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.
The first part of this interview can be read here.
The democratic nation is the only alternative for Syria
Amid this climate of military and political pressure, what concrete solutions is the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria putting on the table? How does the model it offers present an alternative for Syria’s future and for shared coexistence?
The project of North and East Syria has been in place since 2011. What we have put forward is not a theoretical proposal; it is a system that has been implemented in practice and institutionalized. Especially after 2014, we translated this theory into practice and have sustained it to this day.
This system demonstrates how a society can govern itself in a decentralised manner and through its own collective will. It shows how people can determine their own economy, defense, education, healthcare, forms of organization, and fundamental principles. The system we propose does precisely this.
It is also a system that ensures Syria’s unity. Syria’s unity can be achieved in only two ways. The first is by force, attempting to hold peoples together through military and intelligence methods. The second is by mutual recognition, solidarity, and voluntary unity, allowing society itself to form unity through consent.
What is being pursued today is the claim that “unity has been achieved” through power and coercion. In reality, this method has introduced deeper fragmentation within society. For example, in this process, Alawites have been excluded. Tensions between Alawites and Sunnis that date back fourteen hundred years have been reignited. The Muslim–Druze issue has been brought back onto the agenda, even though Druze constitute a distinct faith community.
Similarly, divisions between Muslims and Christians have been stoked once again. Syriacs, Assyrians, and Armenians have been turned into targets. On the national question, chaos has been re-created among the peoples of Syria through an Arab–Kurdish divide. This approach does not unite society; on the contrary, it fragments it.
Even if people are forcibly brought together, society disintegrates from within. Old wounds are reopened. The genocide committed by ISIS against Yazidis in Shengal is the clearest example of this. By declaring, “You are not Muslim,” Yazidi women were enslaved and sold in markets.
Similar situations have also occurred in Alawite regions. This year, thousands of women were abducted in Alawite areas by forces presented as belonging to Damascus, and their fate remains unknown. Such practices deepen fragmentation. In such an environment, it is impossible to tell the Alawite people, “See yourselves as part of Syria’s unity.” Unity can only be built through solidarity, equality, and mutual respect.
This is precisely what the democratic nation project represents. The democratic nation is based on the principle that all components of Syria live together within a democratic system. It is a decentralised model in which everyone governs themselves in their own village, city, and region, and represents their own will. The solution we propose is the only alternative capable of ensuring Syria’s genuine unity.
A legal system that protects the peoples must be established
Months after the March 10 agreement, how do you assess the document issued under the signature of Syria’s Ministry of Defense demanding that the Autonomous Administration transfer all its powers? Does this document indicate that the agreement has effectively been suspended?
The March 10 Agreement, in broad terms, had laid out a framework and created hope that a process of reconstruction could be carried forward on its basis. It consisted of eight articles, each addressing fundamental issues related to Syria’s future. It said the following: the regime has fallen; there is a need to build a new Syria. Let us draft this country’s constitution together, establish its parliament together, and hold elections. Let us plan and rebuild our country together. We lived for sixty years under the shadow of a despotic regime, and it was time to do this collectively.
Within this framework, it was stated that a common system would be developed for all of Syria and that North and East Syria would be part of it. In other words, we would not stand apart from Syria but be integrated with it. The aim was to put democratic integration into practice. However, to this day, none of these articles has been implemented. Instead, they repeatedly say only one thing: “Take the final step.” By this they mean that the SDF should exit their current structure and bind themselves to us. They also say, “Hand over the forces with which you defend yourselves to us.” Beyond this, they have taken no concrete steps.
We ask them a simple question in return: what step have you taken so far that would allow us to receive a credible guarantee? Would these people not ask, “What is my guarantee?” They say, “Let command and decision-making centers be in Damascus.” But if we accept this, and if this country’s constitution or fundamental law does not protect us, then who will? At present, there is still no legal system in this country capable of protecting us.
They are not taking the March 10 agreement seriously
Despite this, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria said, “We can accept certain things, we can negotiate some issues, and we can take certain steps.” In return, however, we asked for a guarantee, for a commitment. Unfortunately, that commitment was never given. Matters reached such a point that just two days after the March 10 Agreement was signed, a constitutional declaration was announced. In this declaration, provisions were included that directly contradicted the articles signed on March 10. In other words, you sign an agreement today and accept certain points as fundamental principles, then two days later you publish a declaration announcing that you reject them.
Even so, we did not escalate the issue and said, “We can resolve this among ourselves.” A meeting was then held in Damascus. At that meeting, an understanding was reached on how military forces would be integrated into Damascus and by which method this would be done. This was accepted verbally, but it was never put into writing. Later on, the document you referred to was not sent to the Democratic Union Party; however, we know that it was delivered to the General Command of the SDF.
Now you sign one document but do not stand behind it; instead, you send a different one. This means, “I am no longer bound by that agreement.” I therefore ask Damascus this: are you truly incapable of reading political messages at this level? What does this new document you sent mean, after an understanding had already been reached in Damascus with our delegation?
Let me be clear: if they had respected the agreement they signed and if a new understanding had subsequently been reached verbally, they would not have sent a separate document. The moment you send a separate document, it means, “I am proposing a different project.” Then does no one ask the obvious question: what happened to the previous agreement?
This situation demonstrates one thing very clearly. Either they are not approaching their commitments seriously, or they are trying to buy time through a policy of stalling in order to consolidate their power during this period. There is also another possibility that we do not rule out: at the time the agreement was signed, they may genuinely have wanted to implement it, but later interventions took place. The Turkish state may have sent them a different document and did not want this process to move forward, thereby sabotaging it.
The end result of this exclusionary and centralist approach will inevitably be conflict, war, and deep divisions. And I am not speaking only about North and East Syria; I mean all of Syria. If you come out and say, “I am the capital of this country, I am the representative of this country,” while ignoring all components of society and presenting yourself as the sole and essential authority, what will happen two years from now?
A decentralised system must be established
Does Damascus’s approach carry the risk of a new military escalation or internal conflict?
What did the people say in the early years? “Let us pause for a moment. They are new; let us be patient. Perhaps tomorrow they will take a step, perhaps they will change.” For this reason, time was given. Our problems were not one-day or one-year problems; they were sixty-year problems. There was, therefore, an expectation. But the moment people realized that this was nothing more than the continuation of the old regime, they would rise up and rebel.
Whose problems have ever been resolved through threats? Who has ever seen peace imposed by force in a country? During the Arab Spring, regimes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and earlier in Iraq threatened their own peoples, what was the outcome? All of those regimes collapsed. Today, the same methods are being tried again. If this approach continues, the situation in Syria will inevitably lead to internal war and even deeper conflicts.
Before even addressing the issue of the SDF, Syria must have a democratic constitution. A decentralised system must be established. We must give one another commitments, guarantees, and assurances, and approach each other on the basis of these principles. Only in this way can military issues also be resolved.
How would this work? The SDF would serve as the defense forces of this region, while being linked to Syria’s general command. They could be considered the eastern wing of the Syrian army. They would become part of the army, yet retain their own command. In this way, they would be connected to Damascus without being fully detached from it. Daily operations and planning would be carried out by their own command structure. They would be a force that protects the region and ensures its security, while not being completely cut off from the Damascus center. However, from what we can see, this is not their intention. They want everything to be centralized.
Given the current situation, what does 2026 hold for Syria?
If the same approach continues this year as it did last year, Syria will face even deeper crises. If the Syrian people have not yet moved beyond the crisis, it is because they have wanted to give this process a chance. However, this situation cannot continue indefinitely; public patience also has its limits. In the west, the south, northern Syria, eastern Syria, and even in Damascus, each region has its own distinct social structure and characteristics. By 2026, these realities will have to be clearly acknowledged. Without losing any more time, representatives of all components and regions of Syria must come together and establish dialogue.
The solution to the Kurdish question lies in a democratic Syria
Given the current situation, do you have a message regarding unity among Kurds?
There is also the Kurdish question. How will it be resolved in Syria? While we constantly speak about Syria’s broader crisis and democratization, it should not be assumed that the Kurdish question will fall outside the agenda. No, the Kurdish question is a fundamental issue in Syria. What do we say? Where does the solution to the Kurdish question lie? It lies in a democratic Syria. When a democratic Syria is established, the Kurdish question will also be resolved through a just method, through dialogue and consensus.
We have formed two delegations in North and East Syria. One is an administrative and military delegation representing the administration of North and East Syria. The other is a delegation formed specifically to conduct dialogue on the Kurdish question.
So far, no talks have been held regarding the resolution of the Kurdish question. Despite our requests, we have received no response. Yet 2026 should be the year of resolving the Kurdish question and the year of building a democratic Syria. Our issue is a historical one. The continuous alliance of occupying forces over Kurdistan has always been aimed at how to eliminate the Kurds.
As a result of fifty years of struggle, genuinely significant steps have been taken. Kurds have moved beyond denial and reached a point where their existence is recognized globally. The Kurdish question is now acknowledged at the international level. In response, Kurds themselves must also place importance on unity and alliance. Our views may differ, our forces may differ, and our perspectives may not always align; however, this does not mean that we should fail to secure our existence or seek to resolve our problems alongside occupying powers. Strengthening a Kurdish national alliance is the path forward.