Dylan Boutiflat, Secretary General for International Relations of the Socialist Party, recently visited Rojava together with Anna Pic, a member of the French National Assembly from the Socialist Party and held a series of meetings in the region. Boutiflat spoke to the ANF about his impressions of Rojava, the contacts he made in the region, and the latest developments.
Part one of this interview can be read here.
International actors have been widely criticised for their stance on the attacks against Rojava. It is often said that the West has betrayed the Kurds. Can we speak of a failure on the part of the international coalition formed against ISIS?
I do not know. It is not for me to judge whether the international coalition has failed. What I can say is that heads of state and governments must assume their own responsibilities. As things stand at the end of 2025, while there is still no full guarantee regarding the conditions for establishing peace, respect for the rights of minorities and, in particular, recognition of the distinctiveness of the Rojava revolution, it is problematic for the mandate of the international coalition against ISIS to come to an end. The distinctiveness of Rojava is based on a democratic and political model in which all minorities are able to live together and in which the rights of women and men are guaranteed on an equal basis.
Today, we must be aware that there is a serious danger threatening the very existence of Rojava. Rojava offers a democratic and confederal model. At this point, we bear a responsibility to have an impact on the future of Rojava. In particular, we should consider whether the international community can use this legal basis to protect the peoples living in Rojava and to ensure that this administration becomes genuinely autonomous and internationally recognised, drawing on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1788, which made it possible to recognise the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq.
This is our objective, and this is what we are working towards. The aim is not to declare an independent Kurdish state tomorrow across all territories where the Kurdish population lives. The aim is to build a process that guarantees the protection of peoples, as has been achieved in Iraq and as can be achieved in Syria by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES).
Do you believe that the attacks against Rojava aim to eliminate Rojava as a whole?
I believe that today the issue is directly one of Rojava’s survival, of whether it can continue to exist. That is why we did not delay going there. That is also why, today, we are making every effort at the diplomatic level so that everyone assumes their responsibilities. We also discussed with the commander of the YPJ the question of the military support we can continue to provide to our Kurdish allies. Indeed, France and the United States carried out targeted air strikes at the beginning of January, just before Al Sharaa launched an offensive aimed at reasserting control over areas north of Damascus and exerting pressure on Rojava as far as Qamishlo.
Today, we must think about how targeted operations against ISIS can be continued, just as the United States and France did at the beginning of January. We cannot leave the peoples, and especially our Kurdish partners, without any support. We cannot leave them to stand alone. Abandoning the Kurds once again would constitute a dramatic failure of responsibility on the part of the international community. We cannot accept that.
We must assess all available avenues to support all democratic forces against the threat of ISIS and the return of jihadist groups.
The fate of detained jihadists in the region has become one of the most debated issues in Europe following the attacks on Rojava. Images have shown that some jihadists in occupied areas have been released. What kind of threat does this pose to Europe’s security?
This situation represents, first and foremost, an urgent security problem for the Kurds in the country and for all minorities.
I can testify to what we saw last year in the Al Hol camp. Some of the people in Al Hol were victims of jihadist terror. Others were living only a few metres away from a prison holding thousands of jihadists. Among those detainees were Europeans, including French nationals.
When we spoke with people at the school in Qamishlo, we saw that they were living in a state of intense fear. They are deeply anxious about moving freely and about exposing themselves to danger. If such fear is felt on the streets of Qamishlo, which remain under Kurdish control and protection, you can imagine how difficult it is for civilians to return to their own areas and live in peace. Given the stance of the Al Sharaa administration, it is far from easy for these people to return to their homes.
For this reason, Kurdish forces must today be provided with the means necessary to defend and protect themselves, particularly military and air support.
Moreover, acts of brutality and crimes against humanity on a scale not seen in the region for more than a decade are taking place. This raises the risk of ongoing ethnic cleansing and the danger of a return to levels of violence not witnessed since the fall of ISIS.
In Europe, we must state this reality clearly and warn European states of the risk of potential massacres in the face of these crimes. The documents, videos, and photographs that were shared with us by those we met demonstrate that action and support are urgently needed today.
What is meant here is not the deployment of troops on the ground, but the provision of the necessary means to our allies in this essential fight against the terrorist threat. Because we all remember that when Paris was attacked in 2015, many of the terrorists who murdered innocent people on the streets of Paris, and in particular at the Bataclan, had been trained in ISIS camps in Syria. This reality still holds today and must be brought under control, contained, and completely halted.
France is known to have assumed a role in this process. Do you consider France’s role to be sufficient?
We have the impression that there are goodwill and a shared discourse, particularly when it comes to solidarity with the Kurds. However, we do not believe that this discourse is backed by concrete steps.
Today, we see no indication that the French government is prepared for a sustained military engagement. This concerns me, because France risks losing not only its influence, but also its credibility in the eyes of peoples. My concern is not the personal standing of President Macron or the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The real issue is whether our country’s rhetoric on protecting human rights, promoting a democratic model, defending women’s rights, and enabling societies to live together is supported by tangible instruments. Those instruments exist. They include humanitarian aid, air support against ISIS targets, and the development of a political perspective for the recognition of Rojava. Dialogue must also be pursued with all democratic forces regarding Syria’s future.
After our visit last year, we hosted representatives of the AANES in France. I would particularly like to mention Ilham Ahmed, the official responsible for the AANES’s foreign relations, whom we met again in Qamishlo. We received them at the National Assembly, the Senate, and the Paris City Hall.
These contacts must be maintained, and we will continue to do so. We will keep encouraging public authorities to engage in this dialogue and will continue to press for active participation in talks with all Syrian actors.
What is happening in Rojava does not concern only the Kurds or Syrian citizens. It also affects Iraq, Iran and, to a certain extent, developments in Turkey. De-escalation and a turn towards dialogue are necessary. The perspective of dialogue, peace and even disarmament put forward by Abdullah Öcalan has been frequently voiced.
The step taken by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) towards disarmament is a historic and hopeful development. Those who seek to perpetuate conflict and violence, particularly President Erdoğan and Al Sharaa, must not be granted legitimacy to impose a reactionary and freedom restricting model of society through the use of military force. We must be the builders of a path of dialogue and peace.
Thank you very much, Dylan Boutiflat, for your detailed answers and assessments. Is there anything you would like to add?
What is happening today in Rojava and, more broadly, across the Middle East should serve as a basis for turning once again towards the path of peace and dialogue. We cannot speak only about the Palestine Israel issue.
In the same way, if we speak about Ukraine but do not apply the same principles and standards to Rojava, we cannot claim to be consistent. We must return to the path of dialogue and bring this ongoing violence to an end. You asked me earlier about the difference between the administration of Al Sharaa and the regime of Bashar al Assad. My assessment is this. Our partners, the Kurds, have not changed, have not lied, and have remained faithful to their commitments.
They are putting their lives on the line in the fight against the terrorist threat. We must respond to this determination with the same level of commitment. Otherwise, this threat may confront us on the streets of Europe and the streets of Paris as well. For this reason, we must stand firmly and resolutely alongside them.
Leave a Reply