By Hakan Okçal
Events in Syria have taken an unprecedented turn. Until the last few weeks, Turkey and the U.S., as well as a coalition of Western and Arab states, were advocating a centralised and unitary state under Ahmed Al Sharaa’s leadership. Now this basic tenet of international support seems to be in question after U.S. special representative for Syria Thomas Barrack backtracked from the idea.
Mr. Barrack suggested that Syria may need to consider alternatives to a strongly centralised state. What Syria needs is something short of federalism, he said, an arrangement that allows everyone to preserve their culture and language, “without any threat from political Islam”.
I cannot agree more with Mr. Barrack. Since the very inception of the Salafist HTS rule in Damascus, I have persistently advocated a decentralised rule in Syria, taking into account the concerns of various ethnic, religious, and political groups. Not only them, but the secular majority of Sunnis are also deeply concerned about a Salafist rule. Under HTS, Syria became a more dangerous and unruly country with Islamist terror groups attached to the so-called central forces wreaking havoc everywhere.
Mr. Barrack talking about decentralised administration in Syria is recognition of the realities on the ground.
FACING REALITIES
Actually, Mr. Barrack’s recognition should have come much earlier. Had he and his authorities reacted to the Alawi atrocities committed in March by the so-called jihadi groups acting on behalf of Damascus, the bloodbath could have been stopped much earlier.
Now there are reports that the Alawi community, like the Kurds and the Druze, is demanding autonomy and arming for their self-defence.
A few months later, in July, the Druze in the south came under attack by the same jihadi groups. However, they were better equipped than the Alawi community and more able to defend themselves. In addition, Israel came to the rescue and prevented a massacre although around 1,000 lives were still lost.
Now Damascus has pulled its forces out of Suwayda and other Druze settlements, pending a final settlement between the two parties. However, the Druze are now demanding outright independence rather than autonomy. It will be very hard to reconcile the sides.
KURDS: TESTED ALLY FOR THE U.S.
Kurds under SDF leadership, who have controlled the northeastern part of the country for more than ten years, are also demanding autonomy. Although they agreed to integrate with Damascus in March under certain conditions, the details of the framework agreement still need to be ironed out. Until then, one should not expect the SDF to lay down its arms, especially when it is threatened by the so-called “Free Syrian Army” that is financed and motivated by Turkey.
The backbone of the SDF, the Kurdish PYD and its armed branch YPG, are seen as offshoots of the PKK and recognised as terrorist organisations by Turkey. The U.S. disagrees. This has been a contentious issue between the U.S. and Turkey for a long time. According to the U.S., these organisations cannot be seen as extensions of the PKK and are tested allies in its fight against the Islamic State. Barrack made this fact crystal clear to the dismay of the Turkish authorities a few days ago.
Barrack’s words about the PYD/YPG caused quite an uproar in the Turkish media. Many nationalist commentators went as far as seeing signs of America’s purported hidden agenda to create an independent Kurdish state in the eastern parts of Turkey and northern Syria through the PYD/YPG after the disbandment of the PKK.
A DECISION HARD TO TAKE
The PYD/YPG’s disbandment in Syria will soon be a major issue in the deliberations of the “Kurdish Process” in Ankara. The AKP and MHP are adamant that the PYD/YPG disbands itself before the “process” can move ahead.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Foreign Minister Fidan and MHP Chair Devlet Bahçeli have threatened the PYD/YPG with military action if it does not abide by the March agreement with Damascus. However, the PYD/YPG leaders consistently reject any demand to disband and refuse to be part of a deal with Ankara.
The Kurds of Syria have made their case very clear in recent months: they will not settle for anything short of autonomy if one wants to keep Syria as a unified country. If this goal is not attainable, they may go for independence, according to one of their leaders, Salih Muslim.
Ahmad al-Sharaa’s options seem to be dwindling. Even though he will hold elections on Sept. 15, he can no longer keep the country under his control. Support for him, both from radical groups internally and from the international community, seems to be receding. He may be compelled to give in to the centrifugal demands of various groups within Syria.
That would be a welcome development for Israel and its Druze allies as well as the Alawite and the Kurdish communities. But not for the Turkish government. In that case, the crucial question is whether Turkey would interfere because of its concerns about yet another Kurdish entity on its southern borders. American support to the PYD/YPG makes this unlikely for now. But taking into account Erdoğan’s influence on Trump one should not be too sure.
A military move on the Syrian Kurds would have two severe repercussions: One on the so-called “Kurdish process” in Ankara, the second one, on already strained Turkish-Israeli relations. In such an eventuality, the “Kurdish Process” will definitely fail and Turkey will enter another “winter of despair”. Given the incessant operations against the CHP, there are already enough reasons for very dark days ahead in Turkey. The failure of the “Kurdish Process” would further deepen the crisis.
Turkish military interference in Syria would also pit Turkey and Israel against each other even further. A worst-case scenario cannot be dismissed, although both countries have avoided facing each other militarily until now. The only way to avoid a full-fledged crisis between the two over Syria is for reason to prevail in both capitals.
