Why Öcalan’s Call Presents Historical Opportunities and Risks for Turkey’s Kurds

Following a handshake between the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the pro-Kurdish People’s Equality and Democracy Party (DEM-Party) in the Turkish parliament on October 1, 2024, a DEM-Party delegation visited imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan three times. These meetings culminated in Öcalan’s February 27 statement, in which he urged his organization to lay down arms and abandon demands for Kurdish statehood, self-determination, autonomy, and even cultural rights, limiting the claims of Kurds to abstract democratic rights. His statement garnered significant attention from the international community, Turkish officials, and the Kurds. While some international actors welcomed his call for dissolution and disarmament, Turkish officials, including President Erdoğan and his advisor Mehmet Ucum, threatened severe consequences for Kurdish groups that failed to comply with Öcalan’s request. Some Kurds expressed disappointment at his call to abandon political and cultural claims, while others supported his peace efforts. While Öcalan’s call for disarmament may be considered a positive step toward peace for the Kurds in Turkey, his demand to relinquish collective political objectives risks erasing the Kurdish existence within Turkey. Furthermore, it is important to note that Öcalan’s appeal for disarmament is not directed at the Kurdish armed forces in Iran and Syria.

Since Hamas atrocities on October 7, 2023, the status quo in the Middle East has undergone a rapid transformation. On October 8, 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would bring a new order in the Middle East by eliminating Iranian proxies and jihadist groups, including Hamas. Israel’s efforts have been successful in weakening and even removing elements associated with the Iranian regime, such as the al-Assad regime in Syria. However, these actions have created a power vacuum, particularly in Syria, and potentially in Iraq and Iran. The Kurds, with their secular vision and well-organized military structures, are poised to fill this vacuum. At the same time, the Turkish state, with its imperialist ambitions and radical jihadist alliances, presents a significant challenge to Kurdish efforts to reclaim areas that Turkey considers part of its sovereign territory (Misak-I-Milli).

The current state of affairs resembles, in many respects, the period following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, which also created a power vacuum that presented both risks and opportunities. The Sevres Treaty of 1920 presented the Kurds with a unique opportunity for self-determination and independence. However, the Turks had already signed the 1919 Amasya Protocol, which emphasized Kurdish-Turkish fraternity and laid the grounds for an alliance in a shared homeland. The Turkish regime also created the illusion of Kurdish freedom within Turkey, encouraging Kurdish chieftains to wear traditional Kurdish clothing and speak Kurdish. This strategy aimed to prevent the Kurds from seeking international allies to form their state while simultaneously convincing the international community that the Kurds were an integral part of Turkish society. Yet, once the Turkish delegation signed the Lausanne Treaty in 1923, the regime reversed course. The regime executed Kurdish chieftains for wearing Kurdish clothes and speaking Kurdish in the National Assembly and abandoned the Kurds once and for all, denied their existence, and carried out a series of genocidal atrocities aimed at erasing them from the face of the earth as a distinct national group

Turkey’s denial of Kurdish existence led to numerous uprisings, with the most significant being the formation of the PKK in 1978. The PKK aimed to end Turkish repression and establish a democratic, independent Kurdistan. A large portion of the Kurdish population rallied behind the PKK, offering resources and sacrificing their lives for this cause. Over time, fueled by a century of grievances and oppression, the PKK evolved into a powerful organization, with tens of thousands of fighters and extensive legal and illegal networks across the Middle East and Europe. It waged a bloody armed struggle against the Turkish state, demanding recognition of Kurdish rights and identity. In 1993, the PKK shifted its focus from seeking an independent Kurdistan to advocating for autonomy, self-governance, and cultural rights for the Kurds through nonviolent means. To advance this, PKK leader Öcalan called for ceasefires in 1993, 1999, and 2013 with the aim of resolving the Kurdish issue peacefully. However, the Turkish state responded with draconian measures aimed at eradicating the PKK and consistently rejected any constitutional recognition of Kurdish status or cultural rights. Turkey maintained its repressive policies, both domestically and internationally, portraying the Kurds as a national threat. Consequently, it killed tens of thousands of Kurds and forced millions to flee their villages and towns. Many Kurds faced forced assimilation. Today, well over 15 million Kurds live in Turkey without constitutional recognition of their cultural and linguistic rights. Tens of thousands remain imprisoned, many simply for speaking Kurdish or performing Kurdish dances.

In light of the ongoing transformation in the Middle East, and despite Turkey’s repressive treatment of the Kurds, Öcalan has called on his organization to disarm and disband through an assembly, as well as to renounce political demands such as nation-state status, federalism, autonomy, and cultural rights. Öcalan’s call for the disarmament of the Kurdish faction in Turkey should be viewed as a positive step, shifting the struggle from armed resistance to legitimate and peaceful non-violent methods. In this context, the Kurdish diaspora is positioned to play a pivotal role in garnering support for Kurdish interests in Turkey by engaging with representatives of the countries where they reside as citizens and taxpayers. Additionally, this call for conflict resolution and peace is timely and aligns with the approach advocated by US President Donald Trump, who prioritized ending wars and promoting peace. Accordingly, representatives from the United States, Germany, China, the United Kingdom, and international bodies such as the UN and EU have expressed support for Öcalan’s call for a peaceful resolution, which he originally proposed in 1993.

Although international support for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue is crucial, we must focus on the approach of the Turkish state, which has oppressed the Kurds for decades in attempts to erase their existence. In this context, it is not the Kurds who decide the terms of peace, but rather the Turkish state, which has consistently rejected the peaceful solutions proposed by the Kurds. Given the historical experiences of the Kurds under Turkey’s hostile policies, as well as the political atmosphere currently cultivated by Turkish state representatives, there is little hope that the Turkish regime will bring sustainable peace. Instead, the Turkish government expects the Kurds to assimilate into Turkish society and align with its coalition of Sunni Arab jihadist groups in the Middle East—all in service of its neo-Ottoman imperialist ambitions. It is important to remember rhetoric from the current Turkish leadership, which echoes that of the post-World War I era, which allegedly promoted the Kurdish-Turkish alliance, cemented the foundation of the Turkish state, and simultaneously deprived the Kurds of fundamental human rights.

Despite Turkey’s cynical approach, the peaceful means employed by the Kurds could still enhance their chances of achieving their legitimate cultural and political goals on the international stage. However, Öcalan’s call to relinquish political demands such as autonomy, self-determination, statehood, and cultural rights has been widely criticized by the Kurdish community, who argue that it poses significant risks. These risks include the potential erasure of Kurdish identities in Turkey, where the Kurdish language is rapidly dying, and Kurdish culture is becoming increasingly exoticized, losing its authenticity. Such an approach undermines the legitimacy of Kurdish national existence and their aspirations to live in peace within their homeland while enjoying their fundamental human rights.

While the plight of the Kurds may not reach a potential resolution anytime soon, the Turkish state aims to extend its cynical approach toward their brethren in Syria. Accordingly, the Turkish media and authorities have been claiming for days that Öcalan’s call is also directed at the Kurds in Rojava. This claim is misleading and intended to create confusion among Kurdish allies and ultimately abandon the Kurdish forces. The leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Rojava has emphasized that Öcalan’s call for disarmament is primarily directed at his organization in the Qandil Mountains. That being said, the Kurdish forces in Rojava recognize the need to follow different paths, alongside robust diplomatic efforts, due to their circumstances under the ISIS threat and the unpredictable situation in the Middle East, where executions and beheadings are daily occurrences, not exceptions.

The Kurds in Rojava also reflect on the historical mistreatment of their ancestors by Turkish and Arab regimes since the 1920s and remember the atrocities committed by ISIS against the Kurdish-Yezidi community. It is crucial to preserve these memories to prevent the Kurds from slipping into the same traps that have long plagued them. Consequently, the Kurdish forces in Syria imply that they focused on strengthening their military capabilities and expanding their regional and international alliances in a region where the positions of both allies and adversaries can change rapidly, and unpredictability is the norm. As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu aptly put it, “In the Middle East, without the sword, there is no ‘forever.'” The atrocities committed by ISIS in 2014, along with the Hamas attack on October 7, have underscored the cruel nature of the region. Therefore, the Kurds are acutely aware that leaving the fate of millions of Kurds in Syria at the mercy of Sunni jihadists in Damascus is not only naive but also potentially suicidal.

The Kurdish forces in Rojava, Syria, understand that strengthening their armed forces is essential to ensure the survival of their population against ISIS and the hostile policies of Turkey in the Middle East. While building military strength is essential, Kurdish factions must also actively seek to consolidate new alliances with those who share a common vision to counter the imperialist ambitions of the Turkish and Iranian regimes. One potential ally is the Jewish people, who, since the establishment of their state, have sought peace with their neighbors but have repeatedly faced atrocities and wars from pan-Islamist and pan-Arab groups. Both Kurds and Jews are often regarded as “hated” peoples in the Middle East, constantly facing shared threats. The leaders of both communities must now recognize their mutual interests, align their goals, and learn from their shared history to strengthen their alliance and protect it from vulnerability. The stateless Kurds cannot afford to miss another opportunity in their quest for freedom after a century of struggle.