Enab Baladi – Khaled al-Jeratli

The conflicting statements issued by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and its two political umbrellas, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) and the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), raised questions about the remaining details of the negotiations with Damascus, especially with SDF’s recent acceptance of Ahmed al-Sharaa to lead Syria during the transitional phase after a rejection that lasted more than a month.

On the 18th of this month, the commander of the Northern Democratic Brigade, affiliated with the SDF, Abu Omar al-Idlibi, announced that a meeting was held between the SDF, the SDC, and AANES, resulting in a decision to integrate the security institutions affiliated with the SDF and AANES into the structure of the Syrian army.

Al-Idlibi stated via his account on X that the meeting held on the 17th of February this month among the three parties concluded with several decisions to resolve the ongoing dispute with Damascus.

Implication contradicting official statements

Al-Idlibi’s remarks implied that an agreement to integrate with Damascus had been reached, while consecutive statements from the SDF, SDC, and AANES regarding the same meeting did not mention reaching an agreement in this regard.

AANES stated that the trilateral meeting emphasized the SDF and its two political umbrellas’ commitment to ensuring a successful dialogue with Damascus.

The meeting included a series of local discussions “for representatives and elites from various societal sectors in all regions of northeastern Syria,” according to AANES.

The attendees expressed their commitment to a successful dialogue and the necessity of finding a solution to the issues at hand through reaching an appropriate implementation mechanism, such as integrating military and administrative institutions and returning forcibly displaced individuals to their original areas.

The statement from AANES did not include any approval of what Abu Omar al-Idlibi mentioned separately.

For its part, the SDF titled its statement about the same meeting, according to a statement published by its media center, as “A trilateral meeting between our forces, SDC, and the Autonomous Administration… affirming the importance of the new administration in Damascus taking responsibility for ceasefire and the significance of dialogue with it.”

The SDF also did not refer to any approval of the steps mentioned in al-Idlibi’s post, stating, “The meeting expressed its commitment to successfully carry out this dialogue and the necessity of finding a solution to the details and issues currently under discussion, through agreement to arrive at an appropriate implementation mechanism, such as military and administrative integration issues and the return of forcibly displaced individuals to their original places from which they were displaced (…) and resolving all other contentious issues through dialogue.”

The SDF set the condition for achieving a ceasefire as a necessity to progress in the dialogue, calling on the new administration in Damascus to “assume its responsibilities in this regard.”

The SDC’s statement did not differ from its predecessors, as it highlighted the necessity of achieving a ceasefire and beginning internal discussions aimed at reaching an understanding with Damascus.

Behind the discrepancies

The new Syrian administration is trying to regain areas under the control of the SDF, which constitutes about a quarter of Syria’s territory and is the richest in resources, since the overthrow of the ousted Assad regime.

Complex negotiations are underway between Damascus and northeastern Syria to reach a formula that would end SDF’s exclusive control over the region and convince it to join the Syrian Ministry of Defense.

Osama Sheikh Ali, a researcher specializing in non-state actors at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies, believes that there are factions within the SDF that insist on not making concessions.

He added to Enab Baladi that the decision to join the SDF under the umbrella of the Syrian government in Damascus does not face a fundamental problem for both parties, but the difference lies in the form of integration.

In mid-January, Reuters reported that an unnamed senior official from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) stated that the PKK would agree to leave northeastern Syria if the SDF, allied with the United States, retained a leading role.

The official, who holds a position in the political office of the SDF, stated that “any initiative leading to the rule of northeastern Syria under the control of the (Syrian Democratic Forces), or having a significant role in the shared leadership, will lead us to agree to leave the region.”

He pointed out that if the PKK were to leave Syria, it would continue to monitor from a distance and would operate against Turkish forces or would act as needed.

The statement conveyed by Reuters is not far from what SDF commander Mazloum Abdi recently expressed in an interview with Asharq channel, saying he is open to linking the SDF to the Syrian Ministry of Defense, provided that it maintains a military bloc within that formation, not as individuals.

For his part, Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa conditionally tied the transitional phase to establishing fundamental rules to solve the existing issue in northeastern Syria, which are:

• There will be no division in Syria in any form, even if it resembles federalism.
• The departure of foreign fighters causing problems for neighboring countries.
• The right to bear arms should be restricted to the state only.

Disagreement on the form of integration

Researcher Osama Sheikh Ali sees that the disagreement focuses on the form of integration proposed for months between the SDF and Damascus. He pointed out that the recent discrepancies regarding integration center on the form of this integration, as the SDF publicly insists on having a distinct status within the new Syrian army, joining as a bloc rather than as individuals as Damascus desires.

On the other hand, the Syrian Ministry of Defense calls for integration in the form of individuals, and this contradiction is where the essence lies. However, the researcher anticipated that the parties would reach a mutually agreeable solution that may end with part of the SDF integrating into the Syrian army as a group rather than the SDF as a whole.

He speculated that military teams would be formed based on a specific number from the SDF, negotiating with Damascus to incorporate these teams as a bloc, while also discussing their deployment locations and command structure, aiming for a mutually agreeable solution.

Previously, Syrian Defense Minister Murhaf Abu Qasra refused to comment on the details of the negotiations with the SDF during an interview with The Washington Post, but he expressed his belief that the issue would be resolved diplomatically, according to his remarks. However, the government rejected the SDF’s offer to integrate as a unified bloc into the Ministry of Defense.

Abu Qasra stated that the main objective of the transitional phase in Syria is to ensure the region is subject to the authority of Damascus and that the government controls the prisons in the area. He added, “The military solution will lead to bloodshed on both sides. In our estimation, the solution will be peaceful. We do not lean towards the military solution.”

In the weeks following al-Assad’s downfall, US officials indicated they expected a certain level of integration between the SDF and the new government, including security and military forces, but the SDF is unlikely to end up with semi-autonomous regions, and Damascus excluded any form of self-rule for the area, according to what Defense Minister Abu Qasra conveyed during the interview published by The Washington Post.

Abu Qasra told the newspaper that about 100 armed factions in Syria had agreed to join the Ministry of Defense, adding that there are some factions opposed to this, including Ahmed al-Awda, a leader of an opposition faction in the south who resisted attempts to place his unit under state control.

He also noted that groups that join the leadership of the Ministry of Defense will not be allowed to remain in their current units, and all will ultimately be dissolved.