The Syria agenda at the Munich Security Conference this year stood out not only for discussions on the civil war and regional stability, but also for the visibility of Kurdish actors at the conference. The participation of Mazloum Abdi and Ilham Ahmed showed that the Kurds are no longer seen solely as an element on the ground, but are now regarded as actors engaged on the international diplomatic stage. The conference was also shaped by debates on shifting global power balances, United States–China rivalry, and a new security architecture.
Journalist Yücel Özdemir, who lives in Germany, assessed the Munich Security Conference with particular attention to the Kurdish question. He said the visibility of Kurds at the conference was not coincidental and underlined that the political and social climate taking shape in Europe had paved the way for this development. Özdemir noted that the gains achieved by the Kurds in Syria have not been ignored at the international level and said this is seen as a development that could influence regional equations in the period ahead.
The invitation extended to Mazloum Abdi and Ilham Ahmed to the Munich Conference drew significant attention. What was the importance of this participation and invitation?
Since 6 January, attacks against Kurds on the ground in Syria have gradually narrowed the areas under their control across the wide geography known as Rojava, pushing Kurds into urban centres. As long as this concept continued, the prevailing assumption was that Kurds would no longer be an actor either in Syria or on the international stage. At precisely this moment, almost all powers invested in Ahmed al-Sharaa (al-Jolani) and his team, with the support of Turkey. Calculations were made on the basis that Kurds would no longer be able to assert their presence.
The Munich Conference, however, demonstrated that these analyses and assessments were mistaken. Kurds suddenly became visible on a very important international platform, in a way that could also be described as a surprise from our perspective. This visibility carries meaningful implications within the equation of international relations. Available information and data indicate that France played an active role in the invitation of the Kurds and, in particular, insisted on this step.
The conference was held in Germany, and France’s request alone was not sufficient; Germany had to be persuaded. Germany was the host of the conference, and the funding was provided by the German Foreign Office. Although arms conglomerates were among the sponsors, no invitation can take place at this conference without the approval of the German state. Iran, for instance, was not invited despite making a request at the level of foreign minister.
Alongside France’s insistence and Germany’s approval, Turkey also had to be persuaded. Economic and political relations between Germany and Turkey are close and enduring, and Germany’s Kurdish policy has long followed a line close to Turkey’s positions. The fact that Germany was the first country to ban the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) was also linked to the perception that Germany’s regional interests required good relations with Turkey.
This time, Germany persuaded Turkey as well and extended invitations to Mazloum Abdi and Ilham Ahmed. Although Turkey had objections and reservations on this matter, it ultimately did not raise a broad objection, and the visit went ahead. For this reason, the invitation carries historical significance, and this significance is linked to the following point.
What is the historical significance of this development?
France and Germany wanted this step to be taken, and the United States did not oppose it. No stance was adopted to block the participation of the Kurds of Rojava at an international conference, and the United States also viewed this meeting favourably. In this way, the intentions of the France–Germany axis became more visible. They need actors to rely on in the process of reconstruction and reconfiguration on the Syrian ground.
Today, there is a picture in Syria that the United States is largely seeking to shape through al-Jolani. Although France is influential in certain areas, it does not hold a decisive position. For this reason, Europe—Germany in particular, sees the Kurds of Rojava as an element that can balance al-Jolani and jihadist groups on the ground by building good relations with them in the process of Syria’s reconstruction. This approach had previously been articulated by the United States. However, the statements made by Tom Barrack, including the remark that “this cooperation has ended here, and al-Jolani is now also part of the fight against ISIS,” have outlined a new framework.
Despite this, a shift in policy toward the Kurds of Rojava is apparent, particularly from the perspective of the European Union and Germany. Europe wants to play an effective role in the redesign of the region.
What are the ways to exert influence?
A close relationship with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Kurds, who constitute a power on the ground, was preferred, and the scene was set accordingly. This also created an alternative for the Kurds. It should be stated openly that, after the remarks made by Tom Barrack pushed the Kurds out of the equation, they did not have a comparable alternative in Russia or with any other power. With this move by France, Europe came to be seen as an alternative. This relationship meant, at the very least, finding a partner through whom they could articulate their own position. Such searches are normal for a national movement. Within this framework, they expanded their space and became more visible.
It appears that the interim administration in Syria has also been persuaded. Kurds were neither taken to nor invited to the agreement in Paris; however, in Munich, Kurdish representatives held meetings together with al-Shaibani, particularly with the foreign ministers of the United States and Saudi Arabia, and the delegations were treated as equal partners. Al-Shaibani himself stated this openly, saying: “They are no longer our enemies; they are our partners.” This points to the process of Syria’s reconstruction.
The extent to which al-Jolani is decisive in this process is not fully known, but a change is visible at least through the foreign minister. A more harmonious picture of cooperation has emerged, pointing to a process in which parties have been persuaded. This is also what international powers seek: a stable Syria. They want an environment in which conflicts are reduced to a minimum and where many companies, conglomerates and countries waiting in line for reconstruction can step in. Without such stability, these steps cannot be taken. At present, there is an impression that the political groundwork for this has been laid down. At least the picture that has emerged points in this direction. However, the extent to which this will materialise on the ground remains unclear.
The growing closeness of Europe toward the Kurds of Rojava has also been influenced by the strong Kurdish solidarity that emerged in European countries, particularly after the attacks that began in Aleppo. This social support, which rose notably in Germany, reshaped European countries’ positions toward Rojava. It can also be said that Turkey has seen this picture and positioned itself accordingly.
Looking more broadly, what was the main turning point that distinguished this year’s Munich Security Conference from previous years?
The global trajectory is marked by an intensifying struggle over spheres of influence. Alignments among countries, particularly among imperial powers, have become more pronounced. The most significant feature of this conference was the debate over the future of transatlantic relations. In the period leading up to the conference, serious tension emerged between Europe and the United States over Greenland. Europe reacted to former President Donald Trump’s move aimed at taking control of Greenland.
For this reason, European leaders, especially those of Germany and France, prepared their rhetoric toward the United States ahead of the conference. In his opening address, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated openly that the United States is no longer as strong as it once was, that its global leadership has become contested, and that it is pursuing inward-looking policies. On the evening of the same day, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech. Macron underlined that Europe must act together to emerge as a new geostrategic actor on the world stage. He had also expressed these views in a joint interview with five major European newspapers four days before the conference.
What did Macron say?
Macron said that Europe could cease to exist within five years if it fails to achieve a unified position in the face of the United States and China. This statement became a headline for the majority of newspapers. He argued that, in the current period in which the world is being reshaped, Europe must emerge as a strong imperial actor to avoid disappearing. This approach is also seen to have influenced relations with the Kurds of Rojava. European states now seek to build relationships with local actors and leaders in different arenas of the world, in line with their own interests and as independently from the United States as possible. The aim is not to become a partner under United States tutelage, but to determine strategy alongside the United States on an equal footing.
The repercussions of this approach are likely to be seen in various arenas. This dynamic could also push the United States toward a more aggressive posture. Europe’s desire to play a more effective role in the global struggle over spheres of influence may lead the United States to adopt a tougher policy toward Europe in the period ahead.
Leave a Reply