Some cities become synonymous with a moment in time. Kobani, in northern Syria near the Turkish border, is one such place. The Kurdish-majority city became the focal point of the Syrian civil war in late 2014, when it was besieged by the terrorist group ISIS. Over six months, a coalition of Kurdish militias known as the YPG/YPJ – with help from other Syrian opposition groups, Iraqi Kurdish forces, the US military and others – staged a successful resistance campaign.
Hundreds of lives were lost, and much of Kobani was left in ruins. But the campaign to defend it was a turning point in the Syrian war because it set the stage for ISIS’s eventual military defeat. It was also a seminal moment for Syria’s Kurds, whose fighters gained a fearsome reputation as defenders of that community’s interests.
The upshot, however, was a revival of aspirations for Kurdish self-rule in Syria – an ambition that has persisted, implicitly or explicitly, even as the YPG/YPJ banded together with several Arab militias to form the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). When the fall of the Assad regime at the end of last year saw the rise of a transitional government in its place, many feared a new conflict would erupt between the new administration and the SDF. The country – and many of its neighbours – breathed a sigh of relief in March, when the SDF and government forces signed a deal to integrate the former into the latter.
But five months later, despite ongoing talks shepherded by the US, such integration remains on ice. This poses a significant threat to an already-fragile post-war Syrian peace.
As The National reported on Saturday, the Syrian military has plans to take two SDF-held provinces – Raqqa and Deir Ezzor – by force within the next two months if the militia does not make good on its promises to integrate and hand governing powers to Damascus.
The SDF’s reluctance is easily explained; it wants a secular, federalised Syria. The new government in Damascus has kept mum about the extent to which a future Syrian constitution will be secular, though it has been clear in its desire for a centralised system.
The latter position is also understandable. Syria’s new President, Ahmad Al Shara, is trying to reunite a country with kaleidoscopic ethnic and religious diversity fractured by years of civil war and decades of authoritarian rule. Unity is the right objective, and allowing one community or another to assert autonomy with force undermines that.
A war to recapture Kurdish areas, however, would be a dire tragedy, and would threaten to return Syria to death and destruction. The SDF’s obstinance in fulfilling the terms of its deal may be frustrating – even alarming – for Damascus, but it would have been truly remarkable if its integration into the army had happened as quickly as it at first had appeared. The talks to make it happen should be given more time, and the US – upon whose “green light” the campaign will be dependent, according to a Syrian security source – should work to prevent things from getting out of control.
The SDF’s reputation was earned not just for what the militia and its predecessors did for their own communities, but for the country as a whole. Indeed, the legacy of the SDF’s Arab and Kurdish fighters’ bravery is a Syria that remains united today – from Kobani in the north to Daraa in the south. Now, their leaders must show by example that maintaining that unity requires dialogue, compromise and an ability to adhere to the country's unitary rules.
