Since the start of the Syrian uprising in 2011 against the regime of President Bashar Assad, analysts have been predicting the country’s division along ethnic and sectarian lines due to fears over the wellbeing of minorities. The uprising turned into a civil war, then into military interference by foreign powers such as Iran, Russia and Hezbollah.
Foreign and local militant groups — such as Daesh, Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar Al-Sham — emerged and created a mess in Syria. Some 12 million Syrians have been displaced, a third of them seeking refuge abroad.
Talks of dividing Syria have resumed because US officials have recently said they are not ruling out such a scenario. Some consider this the beginning of a new division of the Middle East, this time as agreed by the US and Russia rather than Britain and France. I do not think there is an agreement to divide Syria, mainly because Washington and Moscow lack the power on the ground to impose borders in the region.
Russia and Iran have been trying for a while to implement a less difficult plan, which is enabling Assad to govern areas under his control. However, they have not even succeeded at this yet, let alone at creating new entities that will compete for resources and borders.
An example of chaos and war is Iraq, Syria’s neighbor. Since 1990, Iraqi Kurds have lived in a semi-autonomous region following the war to liberate Kuwait. What has prevented the establishment of a Kurdish republic in northern Iraq is not Baghdad, Turkey or Iran — the three parties usually opposed to Kurdish independence — but the international community, specifically the permanent UN Security Council members.
The council refuses to give the Kurds the right to independence. No one wants to change the map of the region due to the uncontrollable chaos and divisions that may ensue. Regarding Syria, the international community may have become convinced that division is better than a failed state. Executing this may have been possible during the first two years of the revolution, but this has become harder today due to mass displacement of people.
It is also impossible to ignore the regional factor, and the fears of countries such as Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Syrian ethnic and sectarian components have extensions in these countries, and any acknowledgment of entities based on ethnic considerations will threaten their territorial integrity.
Turkey strongly opposes attempts at Kurdish self-rule along its border. Even Iran, which does not border Syria, fears that such attempts may stir separatist sentiment among its own Kurdish population of some 8 million.
Regarding Syria’s Alawites — the sect to which the Assad’s family belongs — many of their young men have fled the country to escape mandatory military service, and thousands of families have sought refuge elsewhere out of fear of vengeful acts.
To divide any country, citizens must be able to return to their areas. This happened in Yugoslavia following the civil war and its subsequent division into four republics.
The situation in Syria, however, is like a broken vase that has scattered into small pieces. Maintaining the state via a new political system under international sponsorship would also be difficult, especially amid the Iranian and Russian occupation of Syria on Assad’s behalf.
Foreign and local militant groups — such as Daesh, Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar Al-Sham — emerged and created a mess in Syria. Some 12 million Syrians have been displaced, a third of them seeking refuge abroad.
Talks of dividing Syria have resumed because US officials have recently said they are not ruling out such a scenario. Some consider this the beginning of a new division of the Middle East, this time as agreed by the US and Russia rather than Britain and France. I do not think there is an agreement to divide Syria, mainly because Washington and Moscow lack the power on the ground to impose borders in the region.
Russia and Iran have been trying for a while to implement a less difficult plan, which is enabling Assad to govern areas under his control. However, they have not even succeeded at this yet, let alone at creating new entities that will compete for resources and borders.
An example of chaos and war is Iraq, Syria’s neighbor. Since 1990, Iraqi Kurds have lived in a semi-autonomous region following the war to liberate Kuwait. What has prevented the establishment of a Kurdish republic in northern Iraq is not Baghdad, Turkey or Iran — the three parties usually opposed to Kurdish independence — but the international community, specifically the permanent UN Security Council members.
The council refuses to give the Kurds the right to independence. No one wants to change the map of the region due to the uncontrollable chaos and divisions that may ensue. Regarding Syria, the international community may have become convinced that division is better than a failed state. Executing this may have been possible during the first two years of the revolution, but this has become harder today due to mass displacement of people.
It is also impossible to ignore the regional factor, and the fears of countries such as Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Syrian ethnic and sectarian components have extensions in these countries, and any acknowledgment of entities based on ethnic considerations will threaten their territorial integrity.
Turkey strongly opposes attempts at Kurdish self-rule along its border. Even Iran, which does not border Syria, fears that such attempts may stir separatist sentiment among its own Kurdish population of some 8 million.
Regarding Syria’s Alawites — the sect to which the Assad’s family belongs — many of their young men have fled the country to escape mandatory military service, and thousands of families have sought refuge elsewhere out of fear of vengeful acts.
To divide any country, citizens must be able to return to their areas. This happened in Yugoslavia following the civil war and its subsequent division into four republics.
The situation in Syria, however, is like a broken vase that has scattered into small pieces. Maintaining the state via a new political system under international sponsorship would also be difficult, especially amid the Iranian and Russian occupation of Syria on Assad’s behalf.
