One of the prominent figures of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, Aldar Xelil, a member of the Co-Presidency Council of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), spoke to ANF about the first year since the Damascus administration led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) came to power.
Xelil said that HTS’s practices do not represent the revolutionary demands of the peoples of Syria, describing the current administration instead as a radical continuation of the Baath regime. He drew attention to the massacres carried out across the country, exclusionary policies, and the ongoing interventions of the Turkish state, warning that these dynamics have pushed Syria further away from any democratic resolution.
Xelil said that the Autonomous Administration offers a fundamentally different path, stressing that the decentralised model proposed by North and East Syria remains the only viable alternative capable of ensuring Syria’s genuine unity and shared future.
A year has passed since HTS was brought to power. During this period, what does HTS’s record in governance, security, the economy, and the judiciary tell us?
One year has passed since the collapse of the former regime in Syria and HTS’s seizure of power in Damascus. However, this transfer of power did not occur as the natural outcome of the Syrian people’s revolution. HTS did not come to power as a representative of the people; on the contrary, it was installed as part of a plan devised by external interventionist forces shaping the Syrian process. These forces acted in coordination. In particular, regional balances shifted following developments in Gaza and the wars and tensions that emerged between Israel and certain regional states. This shift played a decisive role in the decision to change the regime.
Yet today, HTS, which holds power in Damascus, in no way represents the demands of the peoples of Syria. This structure is neither the voice of the revolution nor the bearer of the popular will. Rather, the government that has been established is, in essence, a different version of the Baath regime. The only thing that has changed is the ideological orientation. In the past, the Baath Party defined itself along a leftist line. Today, HTS rests on a right-wing and radical ideological foundation. Beyond this, the emerging picture in terms of the economy, the justice system, the understanding of parliament, state governance, and administrative practice does not reflect Syria’s genuine representation.
The methods pursued today do not indicate that a solution has been produced for the revolution. Damascus defines itself as the capital of Syria. In practice, however, it has severed its ties with large parts of the country. Syrian sovereignty is not represented in these regions. Areas under Turkish occupation are a clear example of this reality. How much influence does Damascus actually have in these areas? To what extent has the transitional government been able, over the course of a year, to establish a presence, build institutions, and genuinely say, “This is Syrian territory”? It has not. These regions remain under Turkish occupation.
The same situation applies to the coastal areas. Are Latakia and Tartus not regions of Syria? Yet the Damascus administration has also failed to establish effective representation there. As a result of developments in southern Syria, an image has emerged of two neighboring entities standing almost side by side, resembling separate states. In North and East Syria, there is an existing system of administration and organization. To date, no state institution operates there. Despite this, various agreements and alliances are in place.
In conclusion, what is taking place in Damascus today is essentially limited to parts of Damascus and Hama, along with a restricted area of Idlib. Beyond this, there is no reality that can credibly claim, “I represent all of Syria.” The former regime, by contrast, despite its centralized and repressive methods, had been able to establish its dominance across the entire country through intelligence services, the army, and state apparatuses. Today, that situation no longer exists.
A year has passed and the regime has collapsed. Yet during this period, no inclusive government has been formed, no inclusive parliament has been established, no broadly participatory committee has been created to draft a constitution, and none of the signed agreements have been implemented. Throughout this year, Syria has effectively been left in a state of limbo. Moreover, instead of filling this vacuum, Syria’s will has been handed over even more to external powers. The country’s sovereignty has not been safeguarded.
How have HTS’s practices over the past year, and the situation in Syria, affected its capacity to represent a democratic revolution? What consequences has this produced socially, particularly in terms of women’s rights?
A structure that is undemocratic and lacks a developed political culture capable of governing society cannot represent a revolution. What has unfolded over the past year has clearly demonstrated this reality. Countless massacres have taken place and severe abuses have been inflicted on people. In Syria, individuals have been killed solely because of their identity. People are asked, “Are you Alawite?” and answering “I am Alawite” can be enough to have one’s head cut off or to be killed. Those who are not like them are simply not accepted.
For example, attacks began in the coastal regions at the start of the year. Thousands of people were massacred and thousands of women were abducted. These practices are still ongoing. Similar attacks also took place in Sweida (Suwayda). There, the population mounted a resistance and refused to accept these practices, but their means were limited. The forces that seized Damascus have approached Syrian society with an extremely harsh and exclusionary attitude.
The same methods were applied in the neighborhoods of Sheikh Maqsoud (Şêxmeqsud) and Ashrafieh (Eşrefiyê). These neighborhoods were attacked and efforts were made to seize control of them. What proved positive, however, was the resistance shown by the people. Had there been no such resistance, the same atrocities carried out in the coastal regions would have been repeated there as well. Today, North and East Syria remains under constant threat. Calls are made for “no defense system” and for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to be dissolved. Under the pretext of “integration,” the population is meant to be left defenseless. The aim is to be able to impose their own policies without resistance.
The approach of HTS is clear: it places itself at the center of everything and creates divisions and hierarchies among the components of society. Those who do not think like them, who do not conform to their radical ideology, and who are not incorporated into their structure are excluded. The only reason these practices are not yet visible everywhere is that they have not fully consolidated their power. Had they done so, this repression would be far more widespread.
Today, all social groups in Syria, including Syriacs, Assyrians, Armenians, Yazidis, Alawites, and Druze, are deeply disturbed by this situation. They seek to govern the country in the name of sharia law. Yet Syria is a country of multiple identities and beliefs. It cannot be ruled through a monolithic approach that denies this diversity. People have reached a point where they no longer dare to openly state their identity.
Historically, Syria has been known for its richness and diversity. Yet those who have come to power today have begun to enact laws that reinforce male-dominated authority before resolving the country’s overarching problems or establishing consensus among the components of society. They are introducing laws that undermine women’s will, stripping women of rights exercised through their own children. A woman who previously had the right to act as a guarantor for her minor child has been deprived of this right. Today, even if a child is under the age of 18 and wishes to travel somewhere, the mother’s signature is no longer accepted; the father’s signature is made mandatory. These are the kinds of laws they have enacted.
Even before introducing comprehensive legislation, they are doing everything possible to render women powerless and ineffective. When it comes to laws that would democratize Syria, however, they say, “Let it wait.” This approach shows that HTS is essentially a copy of the Baath Party, albeit one that is more right-wing and far more out of step with the times. Instead of transforming themselves in line with the course and demands of the revolution and adapting to the needs of the era, they are seeking to drag Syria backward.
Turkey seeks to govern Syria through a trustee-like system
How do you interpret the growing military threats and attacks in recent weeks, which have coincided with political statements coming primarily from Turkey? Do you see a direct or indirect coordination between these statements and the military activity on the ground?
Turkey’s role in Syria is well known. From the moment the revolution began in 2011, Turkey became directly involved in the Syrian arena. It brought groups that defined themselves as the “opposition” under its own control and intervened in Syria on their behalf.
This intervention has not been limited to political, economic, or diplomatic spheres. Armed groups affiliated with Turkey are actively operating on the ground, and parts of Syrian territory are effectively under occupation. The Turkish state has reached a point where it accepts any change in Syria only if it gives its approval. In essence, it has positioned itself as a trustee over Syria and has begun to administer the country.
Yes, today Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Al-Jolani) and his group govern Damascus; however, they are unable to make many critical decisions independently. They cannot take a step unless Turkey tells them to do so. Turkey is directly involved in numerous areas, from the military sphere to technical infrastructure. It says, “We will train your soldiers and officers.” It has taken control of internet and telephone systems, oversees security mechanisms, intervenes in the economy, and already exercises de facto control over parts of the geography.
Turkey wants to transform Syria into a system that functions as an extension of itself. Even when the Syrian people attempt to resolve their internal problems, this is not permitted. For example, Hakan Fidan, despite not being Syria’s foreign minister, makes more statements about Syria than Syria’s own foreign minister. When one looks at his daily remarks, if he makes one statement for Turkey’s domestic agenda, he makes two about Syria. This clearly reveals the extent of the intervention.
At the same time, it is known that Turkey itself is going through a process internally. Abdullah Öcalan put forward an initiative in Northern Kurdistan (Bakur) aimed at resolving the Kurdish question and the issue between Kurds and Turks. This process advanced to a certain stage. The Turkish state has also claimed that it is sensitive to this process and wants it to move forward.
However, there is a serious contradiction here. On the one hand, it says, “I am ready to resolve the Kurdish question together with the Kurds.” On the other hand, it does not allow the Kurdish question in Syria to be resolved. If there were a genuine desire to resolve the issue in Northern Kurdistan, support would be given to the unity Syrians are trying to build among themselves, efforts toward consensus would be encouraged, and there would be no interference that disrupts these processes.
Instead, today, while statements such as “We want a solution” are made both in Northern Kurdistan and in Turkey, intervention in Syria is used to obstruct the advancement of that solution. On many occasions, whenever there was progress between us and Damascus, these processes were halted due to Turkey’s intervention.
International decisions must take Syria into account
Considering the rising attacks and threats, along with statements by regional and international actors, what are the most urgent and concrete security and political risks Syria is facing today? Is there a possibility that these risks could spread across the country?
Today, numerous global powers are present in Syria. The international coalition consists of more than 70 states. Russia, Israel, and Turkey are actively operating on the ground. Various groups are present in Syria, each aligned with different powers. This picture shows that developments in Syria cannot be separated from broader regional dynamics.
Significant changes are taking place in Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Systems of governance, relations, and alliances are being reshaped. All of these shifts affect one another, and Syria is directly impacted by these processes.
Israel is currently pursuing a global trade corridor extending from India through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Cyprus to Europe. It seeks to secure and guarantee this route. To complete this security architecture, it argues that Syria and Lebanon must be brought under control. To control Lebanon, it aims to neutralize Hezbollah. In Syria, meanwhile, the regime is collapsing and a new one is being constructed. International powers are acting primarily in line with their own interests. One stage remains; after that, the Cyprus file will come to the fore. Completing the line stretching from Israel to Cyprus will bring about a significant shift in the Syria file. Turkey will then enter the agenda. This is precisely the phase the region is in today.
In this context, whatever decisions are taken at the international level, whether concerning Cyprus, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, or even Yemen, Syria’s situation must necessarily be taken into account. For this reason, every change unfolding in the region today directly affects Syria. Likewise, developments in Syria will have a decisive impact on all of these files.
Their visit to Damascus aims to block reconciliation
While Turkey emphasizes “solution” and “stability” on the one hand, it continues its military threats and operations on the other. What is Ankara aiming to achieve, and from this perspective, what does the reality on the ground signify?
The purpose of Hakan Fidan’s visit to Damascus, along with the delegation accompanying him, is clear: to impose Turkey’s conditions on Damascus and to have its own future planning accepted. The message is straightforward: “If there is to be any reconciliation regarding North and East Syria, it will be on our terms.”
Turkey is placing its conditions before everyone. To enforce them, it is exerting military pressure on the Autonomous Administration and openly threatening North and East Syria through the media. The language used is extremely aggressive; armed groups under Turkey’s control and those aligned with Damascus are, in effect, being instructed on how to issue threats against us.
Both sides are carrying out these threats through methods of special warfare. Their aim is to force North and East Syria to accept the conditions they are imposing. The ultimatum is clear: “Either you dismantle your own system, or you accept what we demand.”
Through these threats, Turkey also seeks to condition Damascus itself. The message they want to convey is, “Let us threaten North and East Syria, and let the region accept our terms.” Their visits to Damascus are part of this broader plan. In fact, they will do everything in their power to prevent any reconciliation from emerging between us and Damascus.
This must be stated clearly: if any intervention takes place, it will be part of a plan prepared against the interests of the peoples of Syria and against the unity of Syria’s peoples.