Pejvak Kokabian, Ph.D
The Assad family’s 54-year dominance over Syria has come to an abrupt and dramatic end. Opposition forces, long mired in a stalemate during the 13-year civil war, have seized control of key government-held territories, culminating in the capture of Damascus on December 7, 2024. This offensive, bolstered by the withdrawal of Russian support and the collapse of Iranian influence, has profoundly altered Syria’s political and territorial dynamics. The de facto partition of Syria into distinct regions controlled by various factions now appears irreversible, signaling a pragmatic and inevitable resolution: the formal partition of Syria into four autonomous countries.
The Colonial Legacy of Syria’s Borders
Syria’s fragmentation today is not just the result of recent conflict but a delayed reckoning with its colonial past. The country’s modern borders, encompassing a population of approximately 24 million, were not drawn from the aspirations of its people but rather the result of the infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. This secret pact, negotiated between Britain and France, divided the collapsing Ottoman Empire into artificial states. These borders were designed to secure European control over resources and influence, ignoring the ethnic, religious, and cultural realities on the ground.
The patchwork state created by Sykes-Picot forced together diverse and often conflicting communities: Sunni Arabs (approximately 55% of the population or 13.2 million), Kurds (25% or 6 million), Alawites (8% or 1.9 million), Druze (3.2% or 770,000), and other minorities such as Christians and Turkmen. These divisions were exacerbated by successive regimes that privileged certain groups over others, with the Assad regime’s reliance on the Alawite minority being the most glaring example.
Over a century later, Syria’s collapse reflects the failure of these artificial boundaries. The proposed partition of Syria into four distinct countries is a necessary step to banish this colonial legacy and establish a more equitable and stable future.
Breaking Free from Colonial Constraints: A Framework for Four Autonomous Countries
The proposed partition into four countries—Sunni Syria, Kurdish Rojava, an Alawite state, and a Druze state—offers more than just governance reform. It represents a decisive break from the colonial legacy that has hindered Syria’s economic, geopolitical, cultural, and linguistic development. Each country would address the unique aspirations and challenges of its population, enabling a fairer distribution of resources and power.
1. Economic Autonomy: Reclaiming Resources and Development
The colonial framework established by Sykes-Picot and perpetuated by centralized governments exploited Syria’s resources for the benefit of elites while marginalizing minority regions. Partition offers an opportunity for the newly formed countries to control their economic futures.
- Sunni Syria: With its population of 13.2 million and access to fertile agricultural lands, industrial hubs like Aleppo, and natural trade corridors, Sunni Syria can rebuild its economy around manufacturing, agriculture, and trade.
- Kurdish Rojava: Home to 6 million people, this country would hold most of Syria’s oil reserves and substantial water resources, making it an energy and agricultural powerhouse. Partition would allow Rojava to develop its economy independently, ending decades of economic neglect.
- The Alawite State: With 1.9 million people and control of the Mediterranean coastline, this state could focus on maritime trade, tourism, and partnerships with external powers like Russia.
- The Druze State: With a population of 770,000, the Druze state would benefit from fertile lands and access to regional trade routes through Jordan and Israel. Its proximity to these neighbors offers significant economic potential.
This economic decentralization ensures that resources remain in each country, fostering equitable growth and reducing the exploitation that fueled tensions under centralized governance.
2. Geopolitical Rebalancing: A Post-Colonial Approach
The Sykes-Picot borders were designed to keep Syria weak, ensuring dependency on foreign powers. This legacy persists, with Syria becoming a battleground for geopolitical competition among Russia, the United States, Turkey, and Iran. Partition allows each country to establish its own partnerships based on local interests:
- Sunni Syria: Backed by Turkey and Gulf states, Sunni Syria could align with Sunni-majority nations, creating a counterbalance to Iranian influence in the region.
- Kurdish Rojava: Supported by the United States, Kurdish Rojava could focus on securing its autonomy while managing tensions with Turkey, which opposes an independent Kurdish state on its borders.
- The Alawite State: Maintaining ties with Russia would ensure strategic support for the Alawite community and preserve Moscow’s influence in the Mediterranean.
- The Druze State: With its historical ties to Israel and Jordan, the Druze state could act as a stabilizing buffer zone, facilitating trade and diplomacy in the region’s south.
This geopolitical pluralism liberates Syria’s successor states from the colonial-era practice of being treated as pawns in a larger imperial game.
3. Cultural and Linguistic Rights: Restoring Authentic Identities
The centralized state created by Sykes-Picot marginalized minority cultures, imposing Arab identity and the Arabic language while suppressing others. Partition offers an opportunity to restore cultural and linguistic rights:
- Kurdish Rojava: Kurdish communities, stripped of citizenship in 1962 and denied their language and heritage, could establish Kurdish as the primary language of governance, education, and media while preserving minority traditions.
- Sunni Syria: Sunni Syria could embrace its Arab heritage while building an inclusive identity that acknowledges the contributions of minorities such as Turkmen and Christians.
- The Alawite State: An Alawite country would secure the community’s cultural and religious practices without fear of Sunni dominance.
- The Druze State: The Druze could assert their distinct religious and cultural identity, which has historically been overshadowed by larger groups in Syria.
This cultural revival helps heal divisions created by decades of forced assimilation, creating a more inclusive and equitable environment.
4. Ending Divide-and-Rule Policies
Colonial powers, and later the Assad regime, employed “divide and rule” tactics to pit communities against one another, ensuring centralized control. Partition dismantles this system by granting each new country autonomy, eliminating competition for dominance within a single state.
Local governance structures aligned with each country’s demographics reduce sectarian tensions and foster stability. For example:
- Sunni-majority Sunni Syria could focus on rebuilding infrastructure and governance without the fear of Alawite dominance.
- Kurdish Rojava could self-govern, addressing decades of marginalization and disenfranchisement.
- The Alawite State could preserve its political and cultural identity within a smaller, more cohesive state.
- The Druze State could protect its autonomy while forging alliances with neighboring powers.
This autonomy promotes cooperation and coexistence by removing the central source of conflict: competition for power in a fragmented state.
A Post-Colonial Vision for Syria
The partition of Syria into four autonomous countries—Sunni Syria, Kurdish Rojava, an Alawite state, and a Druze state—represents a decisive break from the colonial legacy of Sykes-Picot. By dismantling the artificial borders and centralized systems that have stifled Syria for over a century, this solution addresses the economic, geopolitical, cultural, and linguistic aspirations of its people.
Each country gains control over its resources and governance, ensuring equitable development and stability. Geopolitical rebalancing empowers local leadership to forge partnerships that reflect their communities’ needs, free from external domination. Cultural and linguistic autonomy celebrates Syria’s diversity rather than suppressing it, fostering inclusivity and reconciliation.
This model is not a concession to division but a forward-looking solution to a century-old problem. By rejecting colonial constructs and embracing self-determination, Syria’s partition lays the groundwork for a more equitable and peaceful future. The post-colonial era for Syria begins now—one shaped by its people, not by the boundaries of imperial powers.
References:
