Is Syrian Federation a Prescription for Partitioning? Policy Studying Unit 28th June 2016 Harmoon Centre for Contemporary Studies Harmoon Centre for Contemporary Studies is an independent, nonprofit, research, cultural and media institution. Its main focus is to conduct studies and researches about the Arab region, especially Syria. It also works towards cultural and media development, enhancing the civil society performance, and spreading democratic awareness and values of dialogue, as well as respect for human rights. The Centre also provides consultation and training services in political and media .fields to all Syrians on the basis of Syrian national identity To achieve its objectives, the Centre conducts its activities through five specialized units, (1) Policy Studies Unit, (2) Social Researches Unit, (3) Books Review Unit, .(4) Translation and Arabization Unit, and (5) Legal Unit A set of action programs are also adopted, such as the program for Political Consultations and Initiatives; Program for Services, Media Campaigns, and Public Opinion Making Program; Program for Dialogue Support and Civil and Cultural Development Program; Syria Future Program. The Centre may add new programs depending on the actual needs of Syria and the region. In implementing its programs, the Centre deploys multiple mechanisms, including lectures, workshops, seminars, conferences, training courses, as well as paper and .electronic press Website: www.harmoon.org Email: [email protected] Tel: +974 44885996 Doha, Qatar Contents 1. Declaration of federation ................................................................................................................ 2 2. Reactions to the “Rimelan Declaration” ....................................................................................... 3 3. Possible Scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 5 4. The Question of Federalism ............................................................................................................ 7 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 10 1 The “federation” of Syria has been preoccupying Syrian discussions and debates during the past three months following the declaration of a federal system by Syrian Kurds and their allies in the Rojava area (west of Kurdistan). But what are the different reactions to the declaration? What are the possible scenarios? Does “federalism” respond to the current Syrian needs? And how would Syrians find the way out? 1. Declaration of federation Under the theme “A Federal Democratic Syria is a Guarantee for Peaceful Coexistence and Brotherhood of People,” the Federal Democratic System of Rojava and Northern Syria held its constituent assembly on March 16-17 in SDF-controlled Rimelan City with 200 representatives of 31 Kurdish, Assyrian and Syriac parties. The congress convened one year after the declaration of the “Kurdish self-rule” in northern Syria by PYD’s co-chairman, Salih Muslim, which incorporated three cantons, namely Aljazeera and Kobani, east of the Euphrates, and Afrin, west of the Euphrates. Interestingly, the meeting was held right after the statement on 29 February by Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Ryabkov, who said that Moscow “hopes that the participants in the Syrian negotiations reach the idea of establishing a federal republic.” “If as a result of talks, consultations and discussions on Syria's future state order ... they come to an opinion that namely this (federal) model will work to serve the task of preserving Syria as a united, secular, independent and sovereign nation, then who will object to this?” he added. Reactions to the Russian proposal, at the time, suggest that it could be possible or serious, and it could be a trial balloon intended to gauge the Syrian response. Yuri Venin, senior researcher at the International Relations Institute in Moscow, said the Ryabkov 2 proposal is only “one of the ideas at the table,” and that “even if the idea is only a press release, it is a realistic reading of the political and demographic reality which emerged after years of conflict in Syria.” Mr. Venin indicated that such proposal “may open the door for further proposals to be discussed in the expected talks in Geneva.” Analysis linked between the Ryabkov statement and the recent US statement of Plan B, in which Syrians were warned of a possible partitioning of their country if the conflict protracts. CNN quoted Admiral James Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, as saying that Plan B, which Secretary of State John Kerry spoke of, might include a land “campaign without Russia.” The admiral’s statement coincided with a flaring, local and international, debate that Syria might be divided into four regions: the Syrian Kurdistan Region, with Hasakeh as its capital; the Coastal Region, to which Homs in to be annexed; the Jabal al-Arab Region; and one last region to cover the rest of the country and be under a Sunni control, with Damascus as its capital. 2. Reactions to the “Rimelan Declaration” Following the declaration, the Syrian regime’s Foreign Office rushed to warn “any party against attempting to undermine the territorial integrity of Syria and the unity of its people under whatever names.” That, it added, “includes those who gathered in al-Rmeilan city in Hasaka province.” “Raising the issue of a federation or that of federalization would affect the territorial integrity of Syria…,” the source said. “Any declaration to that effect would be without any legal value and void of any legal, political, social or economic effect as long as it does not reflect the will of the entire Syrian people.” 3 Similarly, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces rejected the Kurdish move. An official statement published March 17 on the coalition’s website stated that “The Syrian Coalition warns of any attempts to establish entities, regions or administrations against the will of the Syrian people.” “The shape of the Syrian state, whether central or federal, cannot be determined unilaterally by a single faction, one segment of the people, a party or a movement,” it insisted. Four days before the Kurdish declaration, head of the Kurdish National Council in Syria (KNC), Ibrahim Biro, told the Rudaw Media Network that “UN Special Envoy to Syrian, Staffan de Mistoura, and US and European foreign ministers stressed that a federal system is necessary in Syria.” Biro added that KNC “believes that federalism doesn’t mean partitioning the country. However, if federalism fails, the country will be partitioned and Syrians will moan the lost chance.” “KNC is an important component of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces,” he concluded. Similarly, Iraqi Kurdistan Region presidency invited the Syrian Kurds to support a federal system in Syria as well as a self-ruled “Syrian Kurdistan.” Friday after the “Kurdish self-rule” declaration witnessed demonstrations in opposition-controlled cities, which coincided with the fifth anniversary of the Syrian Revolution. Protesters expressed their total rejection of federalism and partitioning of the country. On the international level, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: “We don't support self-ruled, self-autonomous zones inside Syria.” “Whole, unified, nonsectarian Syria -- that's the goal,” he added. Meanwhile, State Department official Mark Toner stated that “Washington will not recognize a ‘self-rule’ semi-autonomous Kurdish zone in Syria.” “This 4 is something that needs to be discussed and agreed upon by the relevant parties in Geneva and then by the Syrian people themselves,” he added. On the regional level, a senior Turkish official said his country “refuses any new cantons in Syria because no ethnic-based unilateral steps can be taken.” In remarks during his visit to Tehran on March 19, former Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkey and Iran support the territorial integrity of Syria. Shortly before this, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said his country is only “defending the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria.” He spoke of differences with Russia over the idea of federalism, especially after the latter expressed support for this option and approved the opening of a Rojava’s representation office in Moscow. 3. Possible Scenarios Far from diplomatic and press releases, which are partly misleading, joint US-Russian practices indicate that there could be ongoing efforts not to reconsider the concept of state determined by the Sykes–Picot Agreement but rather to redraft the concept itself with a view to weakening it under a different name, be it ‘federalism’ or ‘sectarian quotas’, and consequently emptying the concepts of central authority and national sovereignty of their contents. It is no longer a secret that America and Russia are considering different scenarios to solve the Syrian crisis through federalism. Russians consider it a tool for Assad’s regime to maintain control over areas populated by Alawite majority, which include the strategic Russian naval facility in Tartus and the Hmeimim Airbase, which the Russians built upon 5 their intervention in Syria on 30 September 2015. The Americans, however, consider federalism a possible realistic settlement of a fragmented country controlled by many contrastive-ideological armed groups. Such settlement, however,