By Abdullah Ghadawi
(Zaman Al Wasl)- Some Syrians see that the actor Jamal Suleiman is an opposition figure playing a political role while others see him as an opposition figure playing a national role.
Zaman al-Wasl met with Suleiman for a candid interview which placed Syria as the eye of truth. An interview that he wished would, “be respectful and say something real.”
Suleiman spoke about Syria’s future, his attitude towards some of the revolutionary Islamic movements and his reasons for rejecting the Kurdish federalism proposed by the Democratic Union Party among other issues.
The Interview
Z- You refused to go to Geneva 4 under the umbrella of the High Negotiation, Committee, so the opposition delegation was divided. Do you think your decision was a mistake?
J- We did not oppose forming one delegation, and we sent the High Committee a letter inviting them to meet with us to discuss this issue, and the truth is that we did not receive any response to our letter, but we did receive an invitation to add one person from the Cairo Conference to the Committee delegation which is more than 20 people. This was neither acceptable nor logical, but we did not consider it a reason not to discuss, coordinate or show positive spirit. In our opinion, under the current circumstance, it is possible to see the multiplicity of the opposition delegations as a sign of diversity rather than division; Especially as they are all meeting with one aim which is to achieve a political settlement based on the Geneva understandings and related international decisions.
We went based on the Security Council decision 2254, and we received our invitation on that basis, so the important thing in what we discuss there relies on the international decisions. To this end, we held the Geneva meeting with the Committee, and the discussion was positive and helpful for both of us. With our understanding that within the Committee there is a moderate movement and a conservative movement and we see ourselves closer to the moderate movement.
Z- A broad segment of Syrians say that all that is happening in Astana and Geneva is a waste of time and nothing of it has been achieved on the ground, and you hold part of that responsibility?
J- Indeed many see things from this angle, and on social media, which gives an indicator to public opinion, there is an atmosphere of lack of trust and even scepticism regarding the participants and the entire process. The reasons behind that are that three rounds of talks took place under media scrutiny and international mobilization, but without any result and this generates frustration among people and a lack of trust of the usefulness of this process. However, in truth, it is the only political process available to us as Syrians because the international and regional communities are committed to it and the ideas presented in it.
On the other hand, we must understand that the Syrian crisis is now a page within a larger file, and this file has political and regional dimensions. The war today is no longer for Syria only but has exceeded the Syrian national interests to become part of global interests and the struggle to grab places in the soon to emerge regional and international system. There will be no let-up or genuine ceasefire, or return of life to Syria and Syrians as long as there is no international political deal. A feature of this struggle is what is happening now to liberate al-Raqqah from the Islamic State forces.
Turkey wants to participate in the operation, but it rejects the presence of the Kurds (Syrian Democratic Forces) in battle, and the United States is assisting the Syrian Democratic Forces, but it does not want to cut off Turkey its NATO ally, and so on! In the end, if there is now international and regional agreement there will be no solution because the Syrian crisis is now beyond the Arabic system and outside the will of Syrians.
The Syrian Struggle
Z- What if there had been a suggestion that you went as one delegation under one umbrella and not as different platforms and delegations, would you have accepted?
J- We welcome such a suggestions, and we would contribute to it with all enthusiasm, and this is at the center of the issue as the delegation must be capable, independent, and represents all sides, and with that, we would kill all justifications that the opposition is divided.
Z- What is the practical aim of these negotiations with the regime?
J- The goal is to execute the Geneva understandings which dictate that a political transition from an oppressive country to a democratic country must happen in Syria. This transition will be achieved through a negotiation process that will lead to the formation of the Transitional Governance Committee (agreement or participatory based) which will lead the country towards the desired goal.
We do not see that the aim of the negotiations is to reproduce the same authority nor do the negotiations transfer power from the people overseeing it now to others or to another political force that seeks to dominate.
And to be clearer and more precise we do not want to transition authority from tyranny to tyranny, and I mean here the Islamic political and military forces. We will not agree to any political project for a religious authority that practices tyranny, oppresses freedoms, and executes it owns reading of religion and its role in society and the state. We are striving for a democratic state that respects religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity. In recent years, we observed the practices of the Islamic extremist forces in the areas they control, and we followed the decisions of their judicial judges. The last of these events was what happened with the Rising for Freedom Magazine, and is this what Syrians want? Is this what 500,000 Syrians died for?
Z- You mean Jaish al-Islam?
J- It is not Jaish al-Islam alone, we reject every actor oppressing freedoms. Freedom and a civil state are non-disputable issues for us. And this does not mean that we stand in the face of religion so that some people will not take this as an opportunity and consider that religion is represented in their person. We respect all religions, and we respect people of faith, and we know very well that religion and religiosity are an important part of our societies and we respect that, but we seek a free life without oppression.
No Future for Assad
Z- As much as the opposition and the regime come and go, the real conundrum remains Bashar al-Assad staying. What is your attitude towards this problem and how do you see a way out of it?
J- We in the Cairo Conference are very clear about this issue as we do not see any future for this regime nor its president in Syria. The main thing is that we enter a negotiation process that results in a political solution, and we must continue the political fight until the end because it is the right of Syrians to start a new page in their history with other people as president, parliamentarians and in government. However, I believe this will not happen except through a negotiation operation with international and regional pressure where Syrians are active.
No Winners in Syria
Z- There are those who say that the regime in its weakness and military retreats did not accept a political solution so how will it accept one after the fall of Aleppo and Wadi Barada. Will he give up rule and accept the transitional phase when he is at the height of his power since the start of the crisis?
J- Let me tell you that all the political forces in Syria are defeated including the regime, despite the propaganda the regime is using to try and say otherwise. Today no one is a winner in Syria, and everyone knows this as much as they act prideful and say otherwise.
Z- There is the Moscow Platform, the Cairo Platform, and the Riyadh delegation but there is nothing under the Syrian National Opposition, why is that?
J- If you take, or the media take, the name of a city which you launched your political activities from this does not mean that you are not a nationalist.
Regarding the Cairo Platform, our official name is the Cairo Conference for the Syrian Opposition, and slowly the expression became the Cairo Platform as a kind of media abbreviation. The point is to maintain your national voice and independent decision which stems from your national interest. Political tactics imposed by a complex climate should not take you far from your national cause.
Z- But the capitals that adopt one strand or another of the opposition must be influencing that strand?
J- We in the Cairo Conference have a deep and honest relationship with our brothers in the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs which is based on discussion. We have received the support we asked for from this prestigious institution without them imposing any decisions on us or forcing us to adopt a particular approach. Egypt’s lack of involvement in the conflict in Syria gave it an objective edge in looking at things. Due to its lack of involvement in the military struggle, it maintains a form of neutrality. There is no doubt that Egypt is experiencing a unique situation due to the political circumstances that it has undergone in recent years. Egypt has priorities that we must respect and in return they respect our options. We depend on our discussions with our brothers in Egypt as well as taking special care to listen to other brothers in the Arab milieu, but our decisions are always independent.
Egypt is Not With Al-Assad
Z- You spoke about the neutrality of the Egyptian role, but the main authority in Egypt said he supports the Syrian regular army and Bashar and many known opposition figures are prohibited from entering Egypt?
J- I know that Egypt supports the Syrian army and all the state institutions, and Egyptian diplomats announce this at every opportunity, but I did not hear from Egypt that it is with al-Assad.
Yes, Egypt is strongly against the idea of dismantling the Arab armies as happened in Libya, Iraq and Yemen which resulted in catastrophe. But this is something worth appreciating, and we support it, and it is in agreement with international decisions and the Cairo Conference decisions which all agree on preserving the state institutions including of course the army. In the end, we want a just state and not chaos and fragmentation.
Z- What are you against?
J- I am against tyranny, oppression, injustice, corruption, ignorance, and oppression. I am against the tyrannical state and against installing a religious project onto the Syrian revolution, and I believe in religion and human freedom- so that no one calls me an apostate- but we want a state of law, justice and citizenship.
Z- After what happened in Syria from increasing Islamization how can you speak of a civil, democratic and civic state?
J- Was this Syrian people’s decision or was it imposed on them? Are Syrians this way or did circumstances make them this way? Syria and the Syrian people have historically never accepted extremism or even conservatism. Today if the conditions change, the Syrian people will return gradually to their natural state of forgiveness, moderation and coexistence.
Z- What have you offered to the Syrian revolution as an opposition figure with political commitments?
J- What I offered is humble in comparison with what Syrian people who have lost their children, limbs, organs or the person who crossed borders carrying his disabled mother searching for a safe country. But I am Syrian before I was an opposition figure, and I was with Syrians who demanded political reform and changing the Syrian constitution especially the eighth article. My attitude towards tyranny and dictatorship is not new.
Hezbollah and Iran must leave
Z- Who must win in Syria?
J- The Syrian people are the ones who must be victorious and achieve their freedom, dignity, and justice.
Z- Your opinion on the Iranian and Hezbollah presence?
J- They must all leave. All the militias and every stranger to Syria must leave, whether Hezbollah or other parties.
Z- What is your opinion of the Autonomous Administration announced by the Kurds?
J- The Kurds suffered a history of injustice in Syria as their rights were denied, and there was an attempt to erase their identity, but the best response to that is not federalism but to merge with the rest of the Syrian people for a democratic state, a civic state that gives everyone the same rights and imposes the same duties. From my point of view, the announcement of federalism is a big mistake for several reasons, one side announced it without discussions with the remaining Syrians or even the remaining Kurds present in almost every part of Syria. The second reason is that it was announced at a catastrophic moment in time for Syrians, and so many of them looked at it as an act of betrayal and abandonment. The third reason is that due to the historical circumstances, the federalism is very fragile and its life depends on the support of others, but others have their calculations and interests that make them present everything you need today, and then they abandon you tomorrow.
This does not mean that I am a supporter of a centralized state, the opposite actually as I truly believe that a centralized state in Syria is of no benefit. Through the Cairo Conference in January 2015, we agreed with our brothers in the Democratic Union Party on the National Allegiance Convention which dictates autonomous administration and the ethnic and cultural diversity and the need to protect this diversity legally and constitutionally. Except that our brothers in the Democratic Union Party when they announced the federalism from one side they left what we agreed to in the conference.
Attitude to International and Regional Actors
Z- What is your description of the regime?
J- A tyrannical regime
Z- The American role?
J- Lying and hypocritical
Z- The Russian role?
J- More truthful
Z- Iran?
J- A religious project that does not suit the Syrian people and part of the problem.
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.