Washington Kurdish Institute
By: Yousif Ismael & Bill Rice March 26, 2019
After four and half years of battling the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announced the defeat of the self-proclaimed “Caliphate” on Saturday. The victory over ISIS announced by the SDF came after significant sacrifices by the people of Northern Syria, most of whom are Kurds. This region is governed by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), a Kurdish-led form of radical and localized democracy. The people of this region have not only fought off ISIS and other jihadist militias but liberated themselves from rule under the Assad regime as well. The reason ISIS, the Assad regime, and various jihadi militias have attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade and control this region is because of its strategic importance, including its rich natural resources (especially oil).
Constituting 28% of Syria’s territory, the AANES region borders Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan in the east and Turkey in the north. The region remains safe and stable, in good part thanks to the SDF and local security personnel. These forces, who are trained and equipped by the U.S.-led coalition, comprise some 60,000 fighters. The region marks an unprecedented and successful experiment in a form of direct democracy and radical democratic institutions where minority rights are not only protected and promoted but also where women and ethnic/religious minorities hold local positions of leadership. The same cannot be said about those areas under the Turkish occupation, such as Afrin, where insecurity, human rights violations, and oppression are rampant. Yet many in the AANES region feared they would face the same fate after U.S. President Donald Trump announced the planned withdrawal of American forces from Syria. The region breathed a sigh of temporary relief when President Trump reversed course and decided not to pursue immediate plans for a U.S. pullout. However, the threats against the AANES’s future still lingers, as U.S. leadership continues to consider its upcoming departure while the authoritarian, anti-Kurdish leadership of Turkey continues to insist on a planned occupation of Kurdish land in Syria.
The AANES doesn’t only face external threats; however, it also faces internal challenges to its stability and security. Most notably, the region is juggling how to deal with the numerous captured ISIS members and their families as well as the even larger number of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) who have fled into the area. During the last days of “the Caliphate,” in the town of Baghouz alone over 5,000 ISIS members surrendered to the SDF while 25,000 civilians, including the families of ISIS members, were taken in. Many of these surrendering ISIS members are foreign nationals who are not being accepted back by their countries of origin. Yet at the same time, the international community does not recognize the local court system of the AANES. Furthermore, the region lacks the prison space and support, as well as the financial resources, to house these mass amount of prisoners.This puts an extreme burden on the AANES in trying to figure out what to do with these individuals. The AANES must ask itself how to best hold them accountable under a just legal system while at the same time ensuring an acceptable level of security for the region’s population who still stand at risk of these substantially-numbered ISIS elements regrouping and seeking a new “Caliphate”. For, while the physical, territorial existence of ISIS has been eviscerated, its ideology lives on in the minds of many, leaving the area ripe for terrorist attacks from sleeper cells, sympathizers, and asymmetric warfare.
Simultaneously the AANES must deal with the large swaths of IDPs in its region. And, to date, the AANES has been successful in managing to set up camps with little help from international aid organizations. But this situation is not sustainable without outside assistance.
What is the future of the AANES?
While the region has managed itself well and been successful in the past, its future remains uncertain because of these aforementioned external and internal issues. The main questions are: when will the U.S. leave Syria and will it leave Syria? Under present circumstances, if the U.S. were to withdraw its forces, the AANES would either be forced to surrender to the Assad regime and face dissolution, or await a brutal invasion from the Erdogan regime in Turkey. However, the future need not be so dire if the West and international community begin to recognize and support, at least in part, the AANES and its institutions. Only with international support can the AANES and its gains in security, human rights, and democracy be protected and expanded. Ensuring such support and stabilization of the AANES must be the precursor to any U.S. exit from the region, and, in fact, is the only humane plan for a long-term withdrawal.
Why should the International Community Support the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria? And How?
One of the key benefits the international community would get from stronger support of the AANES is an investment in preventing the resurgence of ISIS or any similar terrorist groups in the region. In other words, supporting the AANES is an investment in regional and international security as well as the national security of countries like the United States. The United States and other international powers have already invested billions of dollars in military aid and training of the SDF in its fight against ISIS; it would make little sense to let that investment in regional, national, and global security go to waste. The U.S. and other international powers should do well to not only continue supporting the SDF militarily (with an expanded focus on combating terrorist sleeper cells and utilizing intelligence tactics) but also to support the AANES as a viable, legitimate governing institution in the region.
Another important investment that the international community, including rich regional players like the Gulf countries, should make is in the development and rebuilding of the region. This is arguably an even more important investment for the international community in ensuring regional, national, and global security; for, the more stable, prosperous, and democratic the region is, the less likely that groups like ISIS will gain power, footing, and freedom to operate. Such aid should include support for local civilian councils at the city and village level. It should also target IDP camps. The existence of stable, democratic institutions at the local level helps foster an environment more susceptible to economic growth and the creation of jobs for the local population. It’s well known that many Syrians ended up joining jihadist and extremist organizations as a last resort after experiencing not only economic insecurity and joblessness but also political instability, oppression, and discrimination under the Assad regime (which contributed to this economic insecurity in the first place).
Included in this support for local, democratic institutions and economic development should be an additional focus on continuing the AANES’s success on protecting and promoting both women’s rights and minority rights. A society cannot truly be free or even economically successful without its women being free and empowered. Thankfully, the ideology of the AANES is very supportive of women’s rights and empowerment. Therefore, any international projects and support should aim to further promote pro-women political reforms and structures as well as economic projects with an aim of assisting women in economic independence and empowerment. International assistance should take a similar approach to putting protection and promotion of ethnic and religious minority rights at the forefront of any political or economic projects. Too often communities like the Yazidis, Christians, Assyrians, Shabaks, Mandaeans, Kakai and others are left in the shadows of political empowerment and economic development, suffering from systemic discrimination that favors the religious and ethnic majority groups. Yet it is these communities who suffered the most under ISIS’s campaign of genocide, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, enslavement, and gross human rights violations. The international community and the regional administration owes it to these communities to build a new Syria where restitution is paid and justice served for the crimes committed against them but also where institutions and economic structures do not fairly disadvantage them but rather provide them avenues and support for freedom, economic success, and greater human flourishing.
And yet none of these aforementioned projects can truly be sustainable without some form of peace being reached by the remaining factions in Syria’s Civil War. Most importantly, the U.N. should begin facilitating a new peace process both between the AANES and the moderate Syrian opposition groups. Principles of political decentralization, democracy, and protection of human and minority rights should be included within these talks. Once the AANES and these moderate opposition groups reach a deal, they can then operate as a united party in peace talks with the Assad regime. Working out such organized, solidified structure between the AANES and moderate opposition groups will help prevent issues arising as they did in past peace talks with the Assad regime, which eventually led to their failure.
Such peace talks and consolidation of political factions may seem overly ambitious or unrealistic, but it is the only true option moving forward. Doing nothing and allowing the status quo to fester will only lead to more chaos, infighting, and instability. In order to give a best effort to avoid more mass death, destruction, and instability in Syria, a sincere focus on the peace process in Syria must be pursued by the international community.
The AANES stands in a similar position to the Kurdistan region of Iraq in 1991, with its growth holding great potential for U.S. national security and interests. Prominent Middle East expert David Pollack has also made this comparison between the AANES and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of Iraq. Like the SDF and its fight against ISIS in Syria, the Peshmerga (Kurdish forces) in Iraq contributed greatly to the U.S. fight against the dictatorial Saddam Hussein regime as well as its fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq. The implementation of a No-Fly-Zone over the KRG region in the early 1990s prevented incursions from the Hussein regime and allowed for the fostering a American-friendly, Westernized region. Currently, the KRG’s capital, Erbil, hosts about 50 consulates and numerous other international representatives. In fact, the largest U.S. consulate in the world is currently under construction in Erbil. None of this would have happened without sustained, committed U.S. support to the region.
The Immediate Need is to Protect the Peace
With a potential Turkish invasion still looming and the Assad regime waiting in the wings, it is of vital importance that the work of Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, U.S. Special Representative for Syria Engagement and Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, continues. Jeffrey is currently working with U.S. allies to form a potential buffer zone between the Kurdish region of Syria and Turkey, as a means to deter invasion. Neither party, the SDF nor Turkey, should manage this buffer zone. Despite the fact that the SDF has never initiated an attack against Turkey, the Erdogan regime still sees the mere existence of the SDF or the People’s Defense Units (YPG) in certain areas of Syria as justification for preemptive attack. A buffer zone managed by Turkey would also be ill-advised as evidenced by the disastrous administration of Turkish-occupied Afrin. Rather this buffer region could be managed by an international force, composed of the U.S., European countries, and/or the U.N., with rotating leadership as a means to decrease the burden on individual countries’ militaries.
In the meantime, the international community, notably the U.S. and European powers, should push Turkey towards engaging in a revitalization of the peace process with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The time is especially ripe for such renewal of talks being that after these upcoming March 31st elections, the next elections will not occur for another four years; therefore, Erdogan remains under less pressure to pander to ultra-nationalist, anti-Kurdish sentimentalities.
As to Assad, in the short term the only sure way of preventing the return of his total dictatorial and brutal control of the country is to support and empower alternative governing structures and bodies, such as the AANES. Therefore, immediate military, political, and economic support to the AANES will also serve as a preventative measure against Assad beginning to expand his dictatorial power across the country and engaging in further atrocities against the Syrian people. A strong, stable AANES will serve as a check against Assadist expansion (and also Iranian expansion) and can be further utilized as a means of reaching a sustainable peace among all of Syria’s various factions — but a peace within a framework of greater democracy, human and minority rights, and transparency than in Syria’s past.
Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and positions expressed by authors and contributors do not necessary reflect those of the WKI.