Zeki Akil argues that, despite the words claiming the contrary, the classic hostility toward Kurds continues.
Turkey is interfering far too much in Syria’s internal affairs. It is trying to strip the peoples of the historic opportunity that has emerged in Syria. The Ba’ath regime collapsed, and possibilities arose for building a new and democratic Syria. Yet Turkey, by throwing all its support behind Hayat Tarhir al Sham (HTS), is eliminating the democratic option.
HTS, as it is known, is a version of al-Qaeda. Ideologically, it is opposed to democracy. With a rigid religious interpretation rooted in one sect, it seeks to establish dictatorship, yet HTS does not have the capacity to rule Syria. Since it is organized mainly around Idlib, it cannot hope to appeal to the whole of Syria. Even if it holds Damascus, it is neither accepted nor supported by the people of Syria or Damascus.
In its short period of rule, HTS has already committed two massacres: one against the Alawites, and then against the Druze. These massacres have deepened the mistrust towards HTS both among the peoples of Syria and in world public opinion. Instead of addressing the demands of Alawites and Druze as Syrian citizens and resolving their problems through dialogue, they responded with massacres. Their houses were plundered, burned, and destroyed. Women, children, youth and old people were killed without distinction. These massacres were fully supported by Turkey, which didn’t even hint at condemnation or criticism.
On 10 March 2025, the Damascus government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) signed an agreement by which, Kurds would be recognized as one of the fundamental components of Syria, and their existence would be constitutionally guaranteed. Yet after this agreement, in the provisional constitution prepared by HTS, Kurds and their rights were excluded. In all its recent developments, including government formation, HTS did not include Kurds or other social groups, effectively denying their existence. Turkey advised and supported all of this. Even in Turkey’s National Security Council decisions, the establishment of a centralized, unitary system in Syria was endorsed.
In recent days, efforts have been made to revive talks and resolve issues between the Damascus government and the SDF–Autonomous Administration. A meeting was held in Damascus under the mediation of Tom Barrack. This meeting ended without results.
A decision was then made to convene in Paris. Turkey opposed the involvement of a third party and tried to block the meeting. Eventually, the Damascus government announced it would not participate and requested postponement. The U.S. and France accepted this. A new date was set for the meeting, but later the Damascus government announced it was withdrawing from the Paris talks. Everyone knows it was Turkey that pushed for this decision. Turkey calculated that an agreement with the participation of international powers and observers would have a greater chance of implementation. Anticipating that some decisions could be taken in favor of the Autonomous Administration, which includes the Kurds, Turkey positioned itself as the main actor dragging Syria into uncertainty and instability.
Subsequently, the Turkish Foreign Minister showed up in Damascus. Shortly after, Syria’s Foreign and Defense ministers were brought to Ankara. Ankara is trying to keep HTS alive and impose its dominance in Syria. At the same time, it wants to use Syria as its backyard. On this basis, they brought Syrian officials to Ankara, declared their support, and had them sign the agreements they wanted.
The SDF and the Autonomous Administration want to participate in Syria’s political solution and reconstruction process. They seek to share their democratic experience and accumulated knowledge with the peoples of Syria. They have always welcomed initiatives for talks and solutions and have never refrained from participating. Yet so far, the Damascus government has excluded the SDF and Autonomous Administration from the political process, keeping them outside its decisions. The same applies to Alawites, Druze, and other organized groups.
Despite this, the Turkish Foreign Minister blamed the SDF, openly threatened and accused both the SDF and the Autonomous Administration. The claim is that the Damascus government favors a solution, but the SDF resists unity put up obstacles!
Turkey knows very well that Kurds live under threats of massacre, because Turkey itself is part of the plans of attack and elimination against them. While massacres unfold in Syria and smoke still rises from places burned and destroyed, the Kurds and the Autonomous Administration are told to surrender to the HTS. But because they do not surrender, they are then threatened. Yet the only thing the SDF is doing is ensuring the security of the people in the region. They have no other military activity. Moreover, they declare they are ready to join the Syrian army. But Turkey is impatient and asks the SDF to “dismantle this force quickly”, claiming “security concerns.” How could the SDF possibly pose a security threat to Turkey?
What the SDF demands is legal and constitutional guarantees. Once those are secured, the problem will disappear. Until then, the SDF want to remain in the region as part of the army and as a guarantee of security. But the Turkish Foreign Minister says that “the SDF’s provocative stance is undermining the process.” He also says that “Turkey will support the fight against terrorism.” Who are the terrorists? Groups like Emşat and Hamzat? These and many other groups, whose names we don’t even know, are carrying out plunder and massacres. All of them are linked to Turkey or dependent on it. Yet, clearly, Turkey does not consider them terrorists. That leaves only the Kurds and the SDF to be labeled as terrorists. The Turkish state declares that it will support HTS against possible attacks by the Damascus government on Kurds.
Is this Kurdish–Turkish brotherhood? If Kurds are to be truly accepted as brothers, shouldn’t they also be provided with security and guarantees? But what is being said, and what is happening on the ground, does not correspond to brotherhood. On the contrary, the classic hostility toward Kurds continues
