Is Syria heading towards a federation?

The news broke like a bombshell in media circles. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the umbrella organization for the PKK/PYD (which is known as the PKK in Syria and has been a primary concern for Türkiye in recent years), reached an agreement with Ahmad al-Sharaa, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the current Syrian President (formerly known as al-Jolani). Starting from the evening of Monday, March 10th, when the news hit agencies, the media erupted with a range of reactions, from claims of the PKK/PYD’s self-dissolution to assertions of Syria’s territorial integrity being secured. Some commentators even suggested this was a rejection of federation, a new setback for Israel, and a significant success for Türkiye. The atmosphere recalled the period following Assad’s departure on December 8, 2024, when there was talk of conquering the neighbouring country, even going so far as to assign license plate numbers to Syrian and other Middle Eastern cities.

What does the agreement entail?

However, the eight-article agreement text does not present a particularly optimistic outlook. In fact, a careful examination reveals that Syria has been (or is being) reshaped into an undeclared federation. The very act of the SDF signing an agreement with the Syrian government implies the construction of a federal structure. On one side stands a state, Syria, and on the other, a structure that perceives itself as a state (or on the path to statehood) and is considered a terrorist organization by Türkiye. In other words, the SDF, with the PYD/PKK at its core, is the entity that has entered into an agreement with the Syrian state. Typically, states engage in agreements with other states or international organizations. The fact that the SDF and the Syrian state have signed an agreement/reconciliation text warrants careful consideration.

The first article of the agreement, stating that “the right to merit-based representation and political participation in Syria, regardless of religious or ethnic origin, is guaranteed,” may initially appear positive. However, when considered alongside the subsequent article, which states that “the Kurdish community is recognized as an integral part of Syria and its constitutional rights are guaranteed,” it becomes evident that this contains serious issues. A federal structure is present, even if unnamed (pending the final Syrian constitution).

If a Kurdish community exists within Syria, and its existence is constitutionally recognized with its rights (the specifics of which will be defined in the constitution) guaranteed, other ethnic and sectarian groups will inevitably make similar demands. For instance, the Alawites, predominantly residing in Syria’s coastal region and recently subjected to horrific massacres by HTS, are likely to present similar demands. The same applies to the Druze community living in territories that Israel occupied and gained control over immediately after Assad left the country on December 8, 2024. In fact, Druze community leaders have repeatedly declared that they cannot live under a radical Islamic regime centered on HTS and would prefer to join Israel if forced to do so. Considering that the southern part of the Druze region, the Golan Heights, was occupied and annexed by Israel in the 1967 war (despite being Syrian territory under international law), the seriousness of their threats becomes clearer. It should be emphasized that Syria is being steered towards a federation that could lead to partition. In such ethnic, religious, and sectarian federations, quotas allocated to these groups, rather than merit, will likely be more influential in matters such as personnel recruitment.

The reference to the Kurdish community as an integral part of the Syrian state, with all its constitutional rights, including citizenship, guaranteed, signifies a significant step towards federation. The existence of a “Kurdish people” and the mention of their constitutional rights imply that the constitution should be drafted on the basis of “peoples.” One of the main articles of the Syrian constitution will likely begin with a sentence such as, “The Syrian state is the common state of Arabs, Kurds, Druze, Alawites…” or “Syria is the common country of Arabs, Kurds, Druze, Alawites…”

In this scenario, it can be assumed that Syria will consist of at least four or five autonomous or federated structures. These structures will likely have their own parliaments, internal administrations (including public order forces like police and gendarmerie), judicial systems, and “self-defense forces,” as the PKK prefers to call them. In essence, we can anticipate four or five autonomous/federated units resembling the fragmented and largely independent Kurdish Federal Government of Northern Iraq. It should also be underscored that it is improbable for such a state, formed with a very weak central government in line with Israel’s interests, to possess a substantial army. It would be overly optimistic to believe that in such a federation, named or unnamed, everyone would coexist harmoniously, with different peoples treating each other with utmost respect and avoiding conflicts over power-sharing. The likelihood of such ethnic, religious, and sectarian federal structures, which are inherently fragile, surviving peacefully in a region like the Middle East, where Israel and the US are constantly involved, is extremely low. The possibility of these structures being drawn into disintegration through civil war or territorial conflicts, triggered by external manipulation of internal disputes, should not be underestimated.

The fifth article of the agreement, stating that “the Syrian state shall ensure the return of all displaced refugees to their former places (villages and towns) and guarantee their security,” might initially seem to address the return of refugees who have fled Syria. However, this may not be the case. If this article concerned refugees outside Syria, its inclusion in this agreement would be unnecessary, as such matters fall entirely under the jurisdiction of the Syrian central government. If it referred to refugees from PKK/PYD-controlled areas who were forced to flee their homes due to ethnic cleansing, many of whom are outside the country, this sentence would need to be worded differently. It appears that the “refugees” in question are PKK/PYD groups who have been forced to flee from Turkish-controlled territory, and their return to this territory is being guaranteed by the Syrian state. This could be a precursor to forcing Türkiye out of the territory under its control in the coming years.

Since 2011, Türkiye’s Syria policy has not consistently prioritized national interests. On one hand, Türkiye rightly used force to prevent the PKK/PYD from attaining the status of a puppet autonomous state. On the other hand, Türkiye did everything possible to weaken and ultimately overthrow the Assad regime. Ultimately, the Assad regime was overthrown, and the PKK/PYD has come very close to achieving significant autonomy. The prospects of Syria’s fragmentation and eventual disintegration are not distant.

During the Assad (Baath) regime, as the PKK/PYD faced pressure from Türkiye, they repeatedly approached the Damascus government, stating, ‘Give us autonomy, let us join you and fight together against Türkiye.’ [Assad’s government] said, “You are traitors who cooperate with America. Syria is a nation-state and has a unitary structure. We will not give you or anybody else anything that will disrupt this constitutional structure, we can only enact some regulations for local administrations in the 2012 constitution, and that will apply to all of Syria, not just you.”‘. Ultimately, there is now a Syria that some claim Türkiye conquered, a government described as “our boys,” and the PKK/PYD has signed a treaty with it that includes extensive autonomy. This raises the question: Was this Türkiye’s ultimate objective?