On April 1, Aleppo witnessed a political and on-the-ground development: an understanding was reached between the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) administration concerning the Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafiyah neighbourhoods in the city’s north.
This agreement, linked by some to an earlier deal between SDF Commander-in-Chief Mazloum Abdi and Presidential Advisor Ahmad al-Sharaa, signals a change in the relationship between these actors and reopens debate over the evolving political architecture being shaped by the Syrian state amid the ongoing conflict.
The deal was conducted between the civil council representing the two neighbourhoods and a committee from the Presidency of the Republic. It includes a range of provisions aimed at promoting stability and civil peace. According to the agreement’s text, the neighbourhoods will remain administratively subordinate to the city of Aleppo, while safeguarding their residents’ cultural and social distinctiveness. The Ministry of Interior, in coordination with internal security forces, will be responsible for ensuring public safety and preventing any armed presence outside the agreed framework.
Key provisions include the removal of dirt barriers from public roads, retention of certain checkpoints under internal security oversight, withdrawal of military forces to areas east of the Euphrates River, and the creation of two internal security centres to monitor conditions on the ground. The agreement also guarantees residents freedom of movement and protection from prosecution, provided they have not been involved in acts of violence.
Additionally, the deal calls for coordination between service and educational institutions and their official counterparts, representation of the neighbourhoods’ populations in the provincial council and chambers of commerce and industry, prisoner exchanges, and the rehabilitation of detention facilities. Observers have described the agreement as a tentative step toward normalizing relations between the Autonomous Administration and the central government, albeit gradually.
The Kurdish Vision for Syria
Nawaf Khalil, Director of the Kurdish Center for Studies, views the recent developments in Aleppo as a natural extension of the earlier understanding between Mazloum Abdi and Ahmad al-Sharaa. He believes it lays the groundwork for further agreements that could facilitate the return of displaced people, particularly to Afrin. However, Khalil cautions against rushing to replicate the model, pointing out that Afrin remains under the control of Turkish-backed factions, complicating efforts to reproduce the Aleppo experience elsewhere.
According to Khalil, the Kurdish political proposal at this stage rests on two central visions: the first advocates for a decentralized, democratic state inclusive of all Syrians, while the second seeks a new national consensus tailored to Syria’s unique composition and challenges. In both visions, decentralization is seen as a national imperative, not just a Kurdish demand, reflecting a broader aspiration for meaningful power-sharing among all societal groups.
Dr. Zidon al-Zoubi, a researcher specializing in governance issues, describes the agreement as a reflection of a mature negotiating moment, emerging amid shifting regional and international dynamics. He notes that the arrangement has received tacit support from several influential actors, including Washington and Ankara.
Al-Zoubi sees the deal as reinforcing the principle of local governance and possibly signalling an evolving role for certain SDF members as part of a localized policing effort, within a broader, negotiated governance framework.
Temporary Shift or Lasting Change?
Despite the generally optimistic tone surrounding the Aleppo agreement, some observers approach it with caution. Syrian lawyer and activist Akram Shamu argues that the agreement emerged during a politically delicate moment, marked by a deadlock in the broader peace process and the rise of pragmatic, field-level understandings among the involved parties. He points out that replicating the Aleppo model in areas like Afrin is particularly challenging, given the vastly different on-the-ground conditions.
Shamu acknowledges that the deployment of government security forces in Sheikh Maqsoud and Ashrafiyah helped stabilize the situation. Still, he insists this move cannot substitute for a comprehensive political solution. For Shamu, decentralization is not a temporary compromise, but rather a long-term strategic vision for Kurdish-majority areas, one that mirrors deep-rooted social aspirations for democratic and autonomous governance.
He adds that federalism represents the most fitting political framework for Syria, given its ethnic and religious diversity. In his view, federalism is essential to safeguarding the rights of all communities and ensuring their participation in both political and economic decision-making. While partial agreements may yield local successes, Shamu stresses they cannot replace a nationwide political process that secures the rights of all Syrians within a unified, decentralized structure.
Read also: Syrian Border Security Chief Dies After Attack in Tense Southern Province
International Backing, But With Strings Attached
Internationally, the broad outlines of foreign engagement are becoming clearer. Security stabilization, combined with respect for political rights, is widely seen as a prerequisite for lifting sanctions imposed on Syria. Many governments have indicated that economic aid and reconstruction efforts can only proceed within an inclusive political environment that recognizes and incorporates the full spectrum of Syrian society.
Nonetheless, criticism continues to be directed at the government in Damascus, particularly over the marginalization of decentralized groups. This exclusion has been reflected in key national documents, including the Constitutional Declaration and the recent National Congress, neither of which, critics argue, adequately represent Syria’s diverse population. In this context, the Aleppo agreement appears less a blueprint for the future and more a tactical response to shifting realities within Syria.
While these local understandings fall short of a comprehensive political settlement, they may serve as foundational steps toward stabilizing common ground. Over time, such initiatives could help reshape Syria’s social contract around the principle of inclusive partnership, rather than exclusion.
