.jpg)
Kurdish Peace Mothers
By Arian Mufid:
On October 2024, Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), shocked the Turkish Parliament by declaring that Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), should be freed. Bahçeli also took an unprecedented step by shaking hands with members of the pro-Kurdish DEM Party, many of whom hail from northern Kurdistan in Turkey. This dramatic shift came after Turkish intelligence (MIT) informed him that negotiations with the PKK had reached an advanced stage. In response, Öcalan sent a historic message from his jail cell on February 27, 2025, calling for an end to violence and urging the PKK to lay down their arms and prepare for a party conference to dissolve the organization.The announcement, read in both Kurdish and Turkish, was met with mixed reactions. In Diyarbakır, a massive hall was prepared for the statement’s public reading, attended by nearly 300 journalists and representatives from 149 media outlets. Outside, nearly 100,000 Kurds watched the broadcast on large screens. Among the crowd, emotions varied: some expressed joy at the prospect of peace, while others were devastated, believing that Öcalan had conceded too much without securing any guarantees for Kurdish rights.
Political leaders and analysts also interpreted the statement in different ways. Some saw it as a surrender, while others viewed it as a futile effort unlikely to change Turkey’s hardline policies. The international community, however, welcomed the move. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called it a “positive step in the right direction.” Governments in Germany, France, and the United States also endorsed the peace process as an opportunity to reshape Turkey’s policies toward its Kurdish population, which has long been subjected to state violence.
Salih Muslim, co-chair of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, remarked, “It is now Turkey’s turn to step up the peace process.” Similarly, Ramzy Cartel, leader of the People’s Congress, noted that had the 2013-2015 peace process not collapsed, the PKK could have already decommissioned its armed forces. Over the last four decades, nearly 39,000 people have died in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict, making the stakes for peace higher than ever.
Despite the optimism, deep mistrust remains between the Kurdish people and the Turkish state. Historically, peace processes have failed due to Turkey’s repeated suppression of Kurdish aspirations. Öcalan himself was captured in 1999 with the help of U.S., Israeli, and Turkish intelligence, and many Kurds fear that his latest statement might have been altered by Turkish authorities. DEM Party MP Sırrı Süreyya Önder suggested that Öcalan’s words do not fully reflect his genuine views, citing her own visit to him, during which he emphasized the need for a legal and political framework for negotiations.
The PKK has declared a ceasefire, yet in the six days following Öcalan’s statement, Turkey carried out 822 attacks on Kurdish targets. This underscores a fundamental problem: peace cannot be achieved while Turkish drones and military operations continue to strike Kurdish regions. International mediation, akin to the process used in Northern Ireland with independent monitors like Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, would be necessary to ensure the credibility and security of the disarmament process.
Ozgür Özel, leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), urged the Turkish government to respond to Öcalan’s message with courage, warning that ignoring it would only prolong the conflict. “The Kurdish issue is now visible throughout Turkey,” he stated, criticizing President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for downplaying the matter.
Many believe that Erdoğan is manipulating the situation for political gain, using the promise of peace to deceive both Turkish and Kurdish citizens. Meanwhile, the Turkish deep state and military continue to employ brutal tactics reminiscent of Sri Lanka’s elimination of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) and Colombia’s crackdown on the FARC. Yet, despite decades of attempts to crush the PKK, the organization remains resilient.
As former French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau famously said in 1919, “Making peace is harder than waging war.” Achieving a sustainable peace requires commitment, compromise, and a willingness to confront painful truths. The involvement of international powers has often been crucial in ending long-term conflicts, such as in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East.
Notably, past Turkish-PKK negotiations failed partly due to the absence of international mediators. The first attempt, backed by Turkish President Turgut Özal and Iraqi Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, collapsed following Özal’s suspicious death in 1994. The second, which took place between 2012 and 2015, also fell apart, leading to renewed violence. Without guarantees of legal protection and an end to military aggression, the PKK is unlikely to fully disarm.
For over 40 years, the PKK has fought against what it sees as one of the most brutal regimes in the world. The organization’s financial backbone comes from taxation of Kurdish businesses globally, rather than foreign assistance. Its resilience is deeply tied to grassroots support, with millions of Kurds viewing it as their only hope for self-determination. While the PKK has evolved in its strategies, it has consistently refused to surrender to Turkish pressure.
Turkey has enjoyed military and intelligence support from global powers, yet it has failed to eliminate the PKK. The organization’s leadership remains steadfast, believing that their cause is just and their struggle necessary. Even in captivity, Öcalan’s strategic foresight continues to shape Kurdish resistance. Many in the Kurdish movement argue that without genuine concessions from Turkey—including legal guarantees, constitutional reforms, and an end to state violence—the peace process is meaningless.
Ultimately, the success of the peace process depends on Turkey’s willingness to commit to real democratic reforms. The Turkish government must move beyond military repression and engage in sincere dialogue. Kurdish leaders, in turn, must ensure that their demands are met with concrete guarantees before taking irreversible steps toward disarmament.
If history is any guide, peace will not come easily. However, if both sides are genuinely committed to ending the bloodshed, a lasting resolution could finally emerge. Is Turkey ready to embrace peace, or will it once again allow an opportunity for reconciliation to slip away?
