Al-Khatib was arrested by Bashar al-Assad’s regime when people rose up against him in Syria. He escaped prison in September 2012, and was elected President of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces on October 11, 2012. Al-Khatib initiated dialogue with the Syrian regime in February 2013, which was later repudiated by al-Assad. He thinks that there are some elements within the Assad regime who believe that the conflict could be settled through dialogue, but do not dare to speak up.
Al-Khatib resigned as President of the National Coalition of Syrian Opposition on November 24, 2013. In this interview, he talks about opposition parties and ways through which the Syrian crisis could be resolved.
Rudaw: The people of Syria are getting killed, and the international community has not been able to settle this conflict. What do you think is the most appropriate solution to the crisis?
Moaz al-Khatib: We are going through strange and difficult times. Political decisions about Syria are no longer vested with the people of the country. The last remaining chance is to build relations between national elements of both the opposition and the government. The people of Syria cannot overcome this conflict if they do not embrace a national resolution to the country’s current crisis.
Are there elements within the Syrian regime with whom you can negotiate?
We don’t have direct relations with any of them. However, we have information that some of them are willing to talk. But the terrorist band that controls the Syrian regime will not allow these initiatives to succeed. This criminal band, Bashar al-Assad’s regime, should therefore be distanced from power, so that we all can together find a solution to the crisis which has engulfed our country.
If that is the case, then, in your opinion, a solution with some elements of the al-Assad regime is possible?
I am not saying the conflict could be resolved through the Syrian regime per se, but elements of the regime that are willing to settle this crisis. The Assad regime is disapproved by all, even by countries backing the regime which has become a heavy burden to them.
Are there any officials within the Syrian regime who differ from al-Assad, asking for a solution?
There are many officials within the regime who seek to settle this crisis, but are afraid to express their opinions due to the regime’s heavy-handed rule. They know how the Syrian regime takes revenge on its inner-circle members and how it assassinates them. We have little hope in having a national settlement to the current conflict in Syria.
You said that the previous approach to resolve the Syrian crisis was unsuccessful. What approach do you think is appropriate to solve this crisis?
The solutions being offered do not arise from a national perspective on the crisis. Many of these suggested solutions come from outside Syria. If there is no national solution, then there is certainly no hope that the crisis will be resolved.
How are the conditions of the Syrian opposition, especially now that the Syrian Army assisted by Iran and Russia is making progress?
The opposition is weak, owing to the influence of the regional countries. But, following all these years of fighting, the Syrian people now know what is good for their country. They look at the situations on the ground from a national standpoint.
Do you predict that the opposition might collapse militarily?
The Syrian opposition has not only confronted the country’s regime, but some empires. This is a difficult job. But history shows that small nations have in the past been able to overcome powerful countries aiming to trespass on their territory. The world’s superpowers have already arrived at the conclusion that the Syrian crisis could not be resolved through military means. Their objective is obviously to destroy the country and annihilate its nation.
How do you see the creation of the Islamic State (ISIS), do you think state actors have had a role in forming this group?
In every culture, there are ideas which require amendment, and ideas which need to be neutralized. There are groups which exploit these ideas. The emergence of ISIS is, however, also attributed to international support for the group. Their support initially had political objectives. But they eventually lost control of ISIS.
The Syrian nation is open and forgiving. They were living in difficult conditions, thinking that these groups could rescue them, not knowing that their vision for life was extreme. Furthermore, some countries provided assistance to this group while it was obvious that they were killing real leaders of Syria. By the time our people understood their philosophy, these groups had already thrived.
A number of world leaders, including some Syrian officials, accuse Turkey of helping the creation of ISIS. Do you think Turkey has provided assistance to ISIS?
I don’t think Turks have tried to create ISIS, or wished that there be such a group. However, carelessness on the part of some Turkish divisions might have paved the way for ISIS militants to infiltrate the Syrian territory.
Are there other groups in Syria, other than ISIS and Nusra, which promote extremist ideas?
No other group has the kind of impact which ISIS has on Syrian people. There are other groups, but they are less influential than ISIS which had the necessary resources to grow.
You were the former leader of the Syrian opposition. Why didn’t you forge good relations with Moscow before its interference in Syria, so that it doesn’t adopt the policy it is practicing there now?
Russia didn’t have a big role in Syria when I was still there. They had not even started their airstrikes back then. We tried to forge relations with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Other leaders too from the opposition tried to build relations with the Russian government. But we didn’t note any positive response from the Russians. Afterwards, part of the opposition stood up against Russia, not understanding the big impact Russia has on the region. This was, in my opinion, a political blunder. The opposition later tried to improve relations with Russia, but the complexities of the time didn’t help.
There have been a number of meetings abroad on the ongoing Syrian crisis. Is the continuation of the crisis related to other countries’ interests in the region or to other factors?
Yes, this is clear. Even the meetings dubbed ‘Conferences of the Friends of the Syrian Nation’ had no substance. No delegation from the Syrian government or from the opposition was invited in the latest conference on Syria, which was held in the Swiss city of Lausanne. The countries trying to solve the conflict are now busy finding a way out for themselves.
There are different groups within the Syrian opposition. Are the groups supporting the Turkish and American agenda responsible for delaying a possible solution to the conflict?
I think the US is responsible for the failure to reach a solution for the Syrian crisis. Part of the opposition believed in the promises given by the US that there would be an American military intervention in Syria, which never happened and never will. The US later declared that it would not meddle in Syria’s internal affairs. The opposition, however, took a few years to realize that there won’t be an American military intervention in Syria.
The Kurdish group ‘PYD’ has created an administration in the West of Kurdistan. What do you think of this administration and of the Syrian Democratic Forces who will reportedly be taking part in the operation to regain control of the Syrian city of al-Raqqa?
The international forces are trying to use all the regional forces to their benefit. Their support to some particular parties is in their own favor, not the people of Syria. Breaking apart Syria is a dangerous move, which we will be opposing. We support the rights of Syrian people from all ethnic backgrounds, people who might have been deprived of these rights for a while. Building these administrations in north Syria will have no positive implications for the country other than divisiveness. Syria needs a new social contract that safeguards the rights of people from all ethnic backgrounds, and these rights shouldn’t be achieved through violence. It is not only the Kurds who have been repressed by the Syrian regime. People from all the different ethnic backgrounds have faced oppression in Syria. Breaking apart the Syrian territory or imposing the de facto policies will not be resolving the country’s problems, nor will it be lifting the oppression on Kurds. It will lead to other forms of repression, resulting in violence, and this is in favor of no one.
So you support the integrity of Syria, right? But the Kurdish National Council, PYD, is asking for federalism, would you support that?
Federalism has a number of definitions. I support a united Syria with a new social contract that safeguards the rights of all people. We should leave the past behind. Peoples’ rights stem from their very existence, not from their number.
I don’t think dividing Syria is a solution to its problems. Breaking the country apart will lead to all these armed forces or extreme groups to break away some territory and declare some kind of local administration. This will lead to the entire social makeup falling apart, with Assyrians, Arabs and the Kurds each taking some territory. This will be in favor of no one, and will eventually lead to excluding smaller groups from political, social and economic activities in the country. We want a country that unites us all. It is good to have provisional administrations until situations improve on the ground, providing that they aim to unify the nation, rather than breaking the country apart.
