdistan.
When will those decisions be implemented? The decisions of that conference still haven't been implemented?
Well, what is implementation? I don't understand this. Here decisions are being implemented and when talks with Damascus happen, then everyone will act according to principles. The enemy will want to separate us, but if they go to one of the parties and tell them that they want to make an alliance, surely our alliance has been made. We have united and we are ready. This connection and respect must happen.
You haven't gone to Damascus, the Kurdish delegation hasn't gone to Damascus.
It will go. They have requested and are waiting for their response.
When?
They themselves are moving this way and that way and don't want to make these things happen.
Does Damascus welcome the Kurdish delegation or not? Is it ready to welcome the Kurdish delegation?
They promised they would, yes. They say so. Even [interim Syrian President] Sharaa said they will. But now it remains for them to unite among themselves. The problem is not from us. The problem is with them.
So you are ready to go to Damascus?
Yes, the committee is also ready and has been named, the committee's co-chairs are ready and who the delegation is, everything is ready and clear.
You still haven't gone to Damascus and Damascus hasn't welcomed you. Have you put pressure on Damascus? Have you requested Damascus welcome the Kurdish delegation?
Yes, one of the requests of our committees that will now go to negotiate is this.
But you go as the Autonomous Administration and the SDF.
Yes, one of their [the Rojava delegation] demands is also that they [Damascus] welcome that delegation. They do it for everyone because our two delegations complement each other and are not separate from each other. Look at articles 2 and 3 of the agreement. For existing components and for existing nations and different sides, they must have their representation. We are also one of them, we Kurds are all one.
What is Ahmed al-Sharaa ready to give the Kurds?
By God, we don't know because Ahmed al-Sharaa is still confused, remains confused and doesn't know what to do. On one side, he has orders from Turkey, on the other side is what the Syrian people want from him. But slowly he's coming to the path.
If it's according to his words, when he came to power in Syria he himself said he wants all of Syria to be one, all Syrians to be together. He didn't bring up the issue of democracy, but in general he said be together, recognize them, accept them, their culture and language and all refugees return. He mentioned all our demands, but these things must happen in practice. We have also prepared ourselves according to what they said.
Do you know what you will demand from Damascus?
Yes, we know.
Do all the Kurdish political parties in Rojava have one view?
Yes.
What do you want?
In short, we are of this country, we are of Syria. Our project doesn't divide Syria. We want the solution to come from inside Syria.
As Kurds?
Yes. We Kurds are partners in this country. Whether it's in the Autonomous Administration or otherwise, we are partners in this country. Nothing should be done without us. If you hold elections, we are in it too. You write a constitution, we are in it too. You form a government, we are in it too. You establish governance, we are in it too. You work on the economy, we are in it too. In everything we are partners in this country. We want this. Now, what form that partnership will take we can discuss. We say democratic autonomy. Democratic autonomy starts from small things until it reaches federalism.
Do you want federalism?
Not necessarily. Federalism is not a mold.
You must give it a name.
Okay a name... We now say according to the other side and negotiations that happen. Now federalisms are not all the same. Federalism in Britain has three forms. We can take other examples. In every country their federalism exists in a different way.
According to Syria and the components living there, what is the best system, according to you as Kurds and Kurdish political sides, for Kurds?
It's a decentralized system, as we have said before. Already the [Autonomous] Administration has it in its Social Contract and it has proposed it for Syria's constitution too, and the Syrian Democratic Council has approved it. The constitutional declaration they issued, the Syrian Democratic Council also issued its alternative. The constitution that will remain has been discussed. So it remains.
You can't say by yourself, I will make this happen. You must sit with others, there must be acceptance, because you are not a side by yourself alone. There's another side too. You must negotiate with them and reach an agreement. We are ready for this, the issue of the constitution, constitutional declaration and living together, what we can do together and how governance will be.
But there are some things. For ten years we have been living in a system. We have institutions, our social institutions have been created. There's the women's issue, women are with us in every field, we have established the co-presidency system, because of this we have a uniqueness. We want our administration that has been created in our regions, whether called Rojava or North and East Syria, to be accepted. Maybe we make some adjustments in it, but we don't adjust ourselves according to other sides.
Your partners in the Kurdish delegation, let me say ENKS and the Progress Party and other parties, do they agree with this view of yours?
When their points were written - how many were they? 12 or 13? - they accepted all of them.
Is there a special form of decentralization in your mind? An example of a country that could be implemented in Syria? Foreign countries?
Yes, foreign countries.
There are. Switzerland exists, Belgium exists, countries of the world are generally like that. That is, the current dark centralized system, where every decision must be from the capital and ignores other places, people have moved past this. They see it as a heavy burden for themselves. That's why they share power and the more they distribute it, the better. For example Belgium, which isn't half of Syria, has 27 autonomous administrations in it.
It's not 100% clear in my mind what kind of system you want. The federalism and decentralization you want, what will be the place of Kurds in it?
Do you want language? Do you want culture? Do you want an economy? Do you want politics? All of these are in your regions and all are available, but there are things and powers greater than those you share with other sides. You live inside a country.
So SDF will remain, Internal Security Forces (Asayish) will remain? Kurdish language remains in Kurdish areas?
Yes, they must accept [Kurdish education] until university level.
Will Damascus accept Kurdish language and Kurdish universities and schools?
Yes, it will accept schools and universities and certificates that come from them too.
Is this your demand or have they said we will accept it?
This is our demand and they haven't said no either. They say it's your right, your language, but until now nothing has been done officially. They want to satisfy us. There's the SANA agency and they opened a Kurdish section in it, for example.
Will you take part in it? Will you send your people to work there?
We told them before as a joke that SANA used to insult us in Arabic, now it will do it in Kurdish.
SANA is Syria's official news agency. Can I ask any question?
You are free. I promised you.
Did the Paris meeting fail or was it postponed?
We say it was postponed because the other side did not want the meeting to take place in Paris despite our insistence. France and America - Britain is reluctant as it doesn't want it - and us all insist that the meeting happens. For us the place isn't important, for us what's most important is that there be guarantors.
You don't trust Damascus?
It’s not just Damascus we don't trust. Damascus says something today then says something else later. We promised each other, but the next day they said something else. That's why we want another party between us. For example until now they haven't said they will cancel the March 10 agreement. Why? Because Americans were involved in that agreement. It is true that we sat and signed, but it was with American support and tomorrow they can't distance themselves from it and the meeting that happened in Amman. Tom Barrack said that agreement must be implemented.
Now you want guarantors in all your negotiations with Ahmed al-Sharaa?
Yes, for guarantors to be present.
Without guarantors you won't negotiate?
No, we do, but for things we want to be permanent and remain [we need guarantors]...
Who are your guarantors, is it only America?
America and France, Britain is also in it.
Which country is closest to you?
We have had relations with America since 2015, and France has also been with us since the time of the global coalition. But France is closer to us.
On difficult days, who stands by you?
We haven't asked anyone to stand by us, but they too of course on difficult days, especially when there's need for something, are partners. But no one takes our place. Let everyone know this, our place is ours. But in political and diplomatic matters, they provide some help, some things are done openly and some are done secretly. Sometimes there are things we don't want and they also see it's not right. Instead of standing up and taking their place, they whisper in corners, some things like this happen.
If war breaks out - I hope it doesn't - are you ready for war?
One hundred percent we won't surrender. According to our capabilities, we are ready.
Is there a danger of attacks on Rojava?
Look, now we can't say there isn't. The situation the Middle East is going through now, change of anything is possible, every possibility exists. On one side Tom Barrack, no one knows what decision he'll make tomorrow. On another side, what [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan will do is unclear, his left and right are unclear. On the other side, Ahmed al-Sharaa, everyone knows his background and those around him know what he's come to. In such a situation you are forced to always be ready for self-protection, be prepared to protect yourself.
Elham Ahmad [co-chair of Rojava’s foreign relations] has gone to Damascus. What is on her agenda? To negotiate about what?
Negotiations haven't stopped. Maybe Elham Ahmad isn't always in negotiations, but they always exist, whether at small levels or high. As you saw, there was the Aleppo issue and education issues and others.
Negotiations always exist, haven't stopped. There are always preparations for issues like creating committees. That's why the agreement that has now been made is a framework. For example, when we say we want one Syria, we are part of Syria, meaning we won’t separate from Syria, that's one. We say, we want a constitution, we say we want all our forces to be one, economic issues to be one, all of these.
True we have set a framework, we have created a framework, but this agreement that has now been made, committees must be created one-by-one, joint committees must be created. We will sit together and discuss all these things. It may take months. One of them, for example, Syria's [name], we still haven't agreed upon. We say let it be the Syrian Republic, they say let it be the Syrian Arab Republic, for example.
You are against it being Arab.
Yes, we don't accept it. Not just us. Assyrians don't accept, Syriacs don't accept, others don't accept it.
What do you want its name to be?
Let it be the Syrian Republic.
The Syrian Republic?
Yes, as it was when it was created.
It was originally the Syrian Republic?
Yes.
Many presidents and prime ministers were Kurdish?
Yes, but without the Kurdish identity.
True.
Everything is like this. What do I mean? We don't want to separate from Syria, but what kind of Syria do we want? Dictatorship, despotic, like before, I don't know what, we must all discuss it. They say no, come surrender. This is also a difficult thing.
When you say “our negotiations” and “we have prepared a framework,” you don’t mean just PYD or the Autonomous Administration, you mean Kurdish political parties? So viewers don't misunderstand.
Yes. Those who have accepted this, all of them.
So the Kurdish delegation?
Yes, the Kurdish delegation and other Syriac delegations are in it. All these complement each other, no one takes anyone's place.
What do you think of Tom Barrack?
Well, Tom Barrack is a businessman. He was Trump's partner from before. He understands business, hasn't done politics and diplomacy before. His statements too, sometimes he makes them harsh and sometimes soft. In my belief, many of his speeches are connected to some other things. That is, he works for the sake of things, to satisfy so-and-so and make so-and-so do this. He also says some things, then the next day they correct him.
But he's like a reference for Ahmed al-Sharaa.
Reference or whatever, of course he represents a country like America and today America is the greatest power in the world.
In your view, did America and the Europeans rush to recognize Ahmed al-Sharaa?
No, I don't think so. There was no rush in this matter. In our view, the issue is something planned. They brought Ahmed al-Sharaa for a task, for a job. He also promised he would carry out what they want. Up until now, he's doing it and some things come from his hands and some things don't come from his hands. When you sit in your home and set a plan for yourself, your plan sometimes works 80%, 50%, 60%. They also sat and set their plan and Sharaa also acts according to it.
Another thing I found important - now Syria has built an army. That army went to two places. One went to the coast, Latakia and Tartous, and the other went to Suwayda. They committed massacres in those places, against Druze, against Alawites. You say, we can become part of Syria's army. How can you become part of an army that has committed massacres?
We say maybe we can turn them back from this.
You want to rule Syria's army? You want to dominate Syria's army?
Such things are important and one can do them. One can also correct them too, because of what has happened. For example, if you were in leadership, you will be in leadership, have your proposals, like a division. We have suggested being a division [in the army]... Ours will also be like an army, with its particularities, with its organizations, stay like this in our regions, for protecting regions. But one can correct many things that are wrong, not fall under their command.
Will you be able to do this, according to how you know them? You know Sharaa, you know his power, you know the new system, you know their personalities. Will you be able, according to what I understood from you, to bring them to the right path?
They say we will come to the right path. When Sharaa rose from Idlib and came and sat in Damascus and put on a tie and wore a suit and threw away those jihadi clothes, what does that mean? He says I will change. He also wants change. He has made this promise. Those who brought him and support him and accept him, he has also given the promise of self-change. We will help him, we will help for change, not that we will be like them, or make them and make their system.
So you want to become partners of…
This country.
Syria.
Building new Syria.
Become partners in new Syria?
Yes, in building new Syria, we are partners.
That is, you want to have ministers from you, have consuls, have ambassadors...
Whatever is needed... It's not important…
Have administrators…
But we are partners in everything. Consul too, government too, administration too, everything.
What positions do you want to take in Syria's new government?
We can sit and discuss this. Whatever is good, we will do.
What do you have your eyes on?
Our eyes are not on something that we judge beforehand. We will all discuss at the table. Something that won't be discussed, or something that we say won't be discussed, doesn't exist.
From president down to…
To everything.
So your eyes are also on very high positions in Syria?
Yes, why not? High positions, small ones, whatever, we will agree at the table. Whatever is needed for the good of this country, we will all do.
If Arabs, or these new authorities don't accept this demand of yours, don't approve it, what will you do?
What will they do? Even if they don't accept it, here we are in our place…
You say, without us it cannot be?
They can't do without us.
They can't do anything without you?
We are now in our place. We can protect ourselves and we can do everything. Our project is proceeding and hasn't stopped. We are trying to correct all of Syria with dialogue, and correct Syria's revolution. Maybe it happens soon, late, another year, six more months, but we still insist on dialogue. If we are attacked, we will protect ourselves, but we won't let go of our demands - a decentralized Syria where we are all together. We don't want our neighbors to be our enemies, we don't want Arabs now on our borders to be our enemies, we don't want Syriacs to be our enemies. We don't want that.
Here, in Iraq and Southern Kurdistan [what is now Kurdistan Region], in 1970, the 1970 agreement, in 2003, when the constitution was written, the Peshmerga became an official part of Iraq's army. A federal system was created, its name is the Kurdistan Region. Does this formula work in Syria? For example, Syrian Democratic Forces, like Peshmerga, become part of Syria's army, a region like Kurdistan Region, be created there?
Why not? Everything is possible. But there's a difference, a difference that has come up a lot lately and become a topic of discussion. The federalism here was created on an ethnic basis. They said that in this region so and so, most of them are Kurds, they set a border. But our issue is not like that. In Rojava our issue is different.
How?
We speak on the basis of a democratic nation. Why? First of all, we are Kurds but we have been partners in this country since 2012 and after our revolution happened, Arabs were also in it, Syriacs were also in it, everyone was in it. Today when we say democratic autonomy, we don't want it just for the Rojava region. Rojava of course is part of it, but our other issue is broader. Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and other areas, most of them are Arabs. They are also in it.
So you don't accept the existence of Western Kurdistan (Rojava)?
I accept it. How do I not accept it? Rojava itself is a part of here. But the border we want is broader than Rojava, that's the issue. Let it not be misunderstood. When I say Rojava, exactly our regions are clear, it's Jazira, it's Qamishli, it's Hasaka, up to Kobane, goes up to Afrin. But in those other regions, Arabs who are with us, they were martyred as much, they struggled as much. What will we do with them?
Then, where are the national rights of Kurds in Syria?
They are national rights. What am I telling you? The Rojava issue, what rights does it have when it's an independent state, what does it need?
You mean Kurdistan?
Yes. Everything is in it, language, politics, economy, its governance, it has everything. You're like other nations except that you have not declared independence. It cannot be based on the denial of other nations.
You don't deny other nations but you also shouldn't make yourself as a nation a victim of another nation.
Me and him, we live together but I don't rule over him. He himself manages himself. If he has a village, he manages his village. In Rojava too there will be governance. When we say our project is different, it's because we say it this way.
People believe that you are slowly putting the national issue aside, making it a victim for those Arabs in those Kurdish areas, or areas of Rojava.
Wrong. From the day we created PYD as a party, we named it the Democratic Union Party.
You didn't name it Kurdish.
We didn't make it Kurdish and didn't make it Kurdistani. We have Arab members, we have Syriac members, we have Turkmen members, we have Turkish members. Why should I name it Kurdish? I demand the rights of all of these and they say democratic nation.
But that place is Kurdistan.
Okay, it's Kurdistan. I also say it's Kurdistan. Maybe the first goal of our party is protecting Kurdistan, protecting the Kurdish people. Kurdish freedom before everything, is our first goal. We haven't done anything less than other Kurdish parties. On the contrary, we have done more. Go look. From the day the struggle started, how many of our members have been martyred? We have done more than all. Our first goal is the freedom of the Kurdish people. Let no one come and say you're not Kurdish. Yes, I am Kurdish and I am Kurdistani too, but I also accept others with myself. This must be clear.
I liked that this issue was clarified, because people have many questions about it in their minds. It became clear, it was good you said this.
They sit far away and throw stones at us. Let them come sit with us.
True, problems at the table are solved with dialogue. We are now here, in Southern Kurdistan. How can Southern Kurdistan help you? That is, what do you ask of it? How can it help you more?
Let everyone know, Southern Kurdistan for all Kurdish people is a very great achievement, a very great opportunity. It has its mistakes, has its shortcomings, disagreements. Our political disagreements too may be many, but despite that what has been created here is an achievement for the Kurdish people.
In our belief, they have also reduced many of their duties. It's the language issue, culture issue, and other issues. I don't want to blame anyone, but we see it like this. For example, our universities here and there, there are many things one might criticize. I think it can make those things better.
But as Western Kurdistan, coming and going exists from before, our roads are also open, sometimes maybe our political disagreements come out, we get angry at each other, they [Kurdistan Region] close the Semalka border crossing.
You get upset with each other, then you reconcile, you are brothers, right?
We are brothers, true, but let those brothers not be little and big brothers. We want these brothers to be equal, not little and big brothers.
You don't see yourself as the little brother?
No, we see ourselves as equals. That's why we say it's true and we have many hopes in Southern Kurdistan. Before too in 2015, in sending Peshmerga, all together, all was a success for us. Only one thing remains in our heart, that is Southern Kurdistan rises up, Kurdistan parties, there are two main parties, KDP [Kurdistan Democratic Party] and PUK [Patriotic Union of Kurdistan], they can create a national congress together. We will give a lot of support. A national congress is the hope of the Kurdish people. I say national congress, not for political parties, but for institutions for society, social institutions, religious ones and others, all truly create a national congress. That is what we wanted to do in 2013 but some sabotaged it.
Is there hope that a national congress will be created?
There's a lot of hope, because people have awakened. People have reached a level that in our time they see mistakes that they don’t accept. Correct mistakes. That many criticisms come, come a lot, let them come, it's good. Let them awaken, let them say, let politicians, we also correct our mistakes.
As I understood from you, you are very hopeful about the future of Rojava? You say the Autonomous Administration will remain and won't collapse within Syria's new system? Will the Autonomous Administration remain?
We have given twenty thousand martyrs, we have given blood. Where will all that go? Maybe we suffer, maybe the struggle increases, decreases but our people are organized and there's also unity. They now create dreams with people.
‘We will hit, we will eliminate…’ All this is psychological war. They all say these things falsely. The issue is not like this. We are not a low wall to jump over. We are enough and we can protect ourselves. But we don't want war, that's another issue. Look at all Kurds through history. They take back their loot but don't rise to loot others. But they take back their loot. Ours is also like that.
How are your relations with Turkey?
Our relations with Turkey might be better than before. How better? This peace process that has now started in the North [southeast Turkey], Mr. Ocalan made a proposal and some steps were taken. Our hopes in it became very great.
Turkey, from the day we emerged, accused us of terrorism. We are accused of having ties with the PKK, but they themselves sit with the PKK and want to make peace. So let this be lifted from us. Those things they made into excuses, we call it Kurdophobia, let Kurdophobia decrease a little. Truly it has decreased a little, but still hasn't been lifted. It hasn't been lifted because there are some, some in the Turkish authority act as if they are upset by this peace, or don't see their interests in it, or see their interests in some other places. As we said, they want to sabotage it. Truly some of them put up obstacles. That is this Sharaa issue too, they go over him. He too, I think will change with time, because according to what we have heard and according to what we follow, Turkish people who in the past hit the government with ten whips, they also now support Rojava.
What is the level of relations with Turkey?
According to what we have heard, our meetings happen, are direct. I think it's at the level of the Foreign Ministry. There are some things but they are hidden, not open.
Do you have direct negotiations with Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan?
I don't know, but they say either with him or with people and delegations he designates. For example, today it was said that Hakan Fidan and Mazloum Abdi are in dialogue. How they are in dialogue, I don't know.
If you don't know, who does know?
We don't know because it hasn't come out yet. Some things happen. It is still hot. Let's breathe for 15-20 days a month, it will come out by itself.
Another thing. You met with high state officials in Turkey?
Yes, true.
What year?
At that time there were also some games.
Was it 2013, was it 2014?
2015, 2014, yes it was 2014 and 2015. From 2013, 2013-2014-2015.
Were negotiations happening in Turkey with Turks?
They were in Turkey. They also happened outside, also in Turkey. For example the first was in Cairo.
With whom was it?
With Syria's ambassador of…
With Turkey's ambassador?
It was with Turkey's ambassador to Syria.
You met in Cairo?
We met in Cairo. Then we slowly…
Did you go to Turkey?
Then we went to Turkey, we met in Europe. We met in many places.
Wait. This is very important for me. I want to know. Ten years have passed. It can be revealed now, right?
No. There's no problem but I want to say the level. I told you, bring it down.
Who did you meet with? I want to know.
Those below, all were from the intelligence, were ambassadors. The level it reached was Feridun Sinirlioglu. At that time he was deputy foreign minister and later became Turkey's representative at the United Nations. If I'm not mistaken, he retired a while ago. So the person we hosted and were hosted by was all him. At that time Ahmet Davutoglu was foreign minister. Recep Tayyip Erdogan at that time was Turkey's prime minister. They all knew about it. Feridun Sinirlioglu said these comings of yours and negotiations and words we do, it all goes to them, they know about it.
Then you didn't see Hakan Fidan?
No.
He was the MIT [National Intelligence Organization] advisor.
No, I didn't see him.
You also saw those people in Turkey, those people you said, the deputy foreign minister?
Yes.
In Ankara?
In Istanbul.
In Istanbul. This needs to be said, doesn't it?
Yes. No problem. Didn't we say, you are free.
I am free. I asked what questions I could ask. You said, Dilbixwin you are free, you can ask questions.
You are free to ask whatever questions.
How were those meetings? What did they demand and what did you demand?
At that time, there was the Free Syrian Army. We met in Cairo. They said the ambassador wants to see me. He came and said, I want to mediate between you and the Free Syrian Army. We said, okay, and it happened on that basis. They wanted from before to put us in the coalition, in the Syrian National Council, make us property, because they were under their control. They wanted to put us in. In Istanbul too, I sat with two people from them, at that time with one from the council. What's the reason? He said, we want you to join us. I said, okay, we are also ready to join, but we have some conditions. He said, what are your conditions? You will, as the Syrian National Council, put into your program that there is a Kurdish question in Syria and we will solve it democratically. They didn't accept this. They didn't put it in. We also said, you don't accept that, so how will I work with you?
Do you think in the future, your relations with Turkey will be like Southern Kurdistan's relations with Turkey?
They might be better, we don't know... They might be better, we don't know... Why? Because I don't know the exact situation there. But with us, you are also from that area, you know, they have divided villages, there's a line, on that side is my cousin, on this side is also a cousin…
If you are asked to go to Turkey again and become a means of dialogue between Ankara and Western Kurdistan, will you go?
I won't even stop. I'll run and go. But I must be officially asked. Before the issue of going wasn't just mine, many went. For example, Elham Ahmad went. Our friend at that time, Asya, went.
Where did they go?
They went to Ankara, went to Amed (Diyarbakir), went everywhere. I mean they went to meetings. Me and Sinam went together. There we sat with the Foreign Ministry [officials], that is it existed before too, not just for me.
Why did you hide those meetings of yours from public opinion, you didn't reveal them?
They didn't want us to.
Turkey didn't want you to reveal them?
They don't want to reveal them. When they secretly hide us and take us through backdoors, what does that mean?
In Western Kurdistan and Syria, are there red lines for you?
Yes, there are red lines.
What are they?
Our existence, autonomy, women's rights, all these are red lines for us, security.
Do you put these as conditions before Damascus?
They're not conditions. Come, let's discuss it. What is right, let's do, let's find a solution for it. For example, we don't say they are red lines and we don't discuss Syrian Democratic Forces with them. No. Come let's discuss how we place them, how we help them. We discuss, but their elimination is a red line for us. We have a project, we have a promise, there are women's rights, now we have our co-presidency system. If it gets out of our hands, the co-presidency system will run in all of Syria. For women's rights.
Syria's president will also be a co-president?
Why not? Why shouldn't it be? We don't say it's a condition and must happen.
You say, this can also be a proposal for Syria?
Why not? Why not? Instead of rising up and hiding women, throwing them, beheading them, doing I don't know what to them, let women take their rights.
Do you believe in Kurdistan's freedom, a united Kurdistan?
Yes, I do. Why not? Let hope always be there. But there are some things, standards have changed. For example, some of us, until now the idea of nation-state has been frozen in their minds. How old is the nation-state? Less than 300 years. It emerged in the French Revolution and became a model. What is a nation-state itself? Power is a class, a party, a family, and rules a region. This model has now passed.
But you too in Western Kurdistan are in power.
Okay.
You too are in power.
Whatever we become, let us be. But they say this thing will change.
You don't believe in the Kurdish nation?
It's not that I don't. The Kurdish nation exists, it also has its rights. The Kurdish nation will be one together in other ways. For example, when each solves its issue, won't they connect confederally? It can happen and can be more. For example Europe, what is Europe now?
That is, each part is Kurdistan and confederalism is created within Kurdistan?
What is European confederation? It's a state, each has its belief, has its words, but all are within each other. Go look at Germany. Germans are also in Switzerland, also in France, also in Austria. Go tell them I will make you a German nation-state, they will say no, I enjoy it here.
Kurds don't need to build their state of Kurdistan?
States like this solved themselves and created their confederation.
Do you believe there is a Kurdistan in Syria? I'm curious about this?
How not? It’s not me saying this. History and geography say it.
Kobane, we are both from Kobane. When someone asks you about Kobane, what will you say, what do you say for Kobane? What is Kobane for you?
Kurdish authenticity.
Kurdish authenticity?
Yes.
An authentic city? Authenticity is in Kobane?
It protected itself. Until now, it has protected itself, with its customs, with its traditions, with its morals, compared to other places, authenticity is there, in Kobane…
