Enab Baladi – Mowaffak al-Khouja
The Kurdish-Kurdish dialogue conference, dubbed “Unity of Kurdish Position in Rojava Conference,” emerged with a political vision that outlined a new negotiation path, differing in some of its provisions from the overall agreement between the transitional Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), Mazloum Abdi, on March 10.
The conference was held on April 26, following rounds of discussions, delays, and exchanges of opinions between the two poles of politics in northeastern Syria, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the Kurdish National Council (KNC).
The final statement of the Kurdish Unity Conference included provisions that reminded of the rights of Kurds in Syria, while others delved into details regarding the core of the public policy and the form of governance in Syria and the constitution.
SDF as a sponsor: International presence
The SDF was not a primary political party at the Kurdish-Kurdish dialogue conference; rather, it acted as a sponsor. However, it supported the provisions and praised the outcomes, especially concerning the notion of a decentralized state that the political entities operating in northeastern Syria insist upon.
The final provisions of the conference revolved around four essential points:
A parliamentary governance system in Syria that adopts political plurality, peaceful power transition, and separation of powers. The constitution in Syria must guarantee the rights of all Syrian components. Affirmation of state neutrality towards religions and beliefs and the right to practice religious rituals. Recognition of the Yazidi faith as an official religion in the state.Other provisions also touched upon the national anthem and administrative divisions, with additional topics concerning Kurdish identity and the unification of political entities’ visions.
The conference witnessed international attendance from representatives of the United States, France, and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, alongside local Kurdish figures and members from other ethnicities.
Contradiction of the al-Sharaa-Abdi agreement
Anas Shawakh, a researcher at the Jusoor for Studies Center, believes that the political document emerging from the conference contradicts the text of the agreement between the SDF and the Syrian president, al-Sharaa, which was signed with Abdi on March 10.
Shawakh stated to Enab Baladi that it is difficult to compare the two agreements, as the al-Sharaa-Abdi agreement focused on security and military aspects, determining the fate of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) and its institutions, and mandated its integration with state institutions, in addition to a set of general clauses.
On the other hand, the political document is a different matter that establishes the foundations for the Kurdish project that was agreed upon by the two political poles in northeastern Syria, the Democratic Union Party and Kurdish National Council parties.
He pointed out that the document specifies the shape of the Syrian state and its governance system, requiring the presence of politically sovereign regions linked to the proposed region in northeastern Syria and related to federalism.
The president, al-Sharaa, signed a historically significant agreement with Abdi on March 10, which referred to a resolution of the outstanding issue following the fall of the previous regime.
The agreement contained eight provisions, the most important of which included integrating the military and civil institutions of the SDF with the state, ceasing hostilities, and proceeding to a negotiation path.
Other provisions discussed generalities concerning the rights of Kurds in the Syrian constitution, without delving into specifics, ensuring the return of all displaced persons and their protection from the state, and coordinating to combat the remnants of Assad regime and threats against the security and unity of Syria.
Damascus rejects the outcomes
Hours after the final statement of the conference, the Syrian Presidency issued a statement rejecting its outcomes.
The Syrian Presidency expressed its rejection of what it described as attempts to impose a divisive reality or establish separate entities under the names of federalism or Autonomous Administration without comprehensive national consensus.
It stated that the agreement reached on March 10 was a constructive step if implemented with a unified national spirit, away from individual or exclusionary projects.
Researcher Shawakh stated that the presidential response was “natural and expected,” noting that the reason for its response is the subject’s importance and that President al-Sharaa is the one who signed the agreement with Abdi.
He added that the statement communicated a firm rejection of the outcomes of this conference and indirectly described it as a “coup” against the prior agreement between the two parties.
Damascus prefers negotiation
Shawakh noted that all response options remain open for Damascus, including military ones, while also stating that the current Syrian leadership’s general strategy favors the peaceful negotiation option.
He indicated that this strategy is supported by international and regional entities.
Shawakh expects there to be attempts to hold new sessions or communications to reactivate the old agreement or clarify the SDF’s position regarding it to resume work on it.
He pointed out that the US and possibly French positions played a role in the March 10 agreement, believing that al-Sharaa is awaiting support for this agreement and pressure on the SDF to return to its provisions, away from the conference outcomes and its political document.
The agreement on March 10 between al-Sharaa and Abdi received positive reactions and international welcome, notably from Washington and other European capitals.
The military option remains available to the Syrian government unless preceded by pressure or intervention through wide or limited military action by Turkey on specific fronts to pressure the SDF to return to the March 10 agreement, according to Shawakh.
SDF sees it as an opportunity
The SDF views the conference as an opportunity to raise its negotiation ceiling with the government, as it is aware of the consensus and support from the international community for the provisions of the March 10 agreement, which set its ceiling, according to Shawakh.
The researcher believes that the SDF is maneuvering with the conference results to achieve higher gains and greater protection for its autonomous administration project and its associated entities.
He pointed out that the SDF’s options will be within the international ceiling, meaning it will not be able to engage in military confrontation with the government or Turkey without international cover.
Conversely, he believes it is unlikely that the SDF will be able to carry out or enter into military confrontation against the government or Damascus without international support.
The SDF controls northeastern Syria, which is one of the three main areas that have created tensions with the new authority in Damascus, alongside the Syrian coast and As-Suwayda in southern Syria.
The Damascus government awaits gains from the agreement with the SDF without fighting, especially in the economic aspect, as eastern Syrian areas hold some of Syria’s most significant oil and gas fields, in addition to the country’s essential wheat supply.
Kurdish-Kurdish dialogue: Provisions contradicting agreement with Damascus Enab Baladi.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Kurdish-Kurdish dialogue: Provisions contradicting agreement with Damascus )
Also on site :
- Watch Ryan Reynolds Dodge Questions About Travis Kelce's Instagram Unfollow
- Powerful blast rocks residential building in Moscow
- Start your week smart: Student loan debt, Trump AI image, Met Gala, papal election, Cinco de Mayo