Syrian Kurds face 30-day ultimatum from US and Turkey
SDF leader Mazloum Abdi signed an agreement in March with Syrian interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa, outlining the full merger of the SDF and its agencies into the Damascus government.
However, progress has stalled as the SDF and other Kurdish groups have demanded autonomy and resisted merging under the Syrian Defense Ministry, insisting on retaining a separate military command and organisational structure within the Syrian army.
American and Turkish patience is wearing thin, sources told MEE. During a meeting in Syria last week, US and Turkish officials gave the SDF a 30-day ultimatum to join the Damascus government.
'The SDF was told that not all of its armed units would be integrated into the Syrian army. Units excluded from integration would be disarmed, and overall control would remain with the Syrian government,' one source said.
The Damascus government reportedly shows little interest in incorporating the SDF's all-women units, known as the YPJ - an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) - into its ranks.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Thomas Barrack, the US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria, has made it clear in several interviews and statements this month that Washington opposes such demands and favours a unified Syria with one nation, one military, and one state.
Earlier this month, the SDF delegation held talks with Syrian government officials, as well as American and French representatives. The discussions, however, yielded no breakthrough.
After the meeting, Barrack told journalists in New York: 'We'll bring you together, we'll arbitrate, we'll mediate, we'll help, but we're not going to stick around.
"If you guys don't agree, then don't agree, but we're not going to be here forever as the babysitter and the mediator," he said.
Barrack also warned the SDF that failure to reach an agreement with Damascus could result in "other alternatives".
Turkish officials at the meeting held in Damascus last week emphasised that the SDF should not exploit the goodwill of Damascus, Ankara and Washington by prolonging negotiations and stalling for time.
Sweida raises stakes
Recent Israeli air strikes in Damascus, prompted by clashes in Sweida between Bedouins and Druze, have heightened tensions in Ankara.
Turkish government sources worry that Israeli intervention could embolden the SDF to persist in its demands for autonomy, particularly as Damascus appears ineffective in resolving the conflict and faces accusations of crimes against the Druze minority.
Nevertheless, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Monday that his government fully supports al-Sharaa's administration and would not allow Syria to be partitioned.
Turkey doesn't have many options against Israel in Syria Read More »
Over the weekend, Erdogan told journalists during a visit to Northern Cyprus that al-Sharaa's firm stance on Sweida should serve as a clear message to the SDF that there will be no compromise on disarmament talks.
In last week's meeting, Turkish officials requested that the YPG provide information on tunnel networks along the Turkish border and weapons depots established in civilian areas, according to the same sources speaking to MEE.
Middle East Eye has asked the Turkish government for comment.
Barrack, who spoke to SDF leader Mazloum Abdi over the weekend, said this week that he does not believe the violence in Sweida will derail talks and that there could be a breakthrough "in the coming weeks".
A US State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with government protocol, said that while they could not discuss specifics of private diplomatic conversations, the integration talks between the SDF and the Syrian government remain ongoing and active.
'We support the continuation of these discussions as the best way to resolve any outstanding issues,' the official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
an hour ago
- Middle East Eye
US envoy Tom Barrack accused of plotting Turkey's partition
When billionaire-turned-diplomat Tom Barrack arrived in Ankara in May as US President Donald Trump's ambassador to Turkey, he delivered an unexpectedly emotional speech. 'I think it's a really monumental day for me, feeling the echo of this land from which my ancestors came,' he said. 'But I come with a really simple message from President Trump: his desire to raise the level of the alliance between Turkey and the United States to where it rightfully belongs.' Two months later, Turkish officials are convinced that Barrack is among the most influential US ambassadors ever to serve in the country. His ever-expanding portfolio, now encompassing both Syria and Lebanon, aligns with Ankara's priorities, such as preserving a unified Syrian state under President Ahmed al-Sharaa with a single military. Both Ankara and Barrack seek a stable region. Turkish officials hope that Barrack, who has a direct line to Trump, could help resolve longstanding issues, from the stalled purchase of F-35 fighter jets to the removal of sanctions on Turkey over its purchase of Russia's S-400 missile system. Barrack also made several remarks expressing his admiration of Turkey and its history. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters However, Turkish public opinion paints a starkly different picture. Newspapers and political influencers have launched a campaign against the US envoy, accusing him of attempting to break up the country. Despite Turkey's longstanding history of anti-American sentiment, rooted in the US partnership with Syrian Kurdish groups and its harbouring of the late Fethullah Gulen and his supporters, for the first time in years, an American ambassador is under attack not from government media, but from the opposition, over his conduct. Misquoted The controversy began with Barrack's interview with Turkey's public Anadolu news agency in late June, where he referenced the Ottoman Empire's millet system, which oversaw religious communities from Christians to Jews. Barrack explained that the millet system, which granted religious communities limited autonomy over their own affairs, ensured the survival of diverse groups in the region. He added that a new dialogue between states and cultures was needed today. 'To me, Izmir is the example of how you blend all these communities - Jews, Muslims and Christians living side by side,' he said. 'I see this as the model of what needs to happen in the Middle East and the world. And I think Turkey can be the centre point of it all.' Why Turkey abruptly cancelled an Iraqi oil pipeline agreement Read More » Within days, a flurry of social media posts and newspaper articles misquoted him, claiming that he had advocated for the millet system as the ideal order for modern Turkey, a statement he never made. For many Turkish citizens, the millet system evokes painful memories of a weakened Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, teetering on the brink of partition along ethnic and nationalist lines. 'US Ambassador Tom Barrack showered praise on the Ottoman's religion-based millet system!' wrote Arslan Bulut, a journalist for the nationalist opposition newspaper Yeni Cag, earlier this month. 'For this, Turkey must be stripped of its nation-state status!' Husnu Bozkurt, a former parliamentarian from the Republican People's Party (CHP), took it further: 'For years, we've warned that imperialist America seeks to divide the secular Republic of Turkey by transforming it into a religiously-governed state under its control, destroying the unitary nation-state structure, turning it into a federation, and eliminating linguistic unity by splitting the nation along sectarian and ethnic lines - the ultimate goal of the Greater Middle East Project (BOP).' Barrack is viewed as unconventional among western ambassadors in Turkey, spending much of his time in the region and in Istanbul. His candid interviews with various publications are often taken out of context, as he speaks without reservation. PKK peace talks As Barrack grapples with these reactions, Turkey is engaged in peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and its jailed leader Abdullah Ocalan, after more than 40 years of conflict. Earlier this year, the PKK announced an end to its armed struggle and, in a symbolic ceremony this month, burned its weapons, a development that has left many Turks uneasy about the country's future. Retired Colonel Unal Atabay argued that Barrack's alleged suggestion to revive the Ottoman religion-based millet system would undermine Turkey's status as a nation-state. Syrian Kurds face 30-day ultimatum from US and Turkey Read More » 'Isn't it interesting… This is exactly what Ocalan refers to as Middle Eastern unity,' he said. 'It's about ensuring the formation of a separatist Kurdish region while transforming Turkey into an Ottoman-like state.' Barrack's recent interview with the Associated Press about Israeli strikes on Damascus and Sweida in Syria over the weekend did little to help his case. He suggested that Israel would rather see Syria fragmented and divided than governed by a strong central state. 'Strong nation-states are a threat - especially Arab states are viewed as a threat to Israel,' he said. But in Syria, he noted, 'I think all the minority communities are smart enough to say, 'We're better off together, centralised.'' Turkish media and commentators interpreted Barrack's criticism of Israel as indirect approval of US efforts to partition strong nation-states in the region. At the same time, Devlet Bahceli, a Turkish nationalist leader within President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ruling coalition, proposed that Turkey could, in the future, appoint two vice presidents, one Kurdish and the other Alevi, a minority religious group that has sometimes reported persecution. Mehmet Ali Guler, a columnist for the opposition Cumhuriyet daily, argued that Bahceli's proposal and Barrack's comments on the Ottoman millet system all serve the same purpose: 'The Lebanonisation of Turkey'. Bahceli in a statement strongly rebuked the allegations, calling them 'distortions'. The US Embassy in Ankara has remained silent in the face of these accusations.
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Africa's minerals are being bartered for security: why it's a bad idea?
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains'. Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. DRC's security gaps The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. What states risk losing Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: - certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy - other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge - arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts - infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control. Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs. What needs to change Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: - investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals - demanding local value creation and addition - requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements - refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Israel kills Palestinian journalist and family in Gaza strike
An Israeli air strike killed Palestinian journalist Walaa al-Jabari along with her entire family in Gaza City on Wednesday, raising the number of media workers killed during Israel's war on Gaza to at least 231. Jabari, who was pregnant at the time, was killed when her home in the Tal al-Hawa neighbourhood in southwest Gaza City was bombed. The strike also killed her husband, Amjad al-Shaer, and four of their children. Local reports said the force of the blast was so intense it ejected her unborn child from her womb. Images circulating on social media show a fetus wrapped in a shroud, though Middle East Eye could not independently verify their authenticity. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Jabari worked as a newspaper editor for several local media outlets and is one of many Palestinian journalists killed in what rights groups and press advocates have called targeted Israeli attacks on the media. Her death brings the total number of journalists killed by Israeli forces since October 2023 to at least 231, according to Gaza's Government Media Office. Earlier this week, Israeli forces shot and killed photojournalist Tamer al-Zaanin during a raid near a Red Cross facility in Rafah. During the same operation, an undercover Israeli unit detained Dr Marwan al-Hams, the director of field hospitals in the Gaza Strip. 'Systemic crimes against journalists' The Government Media Office called on international organisations and the broader international community to condemn what it described as 'systematic crimes against Palestinian journalists and media professionals'. AFP warns Gaza journalists risk starving to death amid ongoing Israeli siege Read More » "We also call on them to exert serious and effective pressure to stop the crime of genocide, protect journalists and media professionals in the Gaza Strip, and stop the murder and assassination of them," the office said. "We ask God Almighty to grant all our martyred colleagues and journalists mercy, acceptance, and Paradise, and to grant their families and the Palestinian press family patience and solace. We also wish a speedy recovery to all the wounded journalists." Israel's war on Gaza has been described as the "worst ever conflict" for journalists, according to a report published in April by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. The report, titled News Graveyards: How Dangers to War Reporters Endanger the World, said the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip since October 2023 had "killed more journalists than the US Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined".
