QAMIŞLO- The general secretariat of the Syrian Front, and the deputy of the International Forum of Human Rights Lama al-Atasi stated that Russia, like Qatar and Turkey, deals with the opposition using a style of favoritism, and assured that whoever supports a democratic project would not suit Geneva, Astana or Russia’s track. Lama al-Atasi expressed her happiness of applying Democratic North-Syria Federation saying “we are very happy to see our democratic dreams coming true embodied in the beginning in the Syrian north”.
Lama al-Atasi said in an interview with Hawar news agency that they support any intra-Syrian talks for the welfare state to give it a space for a real democracy and freedom of expression. She noted that Geneva suggests to divide influence that would override the interests of parties and exclude others. While Astana intends to held an immediate agreement for a serious parting between the two sides according to their military influence. While Sochi considers Iran a triumphant by a Turkish support after Turkey changed its attitude.
The interview was as following:
Regardless to the welfare side, a talk about holding a national interview conference in Sochi is ongoing. How do you evaluate holding a meeting that all the Syrian parties attend, and the call for holding such a conference?
Sochi has been delayed or canceled. We cannot evaluate a meeting where the guarantors would decide who to call and who to marginalize. The Russians have supported politicians who have and profound relationship or financial interests with the regime. Russia, like Qatar and Turkey, deals with the opposition using a style of favoritism, for example, it is the one that choses to marginalize everybody who would refuse to rehabilitate the regime, so we support any intra-Syrian meeting, but the guarantor states must give space for democracy.
7 Geneva meetings have been held and so has Astana’s till now, Kurds; however, were not invited, who lied behind this exclusion? Does this serve the Syrian crisis?
Systemized exclusion has been practiced not only towards Kurdish sides, but also other Syrian parts have been by the UN persons in charge of the Syrian file, since the UN is subject to world changes and also it seeks to satisfy hegemonic states at the expense of Syria, whoever has a democratic project and real mechanisms for structuring the system does not accord with Geneva, Astana and Russia’s track, which majorly suggest dividing parts and areas of influence at the expense of one another. This also does not consider structural change of the current rule and the form of the state, the negotiations are only concerned with changing the ruling faces, but has nothing to do with corruptors, thus to be a follower of Turkey instead of Iran or Iran instead of other states.
As for Astana, it seriously sought dividing among the two parties in accordance to the military influence, as if the Syrian people were slaves being sold at a farm possessed by the conflicting powers.
As for Sochi, it is a track that is considered as a response to the Geneva track, while Geneva excluded Iran, Sochi took Iran a Turkey-backed triumphant after Turkey changed its attitude. This is a victory for the regime which in turn calls the opposition to come in thousand numbers to sign on the victory made by the regime! Moreover, serious sides close to Moscow who return are promised positions, still let the Syrians sit to the table, but as for signing, it is risky.
Turkey refused to invite the Democratic Union Party(PYD)to the Sochi meeting, Russia stressed that they are Syrian Kurds, how do you evaluate the Turkish rejection of PYD participation of any Syrian talks despite the fact that it is a neighboring state?
After 2011, great awareness, profound changes have occurred in the Kurdish street, the Democratic Union Party could become a dynamo of development in the Syrian project revolting on the coordinating body and went to light calling for serious changes of the structure of the Syrian community; that is, the federation project not the nationalistic state till reaching democratic, civilized and cooperative Syria, and this is what took place at stages in the Kurdish street.
The most important is the PYD abandoning the Russian umbrella without any enmity and joining the NATO alliance, and this is what Russia fears, so it is using the media as a means to send messages to Turkish sides retreating due to their mismanagement of the Kurdish file, this is a sound statement by the Russians, but practically, the Syrian Democratic Council and Syrian Democratic Forces have been excluded from any invitation to meetings held to consolidate the rift in the Kurdish line.
All negotiations held to solve the Syrian crisis starting from Geneva till Astana have failed as the participants had not any project for solution. While in North Syria, there is the democratic federation, how do you perceive this project? Could it be implemented all over Syria? And Why?
We in the Syrian Front, have been the first to propose the federation project or the decentralized project since 2013 as we made many statements and proposed this project to Russians. We are so happy to witness our democratic dreams coming true and being embodied in the Syrian north, we will work with all Syrians positively aiming to bring about change and reform and spread it over the country. This logicality of the project would come over, and whoever opposes this project will be refusing to share the goods of the country and monopolize them, and denying other Syrians their rights in language, culture and independent political views.
We are still in the beginning of our path, for now, we are trying to persuade the Syrians of their interests in living within a state that respects, unifies them and does not exclude their opinions and goods by corruptors and dictators.