The collapse of the “buffer zone” project in 2019 represented more than just a diplomatic setback; it marked a crucial turning point in the relationship between the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) and Turkey. This development raises important questions about the potential for new channels of dialogue in the future. In this analysis, we will explore future scenarios for dialogue between the two parties and assess their feasibility in light of ongoing regional and international complexities.
Factors Leading to the Failure of Previous Dialogue
1. Mutual Distrust: A significant barrier to dialogue between the AANES and Turkey has been the pervasive lack of trust. Ankara views the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which it considers a direct security threat. This perception has led Turkey to reject any organized Kurdish presence along its borders, even if international guarantees are offered.
2. Shifts in U.S. Policy: The events of 2019 highlighted the United States’ inability to maintain its commitments to Kurdish allies. Despite assurances to protect areas under the AANES’s control, the U.S. quickly reversed its stance under Turkish pressure, leaving leaders of the AANES feeling betrayed. This swift change in U.S. policy underscored the risks of relying on international guarantees that lack written assurances.
3. Influence of International and Regional Actors: The role of Russia and Iran in shaping dialogue cannot be ignored. While Moscow has attempted to position itself as a mediator, its interests often align with bolstering the authority of the Syrian government, which diminishes the prospects for a sustainable resolution between the Kurds and Turkey. Iran views any security arrangement in northeastern Syria as a potential threat to its interests, given its military presence in various parts of the country.
Supporting and Hindering Factors
1. Political Dynamics in Turkey: Internal political shifts in Turkey could significantly impact the future of dialogue. Erdogan’s government currently employs nationalist, anti-Kurdish rhetoric to secure domestic support. However, a change in leadership might prompt Ankara to consider dialogue with the AANES if it perceives an opportunity to alleviate military pressure on its borders and preserve its resources.
2. Stance of the AANES: In the aftermath of the “buffer zone” failure, the AANES has grown more receptive to dialogue, contingent on genuine international guarantees. Nevertheless, the willingness to make substantial concessions, such as agreeing to joint administration of specific areas, will remain a considerable challenge.
3. The Role of the United States: A renewed and active U.S. presence in Syria could create an opportunity to rekindle dialogue. However, Washington must learn from previous missteps and implement robust monitoring mechanisms and guarantees to ensure that any future agreements do not collapse.
4. Geopolitical Rivalry: The ongoing competition between Russia and the United States for influence in northeastern Syria poses additional challenges for dialogue efforts. Should Russia perceive that any agreement might bolster U.S. influence in the region, it could actively seek to undermine the talks by supporting Turkey’s hardline positions.
Future Scenarios
1. Gradual Dialogue Scenario: This scenario suggests that after years of conflict, both Turkey and the AANES may come to recognize that a military solution is not viable. Dialogue could commence at a low level, facilitated by international or regional mediators—potentially Russia or European nations—aiming for limited security arrangements, such as a ceasefire, before advancing to discussions about the AANES and political rights.
2. Escalation Scenario: If Turkey continues its current strategies, coupled with ongoing military support for allied Syrian factions, we may witness further cycles of military escalation. This trajectory could lead to heightened insecurity and a potential comprehensive confrontation along the border.
3. Total Collapse of Dialogue Scenario: If neither party demonstrates genuine political will and conflicting international pressures persist, any new dialogue initiatives are likely to fail rapidly, resulting in increased regional chaos and a further entrenchment of Iranian and Russian influence in northeastern Syria.
The Strategic Feasibility of Dialogue
From a strategic perspective, dialogue between the AANES and Turkey can only succeed if certain conditions are met:
1. Presence of a Credible International Mediator: Future dialogue must be conducted under the auspices of an international mediator trusted by both parties—preferably a neutral entity capable of offering tangible security guarantees.
2. Reciprocal Security Guarantees: Turkey seeks assurances that Syrian territory will not be utilized for operations against it, while the AANES demands guarantees that its areas will not face renewed attacks. Securing these guarantees is fundamental for the success of any dialogue.
3. Inclusion of All Stakeholders: It is crucial to involve all relevant parties, including the Syrian government, Russia, and the United States. Attempts to marginalize any actor will inevitably undermine dialogue efforts.
Prospects for Sustainable Dialogue
Despite the significant complexities involved, the potential for genuine dialogue between the AANES and Turkey remains. However, success hinges on both parties’ willingness to make substantial concessions and the ability of international powers to act effectively as mediators. Ultimately, the resolution of the conflict cannot rely solely on dialogue; it necessitates a broader framework that ensures long-term stability in the region and addresses the concerns of all parties in a fair and balanced manner.
