Rojava political reconciliation talks on 'right path': ENKS relations chief

Kamiran Haco, head of  the Syrian Kurdish National Council’s (ENKS) Relations Bureau  sat with Rudaw TV on Saturday to speak about recent efforts to strengthen ties between the council and the ruling Kurdish authorities of Northern Syria, known to Kurds as Rojava.

The ENKS on Sunday decided to reopen offices in Rojava, years after their closure by the ruling Autonomous Administration of Northern and Northeastern Syria (NES). 

As the only Kurdish member of the 15-member Syrian Constitutional Committee, Haco explained both the opportunity for Kurds to instill their rights in the constitution and the dangers if neither the Syrian regime or the Syrian opposition wished to preserve those rights.

 There are a lot of [rapprochement] initiatives, including American, Russian, French, and Kurdish on the part of the Kurdistan Region. Where are you at in your talks with the ruling Kurdish authorities of Syria?

 Our talks have mostly been with the SDF. There have been some visits. The talks have been at the initiative of the commander in chief of SDF, when he made the announcement to work on Kurdish rapprochement. This is why the talks started. We are of the opinion that the political sides need to get involved. The steps that have been undertaken have led to some relief among Kurdish society and political parties. We will from now on approach the deeper topics, for things to go beyond the initial, confidence-building steps. Some of the things we wanted in the beginning have been resolved to an extent, though not fully. However, good steps have been made. They are at the beginning, but they are on the right path.

Have there been any political meetings yet, especially with TEV-DEM?

 No, so far there have been no meetings [with rival Kurdish political parties of Rojava]. I would, however, like to say that reaching any result would have to be through dialogue on the political level, about deep political questions. Then comes the question of administration, the military, and then the economy. This paves the way for every other topic. These are the steps that have been undertaken, but they are only the beginning.

However, we will 100% have dialogue with TEV-DEM too, though none has taken place so far. Maybe it will happen at the beginning of the talks, maybe later. We will also meet with other Kurdish political parties. 

What obstacles and difficulties are preventing things from going further?   

 Believe me, there is a lot of speculation about some sides not wanting this [to go forward], but it is not so. The fate of missing people has not been fully revealed, but an announcement about it was made, and it was a step forward. 

They revealed their political and ethical responsibility in the disappearance of some people. They said they would continue their search for others. We envision that in the future, some independent people, our civil society, local experts, and even international organizations will in the future reveal the fate of missing individuals to the public, to bring some comfort to the families of the missing. 

However, we cannot say that if they didn't do this then we wouldn't hold talks. The thing is, time is not on the side of Kurds. Some steps have to be undertaken because there are great rivalries in the region, great powers in the region. The events taking place imbue Kurds with a role - but if Kurds are divided, they can't benefit from it. That is why we see serious steps are being taken [for Kurdish unity].

Americans, Russians, and the Kurdistan Region have been trying to bring together Kurdish parties in Syria since 2012. What are the main obstacles that prevent Kurds from coming together in Syria in this sensitive and dangerous time?

We know how things were in the past. We had political disputes, our viewpoints [with the NES] were different, and the places we were located all affected things [some ENKS members were sent into exile by the NES.] However, we no longer have conditions for holding talks. We are ready for serious talks, and I believe things will get closer. It is no longer about something pushing us towards talking, or that someone has told us not to hold talks, or another country pushing us to hold talks. We see a very serious willingness  especially on the part of  international forces, and we feel that this is their priority.

You have had meetings with James Jeffrey recently and Russia’s special envoy to the Middle East, Mikhail Leonidovich Bogdanov. There seem to be plans and encouragement to push Syrian Kurds towards one, united agenda, and plan to start holding talks with Damascus. Are you, as the ENKS, ready for this?

There is no such thing. Americans have a certain stance, while the Russians have a different one. Russia's viewpoint concerning the matter is by no means hidden. It’s policy is for the Syrian regime to reassert control over all of Syria. We don't know if Russia's stance will change in the future. Nevertheless, Russia is asking everyone to hold talks with the regime. Americans have the opposite stance. They have even told the SDF and others that they won’t accept them holding talks with the regime…What Kurds should do now is formulate a political project. Then they should try and see where this project can be accepted and to whom they should turn.
 
Did you sense any change in the Russian stance? Or did you feel like their policy has remained the same?

We have to present the big picture first to understand this better. There is a big rivalry between Iran and America in the Middle East. Kurds are an important actor for these countries. US President Trump meeting Kurdish leaders in Davos, especially the President of the Kurdistan Region Mr. Nechirvan Barzani, sends a signal to the Russian side to come and show the same friendliness [to Kurds]. 
If one were to analyze things within this framework, we as Syrian Kurdistan are located in the same process of great forces trying to get Kurds on their side. 

There is no drastic change in the Russian position now. They support the regime, and they want everything to happen within this framework. However, one has to think of Russia’s actions and its occasional disputes with Iran [in Syria]. They may things in their mind every now and then, but they don't show it. I don't believe Russia thinks that the same previous regime can continue. They may have a different opinion, but it is no longer clear. 

Also, Russia’s rivalry with the Americans will intensify further in the Middle East. This will surely have an impact on Syria, us and the Middle East.
 
Is it also important to Russia for Kurds to convene for dialogue? 

Yes. Bogdanov said in in Moscow and again [when we met him in Erbil] that Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan should come together. He said for us to unite and then we could hold dialogue somewhere else [between us Kurds and other parties]. We welcomed it and told him clearly that we are part of the efforts, that we are holding talks within the international decisions. As I told you in the beginning, it is Kurds who can decide where they stand.

Let us assume Kurds of Rojava come to an agreement, are you ready to hold talks with the Syrian regime?

We have to make one thing clear. We are part of the political equation in Syria. This isn't to say we will join the regime tomorrow. There is something, however. Whether it is us or someone else, we are here for the interests of this country. If our interests require that we go somewhere for the sake of our constituency, then we should ponder whether we should or should not take that step. Currently, within the framework of international decisions, we effectively are in talks on the opposite side of the regime within the Syrian constitutional committee. There already are talks. However, if there is the need for us to get out of that process and go into another one, then we will settle on the place and hold talks. The interests of our people are very important. We mainly exist to that end. We will go if that is what is needed.

In the international meetings on Syria, it is you, rather than the ruling Kurdish authorities of Rojava, who are there as the Kurdish side. Are there plans for you to jointly participate in those international meetings? Is there such support on the side of international countries?

Yes. The Americans and the French don't hide that if there is unity, then the Eastern Euphrates, as they call it, can become part of the political process. They say this, but where this leads and how can this come about [is unclear]. As you know there is a Turkish veto on this matter. This is related to other countries. But yes. They indeed have the idea that if there is Kurdish unity, then they can become part of the [Syrian settlement] process.


There is talk that the current Syrian constitution will only be slightly amended as a new constitution, that essentially there is no writing of a new constitution. The opposition obviously want to rewrite the constitution. Is there any consensus so far, among the UN and others over this?

There are both options on the table for both sides to be satisfied. The regime is there to only have some amendments on the 2012 constitution. We are there as the opposition seeking a new constitution. No serious steps have been undertaken so far. The regime knows if the constitution is rewritten, that if we head towards a new democratic constitution, then its existence is jeopardized. Thus, it doesn't want to undertake any serious steps in this direction.


In this constitutional committee, you are the only Kurd. Kurds are asking whether it is possible to ensure the rights of Kurds in the constitution with the presence of only one Kurd. Those sides in the talks, to what extend do they support preserving Kurdish rights?

The committee rewriting the constitution is where talks take place. However, for there to be an agreement, it has to return to the 150 members for voting and whatnot. Our reference is the Negotiations Commission. There are some filters for the constitution. Of course if there had been a higher number of Kurds in each of these steps, it would have been better. However, even more important is the support of those forces who play a role in Syria and great powers. Even among us in the opposition, there is some division. There are conservative, liberal, democratic, and nationalist ones like us. We aren't close to each other due to many things. There is truly a need for pressure for a constitution that preserves the rights of Kurds.


The parties in the opposition. What is their stance on Kurdish rights? Do they think the same? Do they want to preserve the rights of Kurds? Do they want to recognize those rights?

No. Not all of them are open to this. There are two documents on which we have based ourselves. One is an agreement with the Syrian Coalition in which the coalition commits itself to Kurdish constitutional, political and national rights. At the same time, there is the Second Riyadh Summit statement that is along the same lines. The one with the Coalition is only a part, but the Riyadh one is a statement by the entirety of the Syrian Negotiations Commission, all opposition sides, in which they all agree that the Kurdish rights in the Syrian constitution be guaranteed.


Let us assume that Kurdish rights don't get recognized in the constitution. Is it possible, that through international pressure and the intervention of external powers, Kurds can obtain their rights?

We already do speak of this whenever we meet great powers, whether the Americans, the Russians or the Europeans. Whoever it might be, we tell them that we need support to ensure Kurdish rights. If we can't guarantee Kurdish rights through this constitutional process, I don't believe it can happen later. If Kurdish rights are not considered in this process, then it is not possible for us as Kurdish Council to remain in the process and just be a witness while the rights of our people are violated. All the Syrian constitutions since 1920 did not even mention the Kurds. This time, however, Kurdish rights will give Kurds some rights, but we just don't know to what extent. This is what we are working for. Our project for Syria is federalism. Will that happen? If federalism doesn't happen, then what is the limit we accept for us to be assured that is good for our people?

Interview conducted by Hevidar Zana

Translation by Mohammed Rwanduzy