Syria fighting ‘benefits external forces’: US expert

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - James Robbins, Institute for World Politics dean and a former special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense under the George W. Bush administration, spoke to Rudaw following fierce clashes between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian army in Aleppo this week, calling the divisions “very damaging” to regional and Syrian stability.

Robbins said the US supports integrating the SDF into the Syrian Arab Army while protecting Kurdish rights, and maintained that Syrian infighting only benefits external actors.

He confirmed the US continues behind-the-scenes diplomacy to deescalate the conflict between the Syrian army and SDF.

Robbins also said the US would likely reject Turkey's demands to disarm the SDF given the group’s key counterterrorism role.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Rudaw: I'd like to start with the latest developments, the [government] Syrian Arab Army are moving towards Deir Hafer. As you know, the SDF forces are located in that area. What is your reading of these developments and what can be expected?

Robbins: Well, the United States is interested in maintaining the stability of the region, number one. This infighting that occurred recently between the Syrian National Forces and the SDF was very damaging to the process of creating stability and peace in Syria. It's good that the two sides have disengaged and that the United States was able to mediate a ceasefire and a disengagement, and these types of fights only benefit the external forces. They don't benefit the Syrian people; only outsiders like to see this type of fighting.

So the United States would like to see in the future an implementation of the agreement from March of last year, where the various forces can come together under the single banner inside Syria, while at the same time maintaining the rights of the minority communities inside Syria and in this case, particularly the Kurdish groups who need to have their rights maintained. So that's really the US perspective.

You mentioned the US mediating for the ceasefire over Syria. But, you know, we saw the US silent during the conflicts in the Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyeh neighborhoods. Why was the US silent [about] these conflicts?

Well, again, the United States wants to be a trusted mediator. It's really sad when there are friends on both sides and they're fighting. The United States has been working with the Kurdish groups for over a decade in the anti-terrorism fight against ISIS, and have very good relationships, and would like to see the rights of the Kurdish groups inside Syria maintained and honored by the new government.

At the same time, the United States wants to see the success of the new government and has tried to set up a framework whereby all of the groups can work together towards a future of prosperity inside Syria. So if the United States was silent, it was simply because it's a very difficult issue that requires careful mediation amongst our diplomats.

The end result seems to be good. I mean, it seems like a ceasefire is holding. It seems like the rights of the people inside Aleppo are being honored, and hopefully we can continue that. But I am certain that the United States is continuing its mediation and diplomatic efforts behind the scenes, even if there aren't public statements coming out every day.

OK but what type of ceasefire? … I'll start with this question: the Syrian Arab Army forces moved toward Deir Hafer. This is not a ceasefire, right?

Well, it's true that there's still some fighting going on. But again, the United States is against this and would like to see all sides … stop the fighting. Again, only external forces - whoever they may be - benefit from this type of infighting. It doesn't help the Syrian people. It doesn't help the Kurdish people inside Syria. This type of division can only be in the interest of outsiders. So to the extent that there's still some fighting going on the United States is trying to make sure that it stops.

Okay, moving Syrian Arab Army forces toward any other area of Syria and [triggering] conflicts and tensions with the Kurdish army forces - [how does this] affect the reactivation of ISIS?

Well, this requires a political solution, ultimately. The United States is still committed to the anti-terrorism fight against ISIS and will and will continue that strongly with its allied groups in the region, particularly the SDF. And you know, one hopes that the on the political side that a resolution can be achieved. ISIS obviously is not going to be part of that political resolution. ISIS has been driven out of the country.

I want to ask a question about the friendship between US and Kurdish forces, the SDF. [Will it continue] or will it end? Because we saw the stopping or silence of the US at the battle of Masood and Ashrafiyeh [Kurdish majority neighborhoods in Aleppo.]

The US and SDF have been working together for some time. I think that there's a very good relationship there, and I know that the White House doesn't want to see anything that will negatively affect the US Kurdish partners inside Syria.

So again, what you're interpreting is silence. There's diplomacy going on behind the scenes. The United States is trying to create conditions whereby this violence no longer happens. Again, it's a political question.

And I think the United States has been effective in trying to bring about a decline in the violence. Yes, there's still some going on, but [US Envoy to Syria] Ambassador [Tom] Barrack has made statements saying that both sides need to stop their violence in the area and work towards an integration of the armed forces of Syria into one command.

So that would go a long way to solving the political differences. But it's also bearing in mind that the rights of the Kurdish people inside Syria need to be honored, and that people need to be able to live in peace and security. I mean, it's a difficult solution to this problem, but the pathway is clear, and that's what the United States has been working on.

The attack on these two Kurdish neighborhoods came after the meeting between the delegations of Syria and Israel in Paris. According to the media [reports], there is an intelligence agreement between these two countries. The question is, what did the Syrian authority agree to do with Israel and Turkey in exchange for removing, or moving out, the internal security forces from Sheikh Maqsood and Ashrafiyeh neighborhoods.

Well, this is what I was talking about external forces being interested in the fighting. Whether there was such an agreement is unclear. I mean, there have been reports like that. But what's clear is that if there is fighting between, say, the Syrian National Army and the SDF - that it does not benefit Syria. And such external agreements or interference, if it exists, should not happen. I know that the United States is against any kind of external interference within Syria, because it doesn't benefit the Syrian people.

So while it's unclear whether such side deals were being made, what is clear is that such deals should not be made - that the main parties should be the only ones that are negotiating peaceful progress, and peaceful means towards progress.

And the key issue is the integration of the SDF under the umbrella of a larger Syrian force. How that happens whether they maintain their autonomy or whatever the format takes, that's really the main thing that needs to be negotiated.

And any kind of external interference in this process is something that's against the interests of Syria and definitely against the interests of the United States.

There was some footage of violence against the Kurdish fighters by the Syrian Arab Army … A [female] Kurdish fighter [was] thrown from a high building by the Syrian Arab Army. [Yet] a European delegation gave $700 million to Damascus for reconstruction. How do you read that, the $700 million for reconstruction?

 Right, right. Well, I mean, again, these are the types of issues that need to be worked out on how that money will be distributed, who will benefit from it, and so forth. The Kurdish people of Syria should have a fair share of any kind of reconstruction efforts or any kind of reconstruction dollars. And, you know, control of that by the central government should not be used as a way of trying to coerce or intimidate people.


Does [this funding] … align with the stance [supporting and protecting human rights] for the European Union?

I think all governments are interested in maintaining the human rights of every group inside Syria. And some of these long standing rivalries that exist in the country have resulted in different violent acts throughout the country. And we've seen that these are the very issues that the United States, I think the EU and others are trying to deal with on the diplomatic level in order to bring about peace and security.

And again, redevelopment funds can be a way to get these sides to work cooperatively and not have the outbreaks of violence that we've seen. Any type of violence like that is regrettable and not something that the US government or the Europeans or others would like to see. And these are the type of things that have to be overcome, no matter against whom they're being committed.

They do not like to see the violence … but they [are] supporting them by giving them money for the reconstruction. When the Syrian army attacked the Druze and Alawites, the international community responded. But for Kurds, they remained silent. Why?

Well, I think the international community has been responding in attempts to jump in and mediate the conflict. There was a ceasefire reached. The parties have pulled apart and the fighting has largely stopped.

So I don't think that there's a specific international approach that excludes the Kurds. From this framework, I think the Kurds are one of the more important groups, in fact, in being included in this framework.

I know that it's in the interest of the United States to not see this violence continue. You know, the US has been working with the Kurds in Syria for many years and has friends in that community. The US, in particular, does not want to see the violence continue.

So I don't think that there's the type of silence that you say. There was an outcry, certainly in the United States, over this violence. And then the mediators jumped in.

My last question is Turkey foreign minister and the AKP spokesperson demanded that the SDF lay down their weapons. Is this demand acceptable by Damascus?

I don't know if it's acceptable by Damascus. I don't think it's acceptable by the United States, because the SDF plays an extremely important security role in eastern Syria, particularly in the counterterrorism fight, but also in securing the rights of the people that are under SDF control.

Turkey, as we know, has a long standing issue with the SDF and with the groups inside that part of Syria in particular. So naturally, that would be their position to lay down arms. But I don't think that that's acceptable to the United States.

I know it's not acceptable to the SDF, and the effort diplomatically has been not towards disarmament but towards integration and cooperation under a military framework. So I don't think the disarmament is anything that should be taken very seriously. Any kind of suggestion like that, and certainly the United States would not cooperate in any kind of disarmament procedure.