The Kurds shouldn’t gamble with Turkey via Imrali-Prison

On October 1, 2024, Devlet Bahceli, the ultranationalist leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), shook hands with pro-Kurdish lawmakers in the Turkish Parliament. He subsequently stated that “Turks and Kurds are brothers and sisters.” Consequently, he invited Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), to appear in parliament, to declare the end of the armed conflict, and to urge his organization to surrender their weapons. Following more than five years of solitary confinement on İmralı Island, the Turkish authorities have allowed Öcalan’s nephew, Ömer Öcalan, and two members of the Parliament in the rank of the pro-Kurdish DEM Party, Pervin Buldan and Sirri Süreya Önder, to visit him. According to numerous reports, the Turkish authorities specifically selected both MPs, while excluding Kurdish politician Ahmet Türk from participation in meetings with Öcalan.
Bahceli’s handshake, his later invitation, and the meetings with Öcalan have sparked an intense debate among Turkish journalists, lawmakers, and Kurdish activists in the diaspora. On the one hand, Recep T. Erdogan, the Turkish President, has described Bahceli’s handshake as an opportunity to restore the so-called Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood. On the other hand, he has threatened to “bury” the Kurds “in the ground” if they do not respond to Bahceli’s overtures and lay down their arms. This call has not only been issued to PKK members in the mountainous areas of Iraq’s Kurdistan Region but also to Kurdish members of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), whose evacuation from Northern and Eastern Syria has also been demanded. Öcalan has responded approvingly to these calls. Buldan and Önder asserted that he is diligently working to develop a “coexistence model against hegemonic interventions,” offering two options: “either his solution or that of the United States.” How should we interpret these purported efforts to resolve the regional Kurdish question?
The author took the image during a demonstration organized by the Kurdish diaspora members for the unity of political Kurdish actors in December 2019 in London.
Since October 7, 2023, the status quo in the Middle East has shifted. A new order is being established, one that promises to eliminate threats to Israeli and Western interests as posed by the imperialistic ambitions of Iran and by Islamist militants in the region. In addition to ensuring Israel’s security, this change reinforces peace and democracy in the Middle East via economic cooperation and innovation. The Abraham Accords, a historical peace agreement between Israel and several Arab governments, serve as the foundation for achieving these objectives. The Abraham Accords are specifically designed to uphold and strengthen peace based on “mutual understanding and coexistence” and to encourage “respect for human dignity and freedom.” In order to further this cause, the treaty also aims to prevent Iran, with its expansionist aspirations, from endangering regional stability. The Abraham Accords embody the spirit of the Fourteen Points of 1918, which were announced by US President Woodrow Wilson in an effort to facilitate peace negotiations after World War I. Wilson’s fourteen points included a provision supporting the unmolested opportunity of autonomous development for ethnic and national minorities that had been subject to Ottoman rule. This obviously included the Kurds. The Abraham Accords, initiated by the current US president, Donald Trump, in 2020, also provide stateless communities, such as Kurds, Druzes, and Christian minorities, with a golden opportunity to gain their long-awaited self-determination, to enjoy dignity and freedom, and to reside in peaceful coexistence in the Middle East.
However, Iran and Turkey, historically, the two regional imperial powers, have threatened the progress of the Abraham Accords. They intend not only to maintain but also to strengthen the existing status quo in the Middle East. Iran has expanded its influence throughout the region by providing support to a network of terror organizations with extremist religious agendas. One of these, Hamas, carried out atrocities on October 7, 2023. However, the imperialist ambitions and insidious threats of the Iranian regime ultimately are resulting in its defeat throughout the Middle East. The Turkish regime adheres to the same colonial and imperialist objectives in order to further its influence throughout the region and thereby fill the vacuum of power in Syria and Iraq, left by the Iranian regime and its proxies. Inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Turkish regime has, both covertly and overtly, formed a jihadist army including Sunni extremists from Al-Qaida and ISIS-linked groups, Turkmens, and various foreign criminals from around the world. It has trained, funded, and equipped this jihadist army in order to serve Turkish interests in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and North Africa. Turkish imperialism, in full swing, also seeks to eradicate those who do not adhere to ultranationalist and Islamist Turkish doctrine, particularly the Kurds.
Both during Ottoman times and after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, state policies have targeted the Kurds, who are characterized by their secular lifestyle and by their distinct cultural and ethnic identity. These regimes have frequently attempted to either assimilate Kurds into the Turkish national body through soft power, asserting that the Kurds and Turks have been brothers and sisters for a thousand years, or to crush Kurdish demands through coercive power, demonizing them as “terrorists” as a justification, thereby eliminating them as a distinct group. For instance, while Turkish leaders signed the Amasya Memorandum in 1919, claiming that Kurds and Turks are brothers and sisters, equal citizens of their homeland, and deserving equal treatment, the same leaders later resorted to draconian policies in order to suppress the Kurdish voices and to erase their presence as a nation within the Turkish state. After signing the Lausanne Treaty in 1923, the Turks censored the “Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood” in the memorandum and adopted a repressive approach, solidifying both the cornerstone of the Turkish Republic and the Kurdish denial.
Once again, the Turkish regime appears to be repeating its traditional policy by employing a variety of methods to eliminate any potential for tranquil and autonomous Kurdish existence in their own homeland. In this context, the ultranationalist and Islamist Turkish leaders utilize Öcalan’s clout to dissolve his organization without addressing Kurdish concerns or the cause of the armed conflict, thereby ignoring Kurdish demands and marginalizing Kurdish representation. Öcalan, who has been imprisoned by the regime on Imrali Island since 1999, is in no position to competently negotiate Kurdish demands. His communication with the outside world is mediated through individuals determined by Turkish authorities, so that it is impossible to determine the degree to which public statements made in his name have been subjected to distortion. Reports from his government-appointed MPs suggest that he aims to establish a “coexistence model” that will thwart Western imperialist ambitions aimed at Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. This claim is misleading, as it reaffirms the Turkish rhetoric and actually serves the imperialist objectives of both Turkey and Iran. Öcalan has to be reminded of the fact that it is the Turkish state that has long been colonizing the Kurdish homeland and following imperialist agendas to revive the neo-Ottoman order. In other words, Öcalan’s statements align with official Turkish narratives, expressed by Mehmet Uçum, Chief Advisor to Turkish President Erdoğan, that the Kurdish question is a tool of imperialist powers. Thus, messages released on Öcalan’s behalf prioritize Turkey’s imperialist objectives over Kurdish self-determination in the Middle East. Therefore, Öcalan’s status as a political prisoner and the consequent restrictive conditions under which he lives disqualify him from negotiating Kurdish demands with the Turkish state. Masses of Kurdish social media users have therefore questioned Öcalan’s proposed solution and his legitimacy.
The Turkish state appears to be using Öcalan as a bargaining tool to undermine Kurdish claims, while the Turkish military and jihadists, operating under the Free Syrian Army (FSA), are relentlessly attacking Rojava. They have struck Kurdish troops and civilians in Qamisli, Kobane, and the area surrounding Tishrin Dam in the Manbij countryside of northern Syria. Turkish drone attacks have already resulted in the loss of over 20 civilian lives alone within a month and are responsible for a significant percentage of injuries in the vicinity of Tishrin Dam. Yet, Turkey’s hostility toward the Kurds in Syria is not limited to military attacks on the ground. It also includes diplomatic campaigns at the international level. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has openly declared Turkish animosity toward Kurds during media appearances and discussions with foreign ministers from other countries. He has devoted his entire effort to persuading his counterparts to identify the Kurds as “terrorists,” thereby disqualifying them from representing their interests before the international community. While threatening to “bury” Kurdish combatants in the ground, he has also insisted that the SDF is dominated by “Kurdish terrorists” and that it must be dissolved. Additionally, Fidan maintains frequent communication with jihadist leaders in Damascus, advocating for the preservation of an “Arab Republic of Syria” to reject the Kurdish demands for autonomy in any form. Notably, the Turkish policy does not solely target the SDF but also all Kurdish aspirations for political recognition in their own homeland. Using Öcalan and targeting the Kurds militarily and diplomatically, the Turkish state employs multiple measures to crush Kurdish aspirations, leaving them without status and protection in the Middle East.
As the Middle East undergoes a transformation leading to the weakening of authoritarian and repressive regimes, it presents Kurds and other stateless communities with promising opportunities for democracy and peaceful coexistence in the spirit of the Abraham Accords, which may be characterized as a “fourteen points” for the twenty-first century. However, the Turkish and Iranian regimes actively operate to obstruct the transformation of the status quo, striving instead to revive the Ottoman and Safavid empires on the dual foundation of Turkish and Persian nationalism and Islamism. Both constructions have been used as powerful discourses to justify the ruthless oppression against the Kurds, depriving them not only of political autonomy but even of the internationally recognized human rights to preserve their cultural and linguistic heritage.
Kurdish actors can and must respond to these events, securing Kurdish rights in the four parts of their divided homeland. To this end, they might consider their obligations to establish a national alliance that is founded on their shared history, territory, culture, and values. For instance, the recent meeting between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Masoud Barzani and the SDF chief Mazloum Abdi represented a groundbreaking move toward this desideratum that will enhance cooperation towards their people’s genuine aspirations. They should rely on popular support among the Kurdish population and work to strengthen alliances with their friends in Jerusalem, Washington, Riyadh and Cairo, who regard the Kurds as the key allies in efforts to defeat political Islam and jihadism and to thwart the imperialistic ambitions of Turkey and Iran.
Finally, the Kurdish conflict, which has deep historical roots and impacts over 50 million people and various Middle Eastern governments, should not be resolved in an isolated Turkish prison in accordance with the Turkish playbook. A solution to the Kurdish question needs to be negotiated between the Kurdish and Turkish representatives on an international platform under international law and in the presence of the international power holders who have served as the driving forces behind the ongoing fundamental shift in the Middle East. This is the way forward for a sustainable, dignified, and peaceful solution to ethno-national conflicts in the world. Accordingly, the Kurds should understand that Öcalan’s purported solution, achieved under unequal and restrictive conditions, does not offer the Kurds a peaceful future but only leaves them as subservient subjects vulnerable to the mercy of the imperialist regime in Ankara for another century of suffering.