Meeting with “Laila Musa”, Representative of the Syrian Democratic Council

[Egypt, Theosis Across Borders]

Studies Unit Project: is a research project concerned with elite discussions of Egyptian and international issues. The unit holds a meeting every Monday. Sometimes, the unit hosts intellectuals, thinkers, and practitioners concerned with files that fall within the scope of the issues and topics that its members are researching, or about current affairs and local, regional, and international issues to have more accurate knowledge of these issues that researchers may not find through media reports. These meetings also allow researchers to know how officials and decision-makers think and provide an opportunity to discuss and exchange opinions with them.

In its meeting on Monday, January 20, 2025, the Studies Unit hosted “Laila Moussa”, the representative of the “Syrian Democratic Council” in Egypt, in a meeting in which the latest developments in the Syrian arena and the Syrian Democratic Council’s vision for the future were discussed. The Syrian writer and political analyst Ahmed Sheikho was scheduled to participate in the meeting, but he apologized for not attending due to an emergency.

Laila Moussa gave a brief presentation on the experience of the Syrian Democratic Council based in northeastern Syria. She pointed out that the roots of the idea of ​​self-administration and the roadmap for dealing with the Syrian crisis adopted by the Syrian Democratic Council, which includes about dozens of political parties, women’s and youth institutions, civil society institutions, and independent figures, go back to the events of Qamishli in 2004, which occurred after a football match between the Al-Futuwa and Al-Jihad teams, with purely political dimensions. The Kurds were systematically subjected to violations by the Damascus authorities at the time. These events witnessed a new beginning for the Kurdish revolutionary movement in 2004.

These events constituted a pivotal stage in the history of the Kurdish struggle to learn lessons from the 2004 Qamishli uprising, which was an automatic reaction to the Syrian regime’s racist policies towards the Kurds, and prompted them to organize their ranks and read the scene in its local, regional and international dimensions and how to deal with it. On this basis, with the outbreak of the Syrian revolutionary movement in 2011, the Kurds, along with the rest of the components of north and east Syria, adopted the third line and adopted dialogue as an approach to confront the crisis, and militarization for protection and defense.

She pointed out that these events and their repercussions alerted the Kurds in Syria to the need to prepare for the potential political movement in the country, and that they began to organize their ranks on the political, social and economic levels, through committees that were formed through secret work during the period in which the Bashar al-Assad regime was tightening its grip on Syria through the security services. As a result of this effort, the regions in northeastern Syria were prepared to deal with the events following the Syrian revolutionary movement in March 2011, and the developments that followed.

She added that the work initially focused on committees that provide services and meet the needs at the beginning of the uprising, and armed action was only resorted to to repel the attacks of extremist armed Islamist groups on areas in northern and eastern Syria, so the People’s Protection Units and the Women’s Protection Units were established, and these units are the nucleus of the Syrian Democratic Forces. These forces became part of the international and Arab coalition to confront the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), and the fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces achieved victories over the militants of the Islamic State, and arrested thousands of them (the number of ISIS members in the prisons of the Syrian Democratic Forces is estimated at hundreds of thousands of militants).

Laila Moussa pointed out that the model developed by the Syrian Democratic Council is suitable for building a new Syria that accommodates all components of the Syrian people in one state, with decentralized administration of the regions that are administered in a democratic manner.

She explained that the current situation in Syria after Bashar al-Assad fled and the military operations department took control of Damascus is difficult, noting that the Assad regime fell in 2011, when Bashar focused on Damascus and the surrounding area, before he was able to restore his forces’ control over some areas under the Astana axis understandings, which led to compromises and trade-offs with Turkey, which occupied areas of northern Syria.

She said that the withdrawal of the Syrian regime and its deployment in areas that Bashar al-Assad called “useful Syria” and leaving the regions of north and east Syria to their fate, was an opportunity for the components of north and east Syria to manage and protect their regions or submit to the dominance of extremist Islamist organizations. The choice of the components was inevitably management and protection. After the region moved away from the control of the Syrian regime, which has always practiced a policy of marginalization and exclusion towards the eastern regions, this allowed the development of self-administration in these regions; so the administration developed in the governorates of northeastern Syria and the Syrian Democratic Council was formed.

At the same time, Turkey was able to seize the decision of a wide spectrum of the Syrian opposition, and many factions of the “Free Army” were completely dependent on it. In addition to Turkey’s relations and the strong support provided by extremist Islamist organizations, especially the terrorist organization ISIS, in service of its expansionist project in Syria.

She pointed out that the fall of the regime was the result of its flabbiness, the weakness of Iranian support, the losses incurred by its arms, the Russian preoccupation with its war in Ukraine, and also what happened in Syria as a result of international understandings. She added that despite the keenness of international and regional powers to preserve the unity of Syria due to the repercussions of its dismantling on regional and international stability, the situation is unstable due to the large number of organizations with extremist Islamist ideological backgrounds, regional and international interventions, and the conflict of regional expansionist projects in which Syria’s geostrategic location occupies a strategic place at the heart of these projects.

She stated that the new leadership in Syria, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, is in a difficult situation as it faces international pressures that would complicate al-Sharaa’s situation, especially since he does not have full control over the Syrian geography and armed factions, in light of a semi-destroyed country and the spread of extremists from all over the world who dream of a caliphate state, which contradicts international demands for the necessity of forming a comprehensive government that includes all segments of Syrian society. We must not forget the proposal of these extremists to establish a caliphate state, which contradicts the characteristics and nature of Syrian society and the aspirations of Syrians to establish a pluralistic civil state. In addition to Turkey’s efforts to impose its absolute guardianship over Syria, all of these matters pose major challenges facing the new administration in Damascus, the Syrian people and even the international community, and this requires serious work from all parties to resolve the crisis by supporting the people in managing the country away from imposing guardianship and foreign interventions.

She pointed out that the Syrian Democratic Forces are capable of repelling the Turkish aggression and its Syrian mercenaries, noting that the Turkish forces have so far failed to control the Tishrin Dam. However, she warned of the Turkish policy of transferring naturalized and Arab residents to the Kurdish areas in northern Syria and practicing demographic change operations. Afrin, for example, is a clear example of this policy, in addition to its plans to annex border areas to Turkey through its military presence in those areas and settling Syrian refugees who have been granted Turkish citizenship. It may propose holding a referendum in these areas that would allow it to annex these areas, claiming that they are inhabited by a Turkish majority. This is what Turkish officials stated when Aleppo was taken over, when they declared that it was the 82nd Turkish province.

She concluded her speech by stressing that the call to prepare a new constitution that represents all components of Syrian society, establishes a democratic civil state, and adopts decentralization in the administration of regions, through which the fair distribution of wealth and powers and the achievement of social justice are achieved. A political transition process followed by the establishment of a national Syrian army without excluding any party. As for the pursuit of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham to dominate and monopolize power over Syria, it may lead to a civil war in light of the refusal of many Syrian forces and regions to hand over their weapons. The Suwayda Governorate in southern Syria, where a Druze majority lives, refuses to hand over its weapons before agreeing on the constitution and participating in the management of power and resources in Syria. The same is the case in the Daraa Governorate in southern Syria and in the areas of the northern coast and the Latakia Governorate, whose residents are trying to organize their ranks.

Women and Democratic Syria

The questions and comments of the colleagues present at the meeting made it possible to shed light on specific points regarding the current situation in Syria and future prospects. The questions of journalist “Abeer Attia” focused on Turkey’s position and the status of women in the Syrian Democratic Council project, the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Women’s Protection Units, which allowed Dr. Laila to elaborate on the Turkish policy towards Syria, which she believes does not encourage the building of a unified Syrian state and focuses on dismantling the Syrian Democratic Council project for fear of the experience being transferred to the Turkish interior.

She also explained that women in Kurdish society have a special status that was translated into building the council based on women’s participation in all decisions and structures, including fighting alongside men, pointing to the heroic role of Kurdish women fighters in confronting Turkish forces and ISIS fighters. She pointed out that women play a greater role in formulating laws that affect them, their status and position, and that this model succeeded in ending the double oppression suffered by Kurdish women.

The Church and Democratic Syria

Dr. “Munir Bishara” focused in his intervention on the position of the Syriac Church and their situation in light of the new situation. Laila explained that the weakening of the Syriacs occurred through the Baath policy, which turned them into a religious sect only, weakened their social role, and pushed many of them to emigrate outside Syria. She pointed out that the term minorities is not an accurate term in the case of Syria, but rather it is more accurate to talk about the components of Syrian society, as all sects, including the Alawite sect, suffered under the authoritarian rule of the Baath.

Kurds and Democratic Syria

The questions of Ms. “Azza Daoud”, Mr. “Ezzat Ibrahim”, and Mr. “Ahmed Hanafi” focused on the idea of ​​an independent Kurdish state, why a Kurdish state was not established in the context of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the relationship between the Kurds of Syria and the Kurds of northern Iraq. These questions provided an opportunity for Laila to talk about other agreements after the end of World War I that created the states in the region in their current form, especially the Lausanne Agreement, explaining the differences between the Kurdish problem in Turkey, where the majority of Kurds are concentrated, and where they were partners with the Turks led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the Turkish War of Independence and liberation from the foreign forces that occupied it, then the Turks reneged on their promises under the influence of the Turkish nationalist movement.

She pointed out that the Kurds of Syria see their future in building the Syrian homeland, and that in this they differ from the Kurds of Iraq, and that the Kurds in each country have a specificity that differs from the other, and therefore it is not necessary to copy experiences from each other, and we believe that the best solution is to solve the Kurdish issue in each country while taking its specificity into consideration. She pointed out that the Iraqi constitution after 2003 was one of the reasons that prompted the Kurds to demand self-rule, and that the Syrian Democratic Council adopts the model of self-administration in a form of decentralization, and that the Syrian Democratic Forces are ready to participate in rebuilding the Syrian army.

This post is also available in: Arabic