HASAKAH, Syria (North Press) – One year after the fall of the al-Assad regime, the relationship between the Syrian transitional government in Damascus and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) in the country’s northeast appears stagnant, marked by sharp political differences between the two sides.
Many Syrians hope that the March 10 agreement will pave the way for a new phase built on understandings that meet the aspirations of both parties.
Despite several rounds of negotiations, relations between the two sides have gone through fluctuating stages. Observers note that regional entanglements have made the situation even more complicated, and optimism about implementing the agreement before the end of the year remains limited.
How does Damascus view northeast Syria?
Both sides exchange accusations of obstructing the agreement, and rhetoric has intensified amid occasional field skirmishes.
Abdelwahab Khalil, a member of the Relations Committee of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) in Damascus, says relations between Damascus and the AANES remain governed by “caution and distrust,” due to a mix of internal and external factors.
Chief among them, he says, is “the rise of hate speech from some representatives of the transitional government, which has increased tensions and deepened divisions instead of opening channels for dialogue.”
Khalil explained to North Press that the March agreement faces major challenges, including regional interference, internal developments, and a deep lack of trust between the two parties, all of which have directly impacted the agreement’s trajectory.
He stressed that confidence-building requires practical steps, starting with halting media and political escalation, abandoning accusatory rhetoric, and focusing on shared priorities such as combating terrorism and preserving national unity.
Khalil emphasized the need for direct dialogue between political and administrative leaderships in Damascus and Qamishli to reach clear understandings on key issues such as decentralization, cultural rights, and security arrangements.
He added that mutual guarantees are essential for the agreement’s success, including provisions on joint administration, local elections, and the economic rights of AANES–held areas.
According to Khalil, political circles in Damascus remain “unoptimistic” due to regional entanglements and Turkish pressure, in addition to the tug-of-war among regional actors such as Iran and Russia, and U.S. influence. This makes any progress “fraught with major challenges.”
Ilham Ahmad, Co-Chair of AANES’ Foreign Relations Department, previously said that “Turkish interference represents one of the main obstacles to our dialogue with the Damascus government.”
Regarding the March 10 agreement, Khalil said it is “an important step toward a political solution, but it will remain ink on paper without a genuine political will to implement it. Despite the little time left until the end of the year, progress is still possible if Damascus is willing and new dialogue channels are opened that put national interest above all else.”
Concerns and disputes
While the transitional government insists on a centralized system for the country, AANES officials maintain that Syria needs a new constitution reflecting its diversity and moving away from centralization.
Thabit al-Jawhar, Secretary-General of the Syrian Homeland Party, told North Press that the March 10 agreement between Syrian Transitional President Ahmad al-Sharaa and SDF’s Commander in Chief Mazloum Abdi marked a pivotal moment in the Syrian crisis, especially as popular demands for ending injustice and resolving internal divisions continue to rise.
Al-Jawhar noted that there are “concerns and disagreements” regarding the future governance model, but his party fully supports implementing the agreement as the only path to resolving the Syrian issue through intra-Syrian dialogue. He said it offers a way to safeguard the rights of all components and rebuild the country through a shared national role.
He added that international and regional interests play a major role in obstructing the agreement, while other states encourage the parties to sit together.
Al-Jawhar warned that the failure of the March 10 agreement would be “a major loss for all Syrians,” while its success would spare the country the dangers of new conflicts and pave the way for a national phase that secures rights, responsibilities, and stability for all Syrians.
Fears of federalism
Political analyst Hossam Taleb, speaking from Damascus, told North Press that the Syrian transitional government views the SDF as an integral part of the Syrian people and a key component in building the Syrian state. However, he said this positive view is accompanied by official fears that broad federalist or fully political decentralization tendencies could, under current conditions, lead to the country’s fragmentation.
Taleb said Damascus sees the SDF positively, but believes the latter still views the Syrian government differently and does not deal with it with enough flexibility. This reality, he argued, perpetuates mutual suspicion between the two sides.
He added that strong mutual accusations persist and are being fueled by certain actors, obstructing the implementation of the agreement between the Syrian government and the SDF. According to his assessment, implementing the March 10 agreement requires direct U.S. involvement and strong guarantees, given Washington’s credibility with both sides and its ability to ensure a practical framework for implementation.
Taleb noted that optimism in Damascus remains limited despite ongoing meetings and consultations. Occasional statements, he said, often reset negotiations to zero and weaken the prospects of progress.
He explained that political deadlines are not final and can be extended, dismissing scenarios of major escalation once deadlines expire. He believes the SDF often responds to increased pressure by offering positive gestures toward Damascus to calm tensions before returning to a policy of delay, extending the negotiation process.
Taleb concluded that continued negotiations, however lengthy, remain preferable to escalation that could come at a high cost to all sides.
Where do the negotiations stand?
Maryam Ibrahim, spokesperson for AANES’ Negotiation Committee, told North Press that what followed the March 10 agreement amounted only to “verbal understandings” with no written documents or official signatures. She said the absence of written commitments shows Damascus’ lack of seriousness in implementing the agreement’s terms.
Ibrahim added that the current stalemate on the ground indicates that Damascus is neither committed nor cooperative, even as the end-of-year deadline for implementation approaches.
“We have always declared our readiness to negotiate and implement the agreement,” she said. “If we were not serious, we would not have reiterated this repeatedly.”
She emphasized that the AANES showed significant flexibility, even on sensitive issues. Although the military file was supposed to be the last item on the negotiation agenda, the delegation agreed to Damascus’ request to open it first, and they reached consensus on most of its points.
Regarding future meetings, Ibrahim said scheduling a new date is not in their hands but depends on Damascus.
She concluded by saying that the AANES remains committed to a political solution and to ensuring the success of the March 10 agreement, despite Damascus’ slow pace and failure to adhere to the agreed timeline.