Syrian politician warns of consequences of limiting March 10 Agreement to military framework

Amid the stagnation overshadowing the implementation of the March 10 agreement signed between the General Commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces, Mazloum Abdi, and the head of the transitional government, Ahmad al-Sharaa questions are mounting about the reasons behind restricting the agreement to its military and security dimensions, while clearly sidelining its political and social clauses, particularly those related to the future of the political process and the return of displaced persons.

In this context, Syrian politician Abdul Razzaq Haji Mohammad stated that the problem is not limited to focusing on the military dimension and overlooking the political aspect of the agreement, but extends to the pursuit of pressure policies aimed at monopolizing control over all aspects of the political landscape and portraying the Syrian Democratic Forces as failing to meet their obligations.

Haji Mohammad explained that this approach contradicts the requirements of state-building and that the reversal of priorities has been evident. He stressed that political files should have been addressed first, which would have automatically been reflected in the military sphere. However, prioritizing militarization over politics has complicated the situation and obstructed the implementation of the agreement.

He offered a critical reading of the agreement’s trajectory, assigning varying degrees of responsibility to its parties, and warned of the consequences of continuing to treat it as a purely military file, given the negative impact this would have on the prospects of building a sustainable democratic project in Syria.

The Syrian politician placed the greatest responsibility for the failure to implement the agreement’s provisions on the transitional government, citing its incompatibility with any vision that allows for a genuine democratic horizon in the country.

At the same time, he noted that the Syrian Democratic Forces also bear part of the responsibility, attributing this to what he described as premature and rapid trust in the government before the contours of the new phase became clear. He considered that caution and restraint would have been a better option at the time.

Haji Mohammad believed that limiting the agreement to the military framework was expected, given the nature of the current government, which has a military background. This, he said, is reflected in its rigid approach and its inability to manage complex political files.

He pointed out that any attempt to push the agreement toward a political path would collide with internal conflicts within the power structure, which reject making intellectual or political concessions.

He also noted that the complexity of the situation is further exacerbated by regional pressures exerted by countries that do not wish for the Syrian Democratic Forces to remain politically or militarily foremost among them Turkey.

Regarding ways to reintegrate the political and social clauses into the agreement’s course, Haji Mohammad emphasized the importance of strengthening internal cohesion in Rojava as both a political and military force, alongside the necessity of unifying Syrian ranks with democratic and secular forces.

He concluded by affirming that steadfastness in the democratic project without retreat, together with achieving unity, constitutes a genuine guarantee for the coming phase.

ANHA