- Editorials
- Posted
What Does the Talk about the Adana Agreement Mean?
During the last week, intensive Russian, Turkish and Syrian statements emerged on the Adana agreement which was signed between Syria and Turkey in 1998 concerning the way of dealing with the PKK. The statements of the three parties expressed their commitment and consensus to the agreement as a starting point to address the situation in northeastern Syria at least, if not along the entire Syrian-Turkish border, as stipulated in the agreement itself.
Regardless of the stance toward the agreement itself, the mere fact of pushing it to the surface means that the search is under way for a starting point in line with international law, so that there will be a basis for resolving a series of crises related to the North of Syria in general.
The focus of the three parties, and the Russian in particular, on a starting point based on international law means – among other things – two fundamental issues:
First, the interaction between the Syrian side and the Turkish side should take place as a relationship between two sovereign states, each respecting the sovereignty and borders of the other.
Second, respect for Syrian sovereignty implies that the Syrian side of the borders, in its entirety, should, at the end of the current arrangements have the Syrian army.
What about the Americans? What about the Kurds?
The Russian push for a formal Syrian-Turkish agreement implies the gradual ending of the mutual treatment of each of the two countries with the other as "hostile countries". More importantly, it means an agreement declaring that the foreign presence in general, and the US in particular, within Syria, is a rejected existence and should be terminated as soon as possible.
This push also means that that part of the Kurdish issue within the Syrian framework should find its fair solution within the Syrian framework, and in a way that preserves the rights of the Kurds as an essential component of the Syrian people, so that they enjoy their full rights as Syrian citizens, including their own particular cultural rights.
With regard to issues of centralization and decentralization, the formula to be agreed upon will be a formula agreed upon by the Syrians among themselves on a new constitutional basis shared by all Syrian components and political components in the framework of reaching full implementation of resolution 2254.
The path towards the restoration of Syrian sovereignty and the resolution of the Syrian crisis, while it passes through the full implementation of resolution 2254, which states that only the Syrians have the right to self-determination, implies inherently that the re-drafting of a social contract between the Syrians as a whole must be based on respect by all for all, and without bullying by the means of foreign parties, and without bullying (security) or (militarily) from any party at home on any other party at home. Rather, such a sovereignty and resolution should be based on two principles:
1. The only legitimate weapon in the country is that of the Syrian army.
2. The process of neutralizing the various state institutions, especially the security ones, in order not to interfere in political affairs, should begin as a preparation for launching a comprehensive radical change in the interest of the Syrian people and led by the Syrian people.
Kassioun Editorial, Issue No 898, January 27, 2019
