The Paris meeting, involving the United States, France and the United Kingdom, would impose binding decisions that Damascus could not ignore.
As is known, a meeting on Syria was to be held in Paris in mid-August. The previous meeting had been postponed because the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) government did not participate. The stated reason for the Damascus government’s non-participation at that time was the events that allegedly took place in Suwayda (Siweida). This time, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) announced to the public that the Damascus government would also not attend the upcoming meeting. Their stated reason was the meeting held in Hesekê!
The mentioned meeting had been attended by representatives from all segments of society in Syria. Officials in Damascus described this gathering as an attempt to divide Syria and as an action by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to break the agreement made with Damascus on March 10.
Among those who attended the Hesekê meeting were Hikmet Hicri, representing the Druze community, and one representative from the Alawite community. Apparently, the Damascus government was deeply disturbed by the participation of these individuals. It seems that, rather than seeing them as part of the reality of Syria, they regard them as enemies. The Damascus administration is unable to bring together these segments of society. It has abandoned the approach of ensuring national unity and including everyone. Instead, it creates everything itself, makes all the decisions itself, and governs alone, excluding those who are not among them.
How will Syria’s unity be achieved in this case?
The Hesekê meeting brought together all segments of society, where participants expressed a stance in favor of unity. In other words, they sent a message that was not separatist but aimed at unity. The final declaration of the meeting emphasized this as well. No calls were made for separation, division, or the establishment of a separate government. This position can be interpreted as support for the meeting to be held in Paris. Outside Damascus, no one viewed or interpreted it negatively.
The SANA based its report on the withdrawal from the Paris meeting on government sources. However, there has still been no official statement from the government. SANA can not publish such information without the government’s knowledge. It is known that the government intends not to attend the meeting. However, making this official could put them in a difficult position. Instead, by circulating such reports, they may be trying to gauge reactions. If strong reactions emerge, they would leave the door open to participate.
It is known that the Paris meeting will be attended by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. For this reason, Damascus is trying to avoid the Paris meeting. This is because it would not have the discretion to ignore the decisions taken there, as the decisions would be more binding. The Damascus government has no culture of compromise or cooperation with different forces and perspectives. Their mentality is based on exclusivity and absolute obedience. Their approach to internal issues and demands has already been demonstrated by their actions toward the Alawite and Druze communities.
Their approach to the Autonomous Administration is also to subjugate it. Those who do not submit are considered enemies. Indeed, their counter-propaganda and threats against the autonomous region have been increasing.
It has already been noted that the Damascus administration does not wish to participate in the Paris meeting. However, there is another side even more opposed to this meeting: the Turkish government. It is the Turkish government that has encouraged and guided Damascus in this regard. Indeed, as soon as it was announced that the Paris meeting would take place, Turkish ministers began arriving in Damascus.
The strongest demand and pressure to disarm the SDF and to dismantle the Autonomous Administration is coming from the Turkish government. The Turkish government’s threats against the Autonomous Administration have also begun to increase. Actions and attacks targeting the autonomous region have intensified.
The Turkish government does not take part in these meetings, just as it does not in the Astana process. Moreover, it does not want the Kurdish question to be brought onto an international platform. Even if negotiations take place in the name of the Autonomous Administration and the SDF, Kurds are involved in them. The Turkish government blocks all initiatives that involve Kurds. The Astana process has turned into a process directed against the Kurds.
Russia had invited the Autonomous Administration to the broad meeting to be held in Sochi. However, the Turkish government intervened, reached an agreement with them, and excluded the Autonomous Administration. In the same way, it blocked the participation of the Kurds and the Autonomous Administration in the Geneva Constitutional Committee.
It is unclear how much influence the United States and France will exert, but they too have begun to understand that it is the Damascus government that refuses to engage in compromise or seek solutions. Damascus neither takes steps nor includes the Autonomous Administration in its decisions, while at the same time blaming them. Their propaganda was built on the claim that the Autonomous Administration was the one failing to act.
The United States and other countries are in constant dialogue with both sides and are in a position to understand each party’s approach. The issue lies in how effective and fair these states will be. They are certainly aware that the Turkish government is at the root of the problem.
In conclusion, the Turkish government continues its hostility toward the Kurds. It is dragging Syria into a new civil war and pushing the Kurds toward massacre. While claiming in Turkey that “we should be brothers with the Kurds,” it is at the same time setting deadly traps for them in Syria
