対テロ協力から政治的放棄へ
シリア民主軍（SDF）と地域大国政治
― シリアにおけるクルド連邦的志向の抑圧構造 ―
２０２６．１．３１Telly berwary
エグゼクティブサマリー（5点）
- SDFは対ISIS戦争の決定的地上戦力であったが、戦後政治秩序において制度的承認を得られなかった。
クルド勢力を中核とするSDFは国際社会の対テロ戦争において中心的役割を果たしたが、その貢献は憲法的・政治的権利として反映されなかった。 - トルコの戦略転換により、シリア紛争の主軸は「体制転換」から「クルド自治抑止」へと移行した。
反体制武装勢力は再編され、トルコ主導の代理勢力としてクルド支配地域への攻撃に投入された。 - 国際社会は非公式な了解を通じ、クルド連邦的志向を交渉枠組みから体系的に排除した。
米国、トルコ、ロシア、シリア政府間の暗黙の合意が、クルド自治の政治化を阻んだ。 - SDF統治地域内では民族構成による政治的帰結の差異が拡大した。
アラブ多数地域は比較的平穏に政府復帰が進んだ一方、クルド地域は軍事的抵抗と自治維持を継続した。 - 国際人道法違反の公開的拡散は、代理戦争における規範崩壊を象徴している。
虐待行為の映像拡散と不処罰は、法的・倫理的抑制の消失を示している。
１． SDF の形成と対ISIS国際作戦
シリア民主軍（SDF）は、いわゆる「イスラム国（ISIS）」がシリアおよびイラクで急速に勢力を拡大する中、2015年に多民族軍事連合として正式に設立された。構成要素にはクルド人、アラブ人、アッシリア人、シリアック人が含まれていたが、作戦上の中核を担ったのは、人民防衛隊（YPG）および女性防衛部隊（YPJ）を中心とするクルド勢力であった。
2014 年から2019年にかけて、SDFは国際対ISIS作戦における主要な地上戦力として機能し、コバネ、マンビジ、ラッカ、最終的にはバグズの解放において決定的役割を果たした。米国および連合国は航空支援、情報提供、限定的助言を行ったが、持続的な地上戦闘と人的犠牲の大部分はSDF戦闘員が負担した。
この軍事的協力関係は、対テロ貢献が戦後段階においてシリア国内での政治的権利承認につながるという、クルド側の合理的期待を生んだ。これらの期待は、分権化、実質的な地方自治、あるいはイラク・クルディスタン地域に類似した連邦的枠組みとして表明された。
２．トルコの戦略転換と武装勢力の再編
シリア内戦初期、トルコはアサド政権打倒を目指す武装反体制派の主要支援国として行動していた。しかし時間の経過とともに、トルコの戦略的優先順位は決定的に変化した。最大の関心事は、南部国境沿いにクルドの政治的・領土的自治が確立されることを阻止する点へと移行した。
その結果、かつてシリア政府軍と戦っていた武装勢力の多くは再編・再編成され、後に「シリア国民軍（SNA）」として知られるトルコ管理下の構造に組み込まれた。これらの勢力は次第に、政府軍ではなくSDF支配地域への攻撃に集中するようになった。
この変化は、紛争の性格を「内戦」から「代理戦争によるクルド自治解体」へと転換させた。
3．国際的了解とクルド連邦主義の周縁化
クルド側の分析視点から見れば、対ISIS後のシリア情勢は正式な和平合意ではなく、米国、トルコ、ロシア、シリア政府による非公式な了解と黙認の積み重ねによって形成されてきた。
これらの了解の累積的効果として、
・クルドの連邦的・自治的志向は国際交渉から排除され
・トルコは北部シリアでの行動自由度を拡大し
・米国はSDFへの政治的関与を後退させ
・シリア政府は憲法改革なしに主権回復を進めることが可能となった
この構図は、「危機時には動員され、平時には切り捨てられる」というクルド側の歴史的認識を再強化するものであった。
4．SDF 内部の分化と不均等な政治的帰結
外圧の強化に伴い、SDF支配地域内のアラブ多数地域では、政治的誘因や安全保障上の取引を通じた政府復帰が進められた。これらの地域では大規模な戦闘は限定的であった。
一方、クルド多数地域では状況は大きく異なった。トルコ支援勢力およびダマスカスからの圧力にもかかわらず、クルド地域は軍事的崩壊を免れ、組織的抵抗を維持した。この持続性は、軍事力のみならず、地域社会の正統性と動員力に支えられていた。
５．国際人道法違反と規範抑制の崩壊
政府系武装勢力および関連武装集団による戦闘では、国際人道法違反が深刻な問題として指摘されている。特に問題なのは、これらの行為が隠蔽されることなく、加害者自身によってSNS上に公開された点である。
女性クルド戦闘員の遺体に対する侮辱行為などは、ジュネーブ諸条約共通第3条に明確に違反する。これらの行為が処罰も否定もされない状況は、代理戦争における説明責任の完全な欠如を示している。
6. 汎クルド的連帯と地域的波及
ロジャヴァでの事態は、トルコ、イラク、イランにまたがるクルド地域全体に波及した。
軍事介入は限定的であったが、政治的動員と象徴的連帯は、これが局地紛争ではなく「クルド全体の問題」であるという認識を強化した。
7. 結論
対ISIS 戦争後のシリア情勢は、協力関係から政治的抑圧への明確な転換を示している。SDFの周縁化は軍事的失敗ではなく、国家主権と地域取引を優先した国際政治の帰結であった。
持続的平和は、代理戦争や政治的排除によっては達成されない。クルドの政治的権利を含まない解決は、将来的不安定化を内包し続けることになる。
From Counterterrorism Partnership to Political Abandonment
The Syrian Democratic Forces and Regional Power Politics
The Suppression of Kurdish Federal Aspirations in Syria
２０２６．１．３１Telly berwary
Executive Summary (Five Key Points)
- The SDF served as the decisive ground force in the campaign against ISIS,yet its contributions were not translated into political recognition in the post-war order.
Despite bearing the primary burden of ground combat, Kurdish-led forces failed to secure constitutional or institutional guarantees for political rights in post-ISIS Syria. - Turkey’s strategic reorientation shifted the core logic of the Syrian conflict from regime change to the containment of Kurdish autonomy.
Armed opposition factions were reorganized under Turkish supervision and redeployed primarily against SDF-controlled areas. - Through informal international understandings, Kurdish federal aspirations were systematically excluded from diplomatic frameworks.
Tacit arrangements among the United States, Turkey, Russia, and the Syrian government marginalized Kurdish political agency. - Ethnic differentiation within SDF-administered territories resulted in uneven political outcomes.
Arab-majority regions underwent negotiated reintegration, while Kurdish majority areas sustained military resistance and political cohesion. - The public dissemination of humanitarian law violations reflects a collapse of normative restraint inherent in proxy warfare.
The absence of accountability underscores structural impunity within proxy based conflict environments.
１． The Formation of the SDF and the Global Campaign Against ISIS
The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were formally established in 2015 as a multi ethnic military coalition amid the rapid territorial expansion of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) across Syria and Iraq. Although composed of Kurdish, Arab, Assyrian, and Syriac elements, the operational backbone of the SDF consisted of Kurdish forces—most prominently the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ).
Between 2014 and 2019, the SDF functioned as the principal ground force in the international campaign against ISIS, playing a decisive role in the liberation of strategic urban centers including Kobane, Manbij, Raqqa, and ultimately Baghouz.While the United States and coalition partners provided air power, intelligence support, and limited advisory assistance, the burden of sustained ground combat and the accompanying human cost were borne overwhelmingly by SDF fighters.
This military partnership generated reasonable political expectations among Syrian Kurds that their contribution to global counterterrorism would translate, in the post ISIS phase, into constitutional recognition of Kurdish political rights within Syria.
These expectations were articulated in calls for decentralization, meaningful local self-administration, or a federal arrangement comparable—though not identical—to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
２．Turkey’s Strategic Reorientation and the Reconfiguration of Armed Actors
During the early stages of the Syrian conflict, Turkey positioned itself as a primary supporter of armed opposition groups seeking to overthrow the Syrian government. Over time, however, Ankara’s strategic priorities shifted decisively. Preventing the consolidation of Kurdish political and territorial autonomy along Turkey’s southern border came to supersede regime change in Damascus.
As a result, numerous armed factions previously engaged in hostilities against the Syrian Arab Army were reorganized, rebranded, and placed under direct Turkish supervision within structures that later became known as the Syrian National Army (SNA). These forces were increasingly redirected toward operations against SDF controlled territories rather than Syrian government positions.
This transformation marked a fundamental reconfiguration of the conflict’s logic:
from an internal uprising against state authority to a proxy-based confrontation aimed at dismantling Kurdish self-administration. In this context, Kurdish-controlled areas became the primary theater of military pressure, despite their central role in the defeat of ISIS.
３．International Understandings and the Marginalization of Kurdish Federalism
From a Kurdish analytical perspective, the post-ISIS phase of the Syrian conflict has been shaped not by formal peace agreements, but by a series of informal understandings and tacit arrangements among key international and regional actors, particularly the United States, Turkey, Russia, and the Syrian government.
Although no single publicly declared agreement explicitly codified these arrangements, their cumulative political effect was both observable and consequential:
- Kurdish federal or autonomous aspirations were systematically excluded from international diplomatic frameworks on Syria.
- Turkey was afforded expanded operational latitude in northern Syria, particularly against Kurdish-administered areas.
- The United States gradually scaled back political commitments and security assurances to its former SDF partners.
- The Syrian government was enabled to reassert sovereign claims over formerly autonomous regions without undertaking substantive constitutional reform or decentralization.
Taken together, these developments reinforced a long-standing Kurdish perception that international powers engage Kurdish forces instrumentally during periods of crisis, only to marginalize them during political settlements in favor of state-centric stability and regional accommodation.
４．Internal Differentiation Within the SDF and Uneven Political Outcomes
As external pressure intensified, Arab-majority areas within SDF-administered territories were subjected to political inducements, security guarantees, and negotiated arrangements aimed at facilitating their reintegration under Syrian government authority. In several cases, these areas transitioned with limited armed confrontation.
Kurdish-majority areas, however, followed a markedly different trajectory. Despite sustained military pressure from Turkish-backed forces and political pressure from Damascus, Kurdish-controlled territories did not collapse militarily. No Kurdish village was taken through decisive ground assault, and Kurdish forces demonstrated continued organizational cohesion and resistance capacity.
This resilience was rooted not only in military capability but also in strong local legitimacy, social mobilization, and a perception among Kurdish communities that their struggle was existential rather than transactional.
５．Violations, Public Dissemination, and the Erosion of Normative Restraint
Confrontations involving Syrian government–aligned forces and affiliated armed groups were accompanied by serious allegations of violations of international humanitarian law. What distinguishes these allegations, however, is an additional and deeply troubling dimension: the deliberate public dissemination of abusive acts through social media platforms.
Multiple local sources and media reports indicate that certain violations—including degrading treatment of deceased female Kurdish fighters—were recorded and openly broadcast by the perpetrators themselves. The absence of concealment, denial, or subsequent accountability suggests not isolated misconduct, but a broader environment of impunity in which humiliation and psychological intimidation were normalized as instruments of warfare.
From a legal perspective, such conduct constitutes a clear violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment, regardless of the victim’s status. The public exhibition of such acts may further aggravate their legal gravity, as it reflects intentional humiliation directed not only at the individual victim but at the wider
community.
Beyond legal considerations, the public and unapologetic nature of these acts represents a profound rupture with moral and ethical norms repeatedly invoked by the perpetrators themselves. The desecration of bodies, the humiliation of the dead, and the dishonoring of women stand in direct contradiction to Islamic principles as well as universally recognized humanitarian and civilizational values.
The absence of internal condemnation or disciplinary measures following the circulation of these recordings further underscores the erosion of accountability mechanisms within certain command structures, highlighting the inherent dangers of proxy warfare conducted beyond effective legal and ethical restraint.
6. Pan-Kurdish Solidarity and the Regional Dimension
The confrontation in Rojava reverberated across all parts of Kurdistan—Bakur (Turkey), Bashur (Iraq), and Rojhilat (Iran). While direct military intervention did not materialize, political mobilization, public advocacy, and cross-border solidarity underscored a shared Kurdish understanding that developments in northern Syria constituted a collective Kurdish issue rather than a localized conflict.
This regional resonance reinforced the perception that the suppression of Kurdish self-administration in Syria was part of a broader pattern of containment extending beyond national borders.
7. Conclusion
The post-ISIS evolution of the Syrian conflict illustrates a clear transition from counterterrorism partnership to political containment of Kurdish aspirations. The marginalization of the SDF was not the result of military failure, but of strategic realignments that privileged state sovereignty and regional bargaining over
democratic inclusion and pluralism.
The exclusion of Kurdish federalism from political negotiations, combined with documented violations against Kurdish fighters, reflects a recurring pattern in which Kurdish political agency is subordinated to short-term stability arrangements. As Syria’s future remains unresolved, it is increasingly evident that durable peace cannot be achieved through coercion, proxy warfare, or the systematic erasure of Kurdish political rights.