The process, brought to a critical juncture by the statement issued by the PKK terrorist organization leader Abdullah Öcalan, has now surpassed its first tangible threshold with the release of a declaration announcing the organization’s decision to dissolve. Naturally, numerous uncertainties remain regarding the trajectory of this process. At the "congress" convened by the terrorist organization between 5-7 May, several pivotal resolutions were adopted: the “termination of all activities conducted under the PKK name and the disbandment of the organization,” a “decision to lay down arms and pursue a democratic political path,” and the “renunciation of separatist rhetoric.” Nonetheless, significant discrepancies exist between Öcalan’s disbandment appeal and the content of the "congress" declaration.
From an analytical perspective, Öcalan’s statement is characterized by a softened ideological tone. His rhetoric is embedded within a conciliatory political framework, prioritizing state-society reconciliation. In contrast, the "congress" declaration appears intent on preserving the organization’s institutional memory, employing language that emphasizes “revolutionary tradition” and ideological identity, with markedly greater ideological fervor.
Another key point of divergence pertains to the rationale offered for disbandment and disarmament. Öcalan presents these decisions as necessary responses to ideological exhaustion and a loss of existential purpose. He invokes the organization’s foundational principles while advocating for a transition to democratic politics. The "congress" declaration, however, frames the decision as a “strategic achievement” – the culmination of an evolutionary journey whereby the organization fulfilled its historical mission. While Öcalan projects a forward-looking vision of political restructuring, the declaration constructs a traumatic collective memory by referencing the 1993 cease-fire from the former Prime Minister Turgut Özal era, unresolved political assassinations, village evacuations and alleged conspiracies.
In terms of political engagement, Öcalan adopts a reconciliatory stance, addressing all domestic political actors and advocating for constitutional resolution. By contrast, the "congress" declaration refrains from engaging directly with political stakeholders and instead adopts a more accusatory tone, invoking the Treaty of Lausanne and referencing prior political processes. Whereas Öcalan situates domestic political actors as primary interlocutors, the "congress" text seeks to internationalize the process by appealing to foreign actors and socialist internationalist circles.
Both texts place Öcalan at the center of the process; however, the "congress" declaration elevates his personal “struggle” to an almost mythological dimension. Given the PKK’s rigid hierarchical structure, it is unsurprising that decision-making processes remain deeply anchored in a cult of leadership.
Regarding visions for peace, Öcalan articulates a tangible political framework grounded in constitutional citizenship, recognition of identity rights, pluralist democracy and voluntary integration. The "congress" declaration, by contrast, presents a more abstract ideological vision – emphasizing concepts such as communal society-building, a women’s emancipation paradigm, democratic modernity and alternative systemic theories. In essence, while Öcalan urges integration into the existing political order, the terrorist organization continues to advocate for an extra-systemic alternative model.
In an earlier analysis, I argued that Türkiye’s strategic posture toward the PKK has evolved through three distinct phases. The first, the counter-force phase, focused on targeted military operations to degrade the PKK’s armed capacity. The second, the counter-value phase, sought to undermine the organization’s economic and strategic infrastructure through cross-border operations. The third and current phase signifies a transition to non-conventional warfare, wherein Türkiye employs political, intelligence and diplomatic instruments to neutralize the PKK. Öcalan’s disarmament appeal and the resolutions adopted at the PKK’s 12th "congress" align with this paradigmatic shift.
Moreover, the PKK’s response to Öcalan’s statement should not be interpreted solely through the lens of leader worship. Rather, it reflects a strategic imperative grounded in organizational survival. Although Öcalan continues to be recognized as the “foundational leader” and the principal source of the organization’s legitimacy, the symbolic authority of his appeal must be contextualized within shifting geopolitical and operational dynamics.
In recent years, the balance of power has shifted decisively against the PKK. Türkiye’s enhanced military and technological capabilities – including leadership-targeted decapitation operations and a robust regional encirclement strategy – have severely constrained the organization’s mobility and diminished its operational resilience. Concurrently, the PKK’s waning regional influence, diminished political effectiveness within European diaspora networks, and its increasingly tenuous alliance with the U.S. in Syria have introduced acute challenges to its structural sustainability. In this context, the response to Öcalan’s call reflects not only ideological loyalty but also a pragmatic reflex aimed at preserving the organization’s continuity.
The most critical risk moving forward pertains to the potential for substructures or semi-autonomous factions within the organization to act independently of the central hierarchy, thereby attempting to sabotage, provoke or derail the process. Although the PKK has traditionally maintained a highly centralized decision-making structure, the emergence of divergent responses from affiliated or ideologically aligned groups underscores the complexity of managing a unified dissolution process.
In this context, the recent statement by the PJAK – an Iran-based armed group widely recognized as an offshoot of the PKK – illustrates a clear manifestation of such risks. Despite the PKK’s formal announcement of dissolution in response to Öcalan’s call, PJAK has publicly declared its refusal to lay down arms or disband. Speaking to Aryen TV, PJAK co-chair Amir Karimi emphasized that Öcalan’s statement does not extend to PJAK, characterizing their stance as distinct and autonomous. While describing Öcalan’s initiative as “significant and positive” for resolving the Kurdish issue, Karimi reaffirmed PJAK’s continued commitment to armed struggle under the doctrine of “legitimate self-defence.”
This stance reveals a fundamental divergence within the broader PKK-linked network. PJAK, headquartered in the Qandil Mountains and frequently engaged in clashes with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), remains committed to its armed posture despite having declared a "cease-fire" in 2011. PJAK’s continued operations, coupled with its strategic refusal to dissolve, present a potential spoiler risk, particularly in the transnational dimensions of the PKK’s legacy and its affiliated networks.
Additionally, PJAK’s resistance to disarmament complicates Türkiye’s efforts to promote regional stabilization. Given the group’s entrenchment in northern Iraq and its designation as a terrorist organization by Iran, it continues to be a target of Iranian cross-border strikes. Although several Iranian-Kurdish groups, including PJAK, were relocated under a 2023 Baghdad-Tehran security agreement, their operational presence persists and may invite renewed escalation.
Should all PKK factions – including such affiliates – ultimately coalesce around the disbandment framework, the foremost priority will be the implementation of requisite legal and logistical mechanisms for disarmament. While the precise methodology remains undefined, a significant milestone would involve the supervised collection and destruction of the organization’s weapons and ammunition by Turkish authorities. This would logically be followed by the evacuation of territories under PKK control. In particular, the organization’s entrenched presence in parts of Iraq necessitates a comprehensive effort to eliminate terrorist influence and re-establish secure governance structures.
In this broader context, the disbandment decision may also expedite integration efforts between the YPG and the Syrian administration in Damascus – a development Türkiye will undoubtedly monitor and actively engage with. Arguably, the most formidable challenge ahead will be the management of the surrender, rehabilitation and reintegration of PKK members into society. This endeavor will require a comprehensive, trauma-informed deradicalization and reintegration strategy, attentive to the profound societal wounds inflicted by decades of terrorism. Simultaneously, Türkiye will need to engage in complex diplomatic negotiations to secure the relocation or monitoring of key terrorist figures currently residing in third countries.
A critical threshold has thus been crossed. Going forward, substantial responsibilities will fall upon political actors, the security apparatus and civil society. Risks persist, undeniably, yet through a comprehensive, multidimensional approach, they can be effectively mitigated.
