Al-Hasakah Conference… A Platform for Dialogue or a Battleground for Legitimacy?

By Bassam Ishak | President of Syriac National Council of Syria (SSNC) and member of the Presidential Council of the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) Mission in Washington, D.C.

The “Unity of Ranks” conference held yesterday in al-Hasakah sparked a storm of fierce criticism from the Damascus authorities and their supporters. The question that imposes itself is: why? The Autonomous Administration and the Syrian Democratic Council have organized dozens, if not hundreds, of conferences over the past years focused on Syrian-Syrian dialogue, with participation from representatives of various regions and components of the country—without provoking such intense and emotional reactions. So, what has changed this time to turn al-Hasakah into a political flashpoint of this magnitude?

What changed this time?

First, the al-Hasakah conference came in an extremely sensitive context, following the signing of the March 10, 2025 agreement between Damascus and the SDF—a roadmap for unifying forces and political messaging. From Damascus’ perspective, any unilateral move at this stage, especially one carrying messages about the future political system such as explicit calls for decentralization, is a political breach that undermines the agreement.

Second, the nature of the attendees and the messages differed from previous conferences. This gathering brought together political and religious figures from multiple communities—including Alawites, Druze, and Christians—groups that Damascus seeks to monopolize representation of—and concluded with a clear statement calling for a new constitution and a decentralized system. These are messages Damascus views as a direct threat to its centralist vision of the state.

Third, the conference’s outcomes appeared to be an attempt to establish an alternative or parallel political reference point to the official negotiations. This would give the Autonomous Administration a bargaining platform outside the capital’s control and open the door to possible international or media recognition of this framework as a “unifying voice of Syria’s components.”

What happened in al-Hasakah cannot be separated from the current Syrian political scene, nor from the web of regional and international interests intersecting over it. This was not just another rhetorical event; it came at a pivotal moment following the March 10 agreement and produced a different political discourse. With Turkey entering as a mediator between Damascus and others, the conference shifted from a local event to a regional card—used to increase pressure on political and military forces in North and East Syria and to block any externally-brokered negotiation track. This is why Damascus’ reaction was not a passing outburst but a calculated move to extinguish any attempt at building a parallel political reference, reinforcing a new rule: dialogue takes place in Damascus and on its terms—or it doesn’t happen at all.

This escalation puts the negotiation track into a new phase of political tests. The Autonomous Administration and the Syrian Democratic Council—both having demonstrated strong organizational capacity and the ability to rally popular and political support—now face requirements that demand opening up to all paths: holding firmly to the principles of decentralization while engaging in serious dialogue with Damascus, and at the same time expanding regional and international outreach to ensure an active presence in any upcoming settlement.

Yet any talk of genuine Syrian-Syrian understandings remains incomplete without asking a fundamental question: to what extent does Damascus have decision-making independence in this matter? The current trajectory shows that the political calculations of Syria’s north and east still operate within margins set by Ankara—whether through direct political pressure or the security arrangements it has imposed on the ground. Turkey, which sees any form of decentralization as a threat to its national security, refuses to legitimize the Autonomous Administration or its institutions. This makes the ceiling of Syrian negotiations heavily constrained by Turkish dictates. Therefore, reaching a balanced partnership formula between Damascus and the SDF requires the capital to free, at least partially, its political decision-making from Turkish constraints, and to craft dialogue proposals that stem from Syrian priorities and needs—not from Ankara’s approval or rejection criteria.

From a broader perspective, what took place in al-Hasakah and the ensuing reactions highlight a decisive point the international community must grasp: that Syria’s stability, and the prevention of its relapse into authoritarianism or fragmentation, will only be achieved through a genuine decentralized governance system. Decentralization is not a partition project; it is a guarantee of state unity through power-sharing and protection of diverse identities from exclusion. It is the framework that creates a political environment enabling all communities to participate in managing their own affairs, while closing the door to renewed tensions sparked by single-identity domination projects. For any party seeking a stable Middle East, supporting this path not only safeguards Syrians’ rights but also enhances regional security and opens the way for trust-based partnerships with credible local actors capable of cooperating against terrorism and extremism—far from the political blackmail practiced by centralized authoritarian regimes.

In sum, what happened in al-Hasakah revealed the fragility of the current balance between active powers, and confirmed that any attempt to broaden political representation or redefine the shape of the state will be met with a strict centralist response—especially if it comes at a sensitive time amid fierce regional and international competition. Damascus believes the battle for legitimacy is fought by monopolizing platforms and shaping the political narrative from a position of strength, while Turkey recognizes that every step distancing North and East Syria from any external negotiation table brings it closer into the Turkish-Russian sphere of influence. Meanwhile, the world stands before a test of its ability to support a genuine political partnership that preserves the country’s unity and guarantees the rights of all its components. If the confrontational approach continues, the al-Hasakah conference may shift from an opportunity to unify ranks into the very event that crystallized the political divide between two competing visions for Syria’s future.

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.