MSDBy: Sihanok Dibo
Representative of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria to the Gulf Countries
More than a decade has passed since the beginning of the Syrian crisis. During this time, dozens of regional and international initiatives have been launched. Yet Syria remains at a standstill. Its territorial, political, and social crises are only deepening. A comprehensive and sustainable solution is nowhere in sight.
This state of paralysis is not accidental. Nor is it simply the result of poor judgment. It stems from entrenched intellectual frameworks, inherited ways of thinking, and historical dependencies. These continue to shape the mindset of Syria’s political elite. The failure to reach solutions can therefore be traced back to a wide set of structural, ideological, and cognitive factors as follows:
1- Intellectual Dependency and the Illusion of a Nationalist Solution
Ibn Khaldun’s insight is especially relevant here. He argued that human development stalls when societies cling to the very causes of their backwardness, mistaking them for sources of salvation. In Syria, this dynamic is clear. The role of the “organic intellectual” is absent. Instead of critically examining the crisis and offering new pathways, many intellectuals have taken on a justificatory role. They reinforce stagnant ideas rather than challenge them.
As a result, nationalism has shrunk into a narrow, defensive posture. This undermines trust within society. Repetition and predictability dominate Syrian attempts at self-driven solutions. These patterns are most visible during moments of acute crisis and limited prospects for relief, as we see today.
At its core, Syria faces a profound national fragmentation. The roots of this divide lie in decades of centralized authoritarian rule that suppressed pluralism and accountability. Today, that responsibility is embodied in a transitional authority. Yet this authority remains unable—even unwilling—to acknowledge its own transitional nature.
Also: Syria Confronts Extremism: Pursuing Justice and True Transformation
Because these initiatives are repeated without any fundamental change, one example is worth noting: “The Syrian Centennial Initiative – Together to Save Our Homeland and People on the Anniversary of the Great Syrian Revolt.” In this initiative, the same hesitation and psychological barriers resurface. The initiators stop short of granting the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) or the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) a fair place within the national framework. Imagine that these forces—globally recognized for their central role in combating terrorism and for their sacrifices in the struggle for Syrian freedom—are still met with disregard and underestimation by those who claim to be partners in the solution.
2 – The Psychological-National Factor
The modern nation-state in Syria emerged abruptly, without genuine national development. This distorted the foundations of the social contract and undermined its mechanisms. Syria today reflects this legacy. It is a country of nearly forty ethnic, national, religious, and sectarian groups, yet a centralized authoritarian regime deliberately marginalized them. It divided their ranks, weakened their presence, and sought to erase their identities.
Within this structure, the Syrian citizen has been reduced to an individual stripped of rights, compelled to bow down in the name of a hollow nationalism. This structural fragmentation has further divided Syria into “urban and rural,” and into “Strategic Areas” such as those west of the Euphrates River and “Marginal Areas” in the east.
The result is a fragmented society, distorted by imposed labels. It is divided into so-called “separatists” and “unionists,” classifications manufactured in non-Syrian political circles. Such labels include the “Alawite separatist,” the “Druze separatist,” and the “Kurd whose separatism supposedly requires no proof.” Meanwhile, tribal groups are often portrayed as entities that transcend the nation-state and operate along borderlines.
The rise of ISIS erased the Sykes–Picot Agreement and reshuffled the political map. New military alliances emerged that nearly dismantled those borders altogether. Yet, despite these shifts, the national psyche remains fractured. Syrians find themselves cast as a “delusional majority” and a “subjugated minority,” while the centralized nation-state model continues to prove its failure.
A viable multiethnic state can only succeed through a renewed political will—one that moves beyond the failed nationalist paradigm. Without such a shift, Syria will remain a battleground for sub-national conflicts and a theater for regional and international power struggles.
The current transitional authority lacks the capacity to forge genuine alliances with its adversaries. This weakness is evident in the stalled dialogue between the transitional administration and the AANES. Each is driven by a fundamentally different project: one clings to the notion of the “uniform nation,” while the other advances the vision of the “democratic nation.”
Nevertheless, the possibility of finding common national ground still exists. What is crucial is for all sides—especially the two administrations—to recognize that reshaping Syria’s future requires a genuine platform for dialogue. Such a platform must be built upon four essential pillars:
• A new Syrian National Conference.
• A new constitutional declaration that reflects the country’s diversity.
• A new transitional government committed to the essence of UN Resolution 2254.
• A military council capable of addressing the roots of armed formations and laying the foundation for a unified national army.
3- The Regional and International Dimensions of the Syrian Crisis
It takes little effort to recognize two interlinked realities: the Syrian crisis has become overwhelmingly regional and international, while the Syrian domestic dimension has been almost completely marginalized. This absence has deepened national divisions, fueled hate speech, and invited external interference into nearly every internal matter, further complicating the overall scene.
In this phase, hate speech has expanded to the point where “the Syrian whole” has lost trust in “the Syrian parts,” and the parts, in turn, have lost trust in the whole. This painful reality must be addressed openly if there is to be any hope of building a modern Syria.
Yet, hostility has reached excessive levels, particularly against the Kurds and the SDF. Unfortunately, this discourse is largely managed from state-linked circles, and it is routinely used by the transitional administration whenever it finds itself in crisis. This is evident today, following the recent agreement between Damascus and Israel, mediated by Israeli officials. The deal resulted in a gradual withdrawal from Sweida and Daraa and their transformation into a “southern demilitarized zone” devoid of Syrian state authority.
By contrast, no Syrian actor has been able to manage regional and international relations as openly and effectively as the AANES, the SDF, and the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC). This is especially evident in their engagement with the United States.
Unlike the areas controlled by factions aligned with Turkey or the opposition in Idlib, the Autonomous Administration has maintained state institutions and preserved the national currency. It has also resisted imposing a new administrative model on occupied areas such as Afrin, Ras al-Ain (Sere Kaniyeh), and Tel Abyad (Gire Spi), which have been effectively annexed into the Turkish administrative framework.
The AANES has conducted its external relations in ways that ultimately serve Syrian sovereignty, while at the same time weakening the grip of the Ba’athist centralist state.
Equally important are the significant efforts made by the AANES and the SDF to strengthen ties with Arab countries, drawing on the long-standing Arab-Kurdish harmony. These efforts seek to demonstrate that autonomy is not a path to separation, but rather the guarantor of Syria’s genuine unity.
Despite concerns, the AANES has not hesitated to affirm that it is part of the Syrian state. It has consistently emphasized that it is not a project of division, but rather a project of unity built on democratic foundations.
Also: Centralized Power: Monopoly Disguised as Unity
It is also important to note that the AANES—as an organized local society—seeks its rightful place, particularly after the pivotal role played by the SDF. It considers itself an essential component of the broader peace process in the Middle East, including the Abraham Accords with Israel. That reality, sooner or later, will shape the region, where Iranian, Turkish, Arab, Kurdish, Jewish, and Assyrian-Syriac communities alike can aspire to lasting peace. Such peace would address unresolved issues, most notably the Kurdish and Palestinian questions.
Conclusion:
These approaches do not follow an easy path, nor do they enjoy constant consensus, nor are the challenges they face uniform. Yet, in order to prevent the Syrian solution from stalling—or emerging incomplete as it did a century ago—we must confront the reasons for failure, even though the entry points to a solution are already well known.
A practical and comprehensive agreement between the transitional administration and the AANES would represent a genuine shift toward the solid ground on which a new Syria can be built.
At that point, initiatives will become effective, and Syrians themselves will be convinced that the SDF is part of the solution, not a threat. On the contrary, it is a source of security, stability, and reassurance for all Syrians.
The very conditions that necessitated the formation of these forces remain in place, even if names and structures evolve over time.
Whatever the case, solutions are coming. As Heraclitus once taught, everything moves and changes. Sustainable solutions are those that are not imposed by force, but rather emerge organically, gaining acceptance at the local, regional, and international levels.
It is crucial not to miss the national opportunity created for us today—especially as we mark 102 years since the Lausanne Agreement of 1923. That agreement was signed by all major powers, yet the will of the region’s peoples was excluded.
The pressing question now is: will we learn the lesson this time? And will Syrian national solutions avoid once again falling into deadlock?
