Aldar Xelîl, a member of the Co-Presidency Executive Council of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), spoke to ANF about the eight-point agreement reached between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) General Commander Mazloum Abdi and Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Al-Jolani), the head of the interim administration in Damascus, as well as the Syrian interim constitution approved by Damascus on March 13, Turkey’s visit to Damascus, the massacres committed by the Damascus government against Alawites, and the democratic struggle of the peoples.

What does the eight-point agreement mean for the peoples of North and East Syria? How should it be interpreted?

Since the beginning of the revolution, we have asserted that we are part of Syria and that our goal is to build a democratic Syria where all peoples can live under democratic, equal, and just conditions. The removal of the Ba'ath regime does not mean that all problems have been solved. The construction of a democratic system, the democratization of Syria, and the expansion of unity among the peoples throughout the country are essential. The territorial integrity of Syria can only be ensured by creating unity among its peoples. However, it has become evident that the government in Damascus has taken the wrong approach. It believes that preserving Syria requires governing the country solely from Damascus, establishing a centralized system to rule Syria and imposing unity from above. But this is not the right path. If one truly supports the unity of Syria, it cannot be achieved through a single ruling center, but rather through the unity of its peoples. The coming together of the peoples is what will prevent the fragmentation of society. The new regime in Damascus seeks to govern Syria centrally without recognizing its religious, ethnic, and national diversity, which only deepens divisions within society. Our project, on the other hand, is based on unity and coexistence, ensuring that communities live together, cooperate based on their common interests, and meet their needs in solidarity. This is how the unity of Syria can be preserved.

In this context, there was an opportunity to reach some agreements and understandings with Damascus, and we explored this possibility. That is why Mazloum Abdi, General Commander of the SDF, traveled to Damascus. The goal was to share our approach with them. In fact, after the collapse of the Ba'ath regime, an initial meeting took place to establish mutual recognition. In the most recent discussions, our views were shared more comprehensively and debated in depth. However, the details of the agreed-upon points are still being worked out, and it cannot yet be said that they will be implemented immediately. They should be considered as fundamental principles rather than finalized decisions. We can say that we are not opposed to each other on these matters; we have reached common ground and agreed on a broad framework, but there are still details to be addressed. In fact, the agreement could be seen as seven points, as the eighth point concerns the formation of committees to discuss and implement the other seven points. It is natural that differences in opinion may arise in some areas or that certain issues require more extensive discussions.

What matters most is the establishment of committees for military, administrative-governance, economic, and Kurdish issues. Once these committees are established, the agreement will take practical form. Each committee will begin its work within its own domain. For instance, when the Kurdish issue committee is formed, Kurdish representatives will share their views and put forward their proposals. However, the Kurdish issue cannot be isolated from the problems of other ethnic, religious, and national groups. Therefore, additional committees will also be necessary to resolve these issues comprehensively.

The name of the state matters

The future name of Syria is also an important issue for us. Although Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Al-Jolani) and his group have announced that Syria will be named the Arab Republic, this does not reflect the views of the Syrian peoples, the Autonomous Administration, and the peoples of North and East Syria. A key question remains: Will Syria adopt a centralized or a decentralized system? If it were to be decentralized, what form will it take? Decentralized systems can take many different forms, and these questions must be thoroughly debated. All these issues will be discussed in depth by the committees, ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive approach to Syria’s future.

The third article of the agreement states that a ceasefire must be implemented across all Syrian territories. However, the Turkish state and its proxy militias continue their relentless attacks on North and East Syria. How will the ceasefire be enforced under these conditions?

Anyone who stands for freedom, peace, and resolution does not align with war. We have never wanted war. The reason we are in this war is that it has been forced upon us. We are fighting to defend our existence against enemy attacks. Our first response to these assaults is to say, we do not want war. But because we are attacked, we must protect ourselves. A ceasefire is absolutely necessary, and we favor reaching an agreement on this matter. The Damascus government claims that it is not waging war against us. That may be true in an official sense, but there are forces within Syria that are attacking us. So why is this ceasefire not being upheld? Why is Damascus not defending Syria’s sovereignty? The Syrian President claims to lead the country. If so, he must acknowledge the attacks on Syrian soil. There have been assaults on the Tishrin Dam—is this not part of Syria? The same applies to Qereqozax, Tal Tamr, Ain Issa, and Kobanê—are these not Syrian territories? These places remain under attack.

The key issue is that a ceasefire must be accepted and implemented by all parties. By signing this agreement, Damascus has officially recognized its responsibility for North and East Syria. If it acknowledges this responsibility, then it must also acknowledge the ongoing attacks against the region. Why is it failing to fulfill its duty? With this agreement, Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Al-Jolani) and his government have taken on the responsibility of protecting North and East Syria.

Turkish-backed militias still occupy Afrin, Girê Spî (Tell Abyad), Serêkaniyê (Ras al-Ain), Jarablus, Al-Bab, Azaz, and Manbij. Moreover, Turkish intelligence operatives move freely in these areas. If those in Damascus truly stand for Syrian sovereignty, they must demand that Turkey withdraw from Syrian land. If Damascus has failed to act so far, this agreement removes any justification for inaction. After all, the agreement was signed under the authority of the Syrian presidency. Therefore, Damascus must now fulfill its obligations towards Northern and Eastern Syria. It must tell Turkey to leave Syrian territory in order to establish real cooperation with North and East Syria. If Damascus openly rejects Turkey’s aggression and demands its withdrawal, then a genuine ceasefire can be achieved. A mutual ceasefire among all parties would have positive results. However, Turkey has not ceased its attacks so far, and this remains the primary obstacle to peace.

There is criticism regarding shaking hands with the Damascus government or Ahmed Al-Sharaa (Al-Jolani) while massacres against Alawites are being carried out, particularly in the coastal regions. How do you respond to these criticisms?

The massacres of Alawites in Syria’s coastal cities are absolutely unacceptable and must be strongly condemned. The targeting of Alawites is entirely indefensible. The attacks on coastal cities immediately bring Shengal to mind. Just as ISIS attacked Shengal, beheaded people, and committed mass atrocities, a similar situation has unfolded in these regions. However, while ISIS kidnapped people and took them captive, these forces did not even take prisoners—they executed people on the spot. The timing of this agreement must also be analyzed carefully. Article 6 of the agreement has no connection to this issue whatsoever. The Ba'ath regime and its institutions subjected us to oppression, imprisoned us for years, tortured, and murdered us, all while prioritizing the annihilation of peoples. Without a doubt, whether in Jazira (Cizîrê), Aleppo, Hama, Homs, or Damascus, we must stand together in a shared struggle against this mentality.

We do not stand with oppressors

It should be clearly understood that Article 6 is not a decision targeting the coastal cities. Some people are linking the decision to take action against individuals who committed crimes against the people during the Ba'ath regime with the recent events in the coastal regions. However, portraying Alawites as supporters of the Ba'ath regime is completely incorrect. Alawites are part of Syrian society, and in fact, they too have suffered under the oppression of the Ba'ath regime. With the fall of the regime, its past policies toward Alawites have become even more apparent, revealing how helpless and unorganized the Alawite community has been left. It must be recognized that Alawites were also victims of the Ba'ath regime. Some factions attempt to depict Alawites as regime loyalists, but this is not true. Even if some among them supported the regime, this does not justify the massacres in any way. There can never be an excuse for such atrocities. We do not engage in war against any people, faith, or ethnic group, and we refuse to be complicit in such approaches. We are not against Alawites, Druze, Assyrians, Syriacs, or Arabs. At the same time, we do not stand with oppressors. Our fundamental values are humanist and democratic, and our stance on events and issues is well known.

There are claims circulating in media platforms that, in addition to the eight publicly known articles, there is a 20-article agreement. How accurate is this?

There is nothing beyond these eight articles. The agreement is signed and official, and anything without a signature does not constitute an agreement. It is clear that many parties do not want this agreement to exist. Some have attempted to misrepresent it, but they have also seen the widespread social unity that has emerged around it.The peoples of Syria have embraced this agreement with enthusiasm, celebrating it and expressing their stance in a positive manner. However, it seems that certain forces are disturbed by this. As a result, they are trying to spread misinformation in any way they can. Our people should know that nothing is being hidden. Everything that is being done is shared transparently with the public, society, and relevant parties through the press in a timely manner.

A constitutional text has been signed that contradicts the essence of this agreement. What are your thoughts on this constitution?

The content and essence of the announced constitution are completely unacceptable, and accepting it is simply not possible. If they attempt to implement it, major contradictions will arise in Syria, leading to internal conflicts within Syrian society. For nearly 14 years, the Syrian people have endured a revolutionary process and an extraordinary state of crisis. Millions of people have been displaced, martyred, lost their homes, and suffered immense hardships. Even now, the people of Syria continue to face great difficulties. All of this struggle was never for a constitution like this. The people fought for freedom, democracy, equality, and justice. Looking at the text of this constitution, it is clear that it pushes Syria back 105 years—not even just a century, but further. This proves that it is impossible for Syrian society to accept this constitution. It is even more regressive than the Ba'ath regime’s constitution, which was imposed upon society through absolute power and control, yet still failed to gain acceptance. How could this one be accepted? They should never have taken this approach. They signed a document with the General Command of the SDF based on fundamental principles, but what they published the next day contradicts it entirely. In reality, by doing this, they have nullified the very agreement they signed. Despite this, we will continue to take a positive approach from our side for as long as possible, striving to move towards a new, democratic Syrian constitution that we can all agree upon together. This is part of our struggle and requires continued effort. In short, the published constitutional text is unacceptable. The people have taken to the streets to protest, making it clear that they reject this document. This constitution must be withdrawn and revised.

Immediately after the agreement was signed, a Turkish delegation held meetings in Damascus. What was the purpose of this visit?

To be honest, we have not yet received detailed information about this visit. However, it is clear that the Turkish state has never accepted the development of a democratic project in Syria. It refuses to recognize any initiative where different parties come together to address issues collectively. For example, despite differences in perspectives and many contradictions between us, we, as the peoples of Syria, are coming together to discuss certain matters—and in some cases, even reach agreements. We want to achieve mutual understanding as the peoples of Syria. But if you pay attention, the moment Turkey saw that an agreement had been reached, it immediately sent a delegation consisting of the Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, and the Head of National Intelligence Organization (MIT) to Damascus. What does this mean? They are essentially saying: "We are afraid that Damascus might accept the conditions of the Autonomous Administration! We fear that Damascus might recognize Kurdish rights! We are concerned that Damascus might act accordingly and make concessions!" Turkey's goal in visiting Damascus is to pressure the Syrian government into rejecting any democratic project, preventing it from engaging with the SDF and the Autonomous Administration. Instead, Turkey wants Damascus to adopt its own oppressive policies against the Kurds, the SDF, and the Autonomous Administration, following the same path of aggression that Turkey itself has taken.

What is the current state of relations with Syria’s various ethnic and religious communities? How can a common democratic struggle be built?

While we have had organizational efforts within the Kurdish community, since 2011, the democratic nation project, the women's liberation project, the unity of peoples project, and the freedom and democracy project have been actively in place and have had a significant impact. If you look closely, you will see that in North and East Syria, Arabs, Kurds, and Syriacs work together at the institutional level. This has become a source of strength and an example for other regions of Syria. In fact, when examining the situation in other parts of Syria, it is evident that the peoples living there support democratic autonomy, SDF, and the governance model in North and East Syria more than they support the Damascus administration. For example, the Druze have expressed more support for the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria than for Damascus. Alawites have openly backed this project but do not support Damascus in the same way. Non-radical Sunni Muslims also align more with the governance model of North and East Syria than with the Damascus administration. Assyrians and Syriacs see themselves as being closer to the Autonomous Administration than to Damascus. If you travel across Syria, one thing becomes clear: the project that truly represents Syria is this one. The real minority is in Damascus.The solidarity of the peoples is incredibly important—it has always been historically and remains so today. We draw strength from this unity. The more this culture of coexistence and solidarity develops, the more democratic Syria can become.

What is the role and mission of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria in Syria’s reconstruction?

From the very beginning, when the Autonomous Administration was established, it was written into its social contract that the fundamental goal was the democratization of Syria. A democratic Syria can only be achieved through the democratic nation project. Syria cannot be democratized under a radical Islamist mindset, a nation-state ideology, or a despotic approach. Even if a hundred years pass, in the end, only through this model can a democratic Syria be built. A truly democratic Syria can only emerge with the philosophy of free women, the philosophy of the democratic nation, and a vision where all communities can live together in equality. Whether we say this or not, whether we write it or not, if Syria is not restructured and redefined based on these principles, it will fall into deep contradictions. People should not deceive themselves by saying, "The regime is gone, so everything is solved." That is not the case. Yes, the regime has fallen, but a democratic system is still necessary. The practices implemented in Autonomous Administration areas serve as an experience, a test, and a model—one that other regions can look to for strength and inspiration. This is not just about governance; it is also a space where politicians, writers, artists, and intellectuals who seek a democratic Syria should engage and contribute. This is where the culture of democracy can truly take root. By witnessing the realities of this system, the leadership role of women, and how different peoples coexist, other regions can follow this example. For the democratization of all of Syria, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and its institutions remain the primary and only true model.