External intervention slowed down Damascus-SDF talks, US acts as ‘guarantor’: Rojava official

QAMISHLI, Syria - Foreign intervention has hindered progress in talks between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Damascus over military integration, a senior official from the Kurdish-led administration in northeast Syria (Rojava) told Rudaw, while stressing that the American role in the negotiations is that of a “guarantor.”

Elham Ahmad, a leading figure from the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES), said that “[foreign] intervention unfolded, and the [negotiations] process came to a halt.”

SDF Commander Mazloum Abdi and Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa on March 10 signed a landmark agreement to integrate all civil and military institutions in Rojava, including the Kurdish-led forces, under state control. The accord also established a nationwide ceasefire.

In the following months, the two sides have been engaging in talks to agree on a framework for the integration. A key sticking point had been the format under which the SDF would be incorporated. While the Kurdish-led forces were pushing to be integrated as a unified bloc, Damascus initially insisted on absorbing fighters individually, though it later adopted a more flexible stance.

However, a senior Syrian foreign ministry official told Rudaw on Tuesday that Damascus has once again changed its approach, with the current integration proposal now focusing on absorbing Kurdish fighters as individuals.

Qutaiba Idlbi, Director of American Affairs at the ministry, said that in the ongoing negotiations with the SDF, “We returned to the previous proposal, which focuses on individual integration [of the SDF],” arguing that “this creates a better situation for cohesion within the military institution and builds brotherhood in arms among different Syrian components.”

Notably, this shift came shortly after the Syrian Arab Army and allied armed groups launched a large-scale offensive in mid-January to retake areas in eastern Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, and the Kurdish-administered province of Hasaka in Rojava.

The SDF, the de facto military force in Rojava and a key ally of the US-led Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State (ISIS), had played a crucial role in ISIS’s territorial defeat in 2019. Since then, the Kurdish-led forces had maintained control over the areas they liberated, much of which have since mid-January been retaken by Damascus and its allied armed groups.

Importantly, Ahmad, who serves as co-chair of foreign relations for the DAANES, told Rudaw that US Special Envoy for Syria Tom Barrack had recently requested a meeting with SDF representatives following his talks with the Damascus leadership.

“He requested to see us,” she said, noting that the request came in the context of his latest discussions in Damascus. “He wanted to meet us to understand where we stand, where Damascus stands, and to identify common points that could be implemented,” she added.

The senior US diplomat met Sharaa in Damascus last week, after which officials announced the January 18 Agreement. The deal calls for halting clashes, integrating SDF personnel “individually” into Syria’s interim defense ministry, and absorbing SDF-run civil institutions and employees into national ministries.

The top US diplomat met with Sharaa in Damascus last week, after which officials announced the January 18 agreement. The deal calls for establishing a ceasefire following the mid-January campaign by Syrian and allied forces. It also outlines the integration of the SDF under Syria’s defense and interior ministries and the incorporation of SDF-run civil institutions and their employees into national ministries.

Asked whether Barrack’s meeting involved pressure or demands on behalf of Damascus, the senior DAANES official rejected that characterization.

“They [the Americans] don’t interfere by telling us what to think or what to do. They act as mediators. They ask, what do we think? How should the agreement be implemented? and then take these views to Damascus for discussion,” Ahmad said, emphasizing that the US presence was crucial as a guarantor.

“We consider the American presence as a guarantor - or as a mediator - we see it as important. Their presence is vital, at least for monitoring the implementation until things are fully in place,” Ahmad added.

According to Ahmad, discussions have focused on maintaining the ceasefire, the future functioning of state institutions, and mechanisms for military integration - particularly in the Jazira region, which includes areas east of the Euphrates, covering the Kurdish Hasaka province and the Kurdish city of Kobane.

The leading Rojava official reiterated the Kurdish-led administration’s long-standing demand that local governance remain in the hands of the region’s residents. “It should be within a framework where the local people manage themselves. This doesn’t necessarily mean only Kurds; there are Syriacs and Arabs in the region,” she said.

The following is the full transcript of the interview with Elham Ahmad, co-chair of foreign relations for the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES).

Did you agree to the demands of Damascus that reached you through the US envoy, Tom Barrack?

Elham Ahmad: Well, regarding the issue of the agreement or understanding reached on the 18th of this month [between the SDF and Damascus] - within the framework of that agreement - some perspectives were presented on how to come together and what the language of the deal would be. There was a discussion on this, and it was important. We consider the American presence as a guarantor - or as a mediator - we see it as important. Their presence is at least vital for the monitoring of the implementation until things come together. Because of that, they requested to see us and hear our views.

Did Tom Barrack himself request to see you?

Yes, he requested to see us. After the round of talks they had in Damascus, they wanted to meet us too. They wanted to know our views and the views of Damascus, and how common points could be implemented.

Tell us what happened and what agreement you reached?

It [involves] the previous points: the ceasefire, how state institutions will function within the framework of integration, and how we will achieve military integration. An agreement is clear on this basis regarding the Jazira region - for example, Hasaka province and Kobane...

Will they remain under Kurdish control?

It is a Kurdish region, but generally, the people in the administration - these institutions already exist; service institutions that run things. There are people on the job who have managed it for years. It should be within a framework where the local people manage themselves. It doesn't necessarily mean only Kurds; there are Syriacs and Arabs in the region. Therefore, they should work within this framework where the locals manage the region themselves, with support on how to organize it.

But what did Tom Barrack say you should do to make the process go better? What was that?

No, it wasn't like that. They just take perspectives - what our views are. They don't interfere by saying what they think or what they want. They act in the role of a mediator. What do we think? How should the agreement be implemented? They take these views to Damascus and discuss them with Damascus as well.

In your opinion, did he mention anything else that Damascus finds difficult to accept?

Well, on the military issue, they [Damascus] are creating a lot of problems. In that agreement, they insist that participation [integration] must be "one-by-one" [individual]. From the beginning, that was their stance. For a period, they said they would accept [the integration of] three divisions, but after that, it was halted.

Did they regret it?

There was an intervention [outside interference]. What happened? At that point, something occurred. I our view, an intervention was made, and the process stopped. In the last meeting of the military committee when they met together, they accepted it. Even when we went [to Damascus] and sat down with [Ahmed] al-Sharaa - the Americans were present in that meeting - they said "three divisions" and so on; they accepted everything. But in the end, an intervention was made in this matter.

So did they go back on their word?

Yes, they returned to the issue of "one-by-one" participation - meaning every person must join the army individually.

How will it work now?

Now, we are trying to find a way for the people of the region to take their place within the army.

Individually or as three divisions?

Like how it is in other regions. For example, there are no divisions in it now. How are other regions organized? Every province has its own structure; it has its brigades, it has its divisions. Every province is organized this way; let this region be organized the same way.