Infowelat Enformasyon Ji Bo Welat
Gotarên Têkildar
Syrians, primarily the Kurds, have positioned the US envoy to Syria as a “political contractor” who has overstepped his role as a neutral envoy. They consider him “complicit and biased,” serving regional interests at the expense of internal Syrian understandings.
Syrian activists and observers of Syrian affairs have condemned recent statements by US President Donald Trump’s envoy to Syria, Thomas Barrack, in which he claimed that federalism is not possible in Syria, that NE Syria is slow to negotiate with the transitional government, and that the Syrian Democratic Forces have only one path: Damascus. They believe these statements go beyond the envoy’s role as a neutral mediator and place him in the position of a biased, even complicit, party at the expense of efforts to achieve rapprochement and consensus among Syrians.
In this context, Rami Abdul Rahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said: “The Paul Bremer experience cannot be reproduced in Syria. If you are truly committed to the country’s stability and unity, your role should be that of an honest mediator, not a party obstructing agreements between Syrians.”
Adding to the US envoy, he added: “Things were moving toward a real understanding, until your recent statements, which have confused the situation and perhaps taken us back to step one.”
For his part, Kurdish writer and analyst Shorsh Darwish believed that Barak’s statement was nothing new, but rather a reiteration of what the Kurds themselves have said for decades, regarding the idea that the solution to the Kurdish issue passes through Damascus.
Darwish said: “Tom Barrack’s words are very obvious to the Kurds of Syria, who have said since the 1950s that their issue would be resolved in Damascus and with Damascus. But let us imagine a man who appears dignified and wise giving a fatwa on American politics and saying: Elections are the only option for Americans to choose their president!”
In a direct response, political analyst and former US advisor Dr. Walid Phares tweeted: “Federalism works in America, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Iraq, and the Emirates… and it will work in Syria and Lebanon as well.”
Activist Delbarin Kobani posed a pointed question: “An American envoy? Or a spokesman for the Turkish occupation?” He pointed out that Barrack’s statements against the federal project in North and East Syria “reflect nothing but a sick colonial mentality.”
He continued: “Mr. Envoy, the peoples of the region have decided their fate of their own free will. They do not need permission from your embassy or a stamp from your ministry. Federalism is a project born of blood and sacrifice, not a deal passed through corrupt diplomatic corridors.”
In the same context, civil society activist Kabar Judy detailed Barak’s positions, writing: “No, Thomas Barak does not show any genuine love for the Kurdish cause or the SDF. On the contrary, his positions indicate a rejection of Kurdish federalism, a push for forced integration, and an adoption of a Turkish vision: by virtue of also being ambassador to Turkey, he works to please Ankara at the expense of the Kurdish cause, ignoring the sacrifices of the SDF.”
She continued: “Barak does not support an independent political future for the Kurds in Syria, nor does he recognize the Syrian Democratic Forces as a legitimate independent force. His actions serve the interests of the interim transitional government and Turkey, and contradict the aspirations of a people who have made sacrifices to protect their land and build their political project.”
Thus, observers believe that the US envoy has overstepped his supposed role as a bridge for dialogue between Syrians, becoming more like a “political contractor,” redrawing the map of the conflict to serve regional interests, not the interests of a war-weary people seeking to build a stable peace that guarantees their rights and identity.
The article was origininally published by ANHA.
