Syria currently faces multiple internal and external challenges, alongside ongoing crises in the mainly Druze city of Suwayda and heightened government statements against the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, following the “Unified Position for the Components of North and East Syria” conference held in Al-Hasakah, in northeastern Syria.
These domestic developments coincided with a Syrian-Jordanian-American trilateral meeting in Amman, which discussed Suwayda’s situation and ways to support and rebuild Syria. Reports also indicated possible U.S. mediation between Syria and Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Suwayda.
In an exclusive interview with Syrian political writer and activist Mowafaq Nerbiyeh, he answered several questions regarding the Hasakah conference, its implications for the current Syrian scene, the possible Franco-Turkish rivalry, and Russia’s influence in the region.
How do you view the recent conference in Al-Hasakah and its impact on the Syrian scene?
The conference had mixed reflections. It provided reassurance to Syrian components, offered hope in an otherwise bleak picture, and presented an advanced agenda for Syrian elites, especially those committed to a modern democratic state reflecting the Syrian revolution’s ideals.
The conference aimed to encourage dialogue and explore solutions for the Syrian issue after the December 8 changes, which have so far failed to provide sufficient reassurance or opportunities. Its impact on the interim authority was ambiguous, showing mistrust and highlighting the urgent need for a comprehensive national conference.
Did the Hasakah conference reveal the gap between Syrian components and the current government?
Certainly, but it did not provide much clarity on that either. It highlighted that the Syrian components overall tend to envision Syria as a modern democratic civil state, while most indicators still suggest that the “transitional” government adheres to the ideology it was founded on, and may aim, directly or indirectly, for a traditional centralized theocratic state.
This underscores the necessity of holding a comprehensive Syrian national conference, in which all Syrian forces and components participate to pave a healthy path for the country’s future, while the current authority continues to focus inward and on the demands of external powers, struggling to respond successfully or acceptably to their questions.
The example of the weakly structured government-led dialogue remains dominant in many eyes. The Hasakah conference also emphasized the importance of a decentralized future Syria, updating the governance model and enhancing participation at all levels, bringing life to the country from its centre to its farthest regions, so that every individual is free and responsible while addressing their own problems locally wherever possible, without waiting for central administration or leadership except in matters that fall under its proper role.
Here, too, there is a clear divergence with the current government, which continues to defend centralization despite its evident limitations.
Why hasn’t a new national conference been held and the constitutional declaration reconsidered?
I cannot say with certainty. From the leadership’s perspective, they may fear appearing incompetent, having previously organized an improvised conference and issued a hastily drafted constitutional declaration that excluded proper participation.
A comprehensive national conference would fulfill aspects of participation and inclusivity demanded by UN Resolution 2254, as expected by international actors and Syrians alike.
Are there signs of a Franco-Turkish struggle in Syria, and what drives it?
Yes, there are indicators. The historical roots trace back to post-World War I arrangements when France replaced the defeated Ottoman “State of Greater Syria.” Today, after the collapse of the previous Syrian regime and Iran’s retreat, regional influence is being reshaped.
Neither France, the United States, Israel, nor most Syrians want to see Turkish influence reduced; unless it stems from an excessive ambition to gradually expand its control over Syria, viewing it as a historical and geographic entitlement.
At the same time, Turkish national security is respected by everyone in the region, including in northern and eastern Syria, as long as the issue is not leveraged for other agendas, a concern that has appeared in various ways, particularly since controlling the Kurdish-majority Syrian city of Afrin, the raising of the Turkish flag, and the reorganization of parts of Syria under Turkish ministries and administrative divisions.
This does not mean France is innocent of “ambitions” or “interests,” but it appears somewhat more “lenient” here, which seems to irritate the Turkish media a little.
Is Syria currently experiencing a hidden conflict among external powers affecting stability and consensus?
Absolutely. The U.S. under Trump acts inconsistently, often prioritizing its interests over Syrian needs. Israel seeks to weaken Syria without accountability for potential chaos. Russia aims to secure strategic positions and mediate southern Syria conflicts. Iran seeks to maintain regional influence, while Saudi Arabia and Gulf states support Syria neutrally with advice.
How do you read Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani’s visit to Moscow and the positive statements about bilateral relations?
Various powers advised the government to strengthen ties with Russia, particularly to stabilize southern Syria and calm Israeli tensions. This move seeks to safeguard geopolitical interests but is unlikely to fundamentally change the regional equation.
