PKK Announces Its Dissolution: Despite Criticism as “Symbolic and Unclear,” a Historic Step
PKK Kongre
Although the announcement has faced criticism as “symbolic and ambiguous,” it marks a historic milestone in the effort to completely end the decades-long conflict, which has increasingly spread across the region. In a public declaration, the PKK officially announced its dissolution.
Information shared with the public and the details of the statement suggest that the PKK—whose response to Öcalan’s call had been awaited with curiosity—held its congress simultaneously in two areas under its control. According to Mezopotamya News Agency, the congress was attended by 232 delegates, including members of the PKK Executive Committee, Central Committee, the co-chairs and members of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) Executive Council, the HPG Military Council, and coordinators from KJK and PAJK.
“Not an End”
One of the most notable points came in the opening speech by Duran Kalkan, who chaired the congress. Kalkan emphasized:
“This congress is, of course, different from the previous ones. In some ways, it can be compared to the very first congress. It is being held with the aim of historically concluding and placing the PKK in its proper historical context. But this is not an end. Through this closure, the intention is to pave the way for new beginnings—to create opportunities and space for fresh starts.”
The declaration issued at the congress doesn’t reveal much about the new roadmap. What stands out most in the statement—delivered in the typically veiled language used by both the PKK and Abdullah Öcalan—is the group’s announcement that it has ended its existence on its own initiative. The emphasis on this being “not an end” is key. To grasp the true intent, one must closely examine the critical points in the statement made to the public…
“Transition to a New Era”
At the very beginning of the statement, it was emphasized that the congress discussed the method of armed struggle and the construction of a democratic society, marking a set of historic decisions that signify the beginning of a new era for the “freedom movement.” This emphasis is notable in that it signals the continuation of an organized structure within the framework of democratic politics.
The statement goes on to stress that the Kurdish issue has reached a stage where it should now be resolved through democratic political means, underlining that the PKK has fulfilled its historical mission and that the decision to lay down arms is serious and resolute.
The Öcalan Condition
One of the key aspects of the announcement is how it subtly outlines expectations for how the process should unfold going forward—most notably, who should lead it.
It was underlined that the implementation of the decisions should be led and overseen by Öcalan. Following this “condition,” the statement included a pivotal sentence:
“The congress has decided to dissolve the PKK’s organizational structure and end its method of armed struggle, thereby terminating all activities carried out under the PKK name, with the implementation of this process to be led and executed by Leader Apo.”
The Özal Claim and Warnings of Provocation
The announcement also included a historical narrative, featuring a striking claim. It asserted that:
“In the conditions of the 1990s, Turkish President Turgut Özal sought to resolve the Kurdish issue through political means. Leader Apo responded to this initiative with the March 17, 1993 ceasefire, initiating a new phase. However, due to the heavy influence of real socialism, the imposition of militia mindsets on our war strategy, and the deep state’s elimination of Özal and his team, this new process was sabotaged as the denial-and-destruction policies against the Kurds were intensified and the war escalated.”
The statement insinuates that Özal was killed by the deep state specifically for this reason, subtly warning of potential provocations.
It continues by claiming that although Öcalan was captured in an international conspiracy, he thwarted the plot by developing a paradigm for a free society. At this point, the statement also calls on international actors not to sabotage the process.
Pre-Lausanne Reference
The statement referenced expectations by invoking the Lausanne Treaty, emphasizing a return to the period before both the treaty and the 1924 Constitution. It recalled that Abdullah Öcalan had framed the resolution within the context of a democratic Republic of Turkey founded on the shared homeland and co-foundation by both Kurds and Turks.
Third World War Context
The statement argued that the issue could only be resolved on the basis of a shared homeland and equal citizenship. It also referenced a so-called “Third World War,” asserting that the evolving dynamics in the Middle East made a redefinition of Kurdish-Turkish relations inevitable.
Call for Grassroots Organization
It was stated that the public would understand the PKK’s decision to disband, and people were called upon to build self-organized structures aimed at democratic society-building. Communal organization was highlighted as a model method.
Right to Democratic Politics
The statement reiterated that the implementation of decisions must be led by Öcalan and stressed the necessity of securing the right to democratic politics through solid legal guarantees. It emphasized that Parliament (TBMM), the opposition, opinion leaders, and civil society all had roles to play.
The final words of Deniz Gezmiş and his comrades—executed leftist revolutionaries—were quoted, with a call for Turkey’s socialist and leftist groups to take ownership of the process in order to fulfill their legacy.
Step-by-Step Progress and the Dolmabahçe Reference
The PKK’s statement declared that the decision to disband had been made, and although the planned steps were not yet publicly shared, they had already been determined. However, it was made clear that the implementation of these plans depends on certain conditions.
The first condition is allowing Öcalan to manage the process by improving his conditions and restoring his leadership role. Authority is being transferred to Öcalan, with an emphasis on progressing step by step.
The second condition involves engaging the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) to bring about a structural solution through the necessary legal reforms—potentially including constitutional amendments.
Unlike Öcalan’s more subdued tone, this statement emphasized socialism and defined the “shared homeland” demand as its central objective. While this aligns—at least linguistically—with government discourse, it also implies a deeper demand for paradigm shifts regarding definitions and constitutional principles. Whether the government shares this interpretation remains debatable.
Still, it’s safe to say that the long-shelved Dolmabahçe Agreement is being held up as a reference point for future legal steps. The emphasis on a democratic society clearly signals this direction. What’s being sought is constitutional and legal assurance.
It is evident that a series of steps—including the method for disarmament—have been pre-discussed and outlined. But making decisions is one thing; implementing them is another. Realizing these decisions depends entirely on how expectations are met.
Statements That Put the Government in a Difficult Spot
The references in the statement to the Lausanne Treaty and the 1924 Constitution—including indirect references to definitions like citizenship—are bound to become strong arguments for those opposed to the process, without a doubt.
The ruling bloc, which has based its rhetoric entirely on the unconditional and complete disarmament of the PKK, will likely avoid focusing on these more delicate dimensions of the statement.
At this stage, the main debate will revolve around two competing demands: the proof of disarmament versus the call for legal reforms to come first. The PKK expects this impasse to be resolved by both Öcalan and the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM).
During a process shaped by MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli’s public positions, the ruling AKP—having suffered its largest electoral losses during earlier peace efforts—has taken a back seat. However, the situation has now reached a point where the AKP can no longer remain on the sidelines and must take initiative. While the disbandment of the PKK is seen as a major achievement, maintaining public support will be a top priority for Erdoğan and the AKP, who are determined to remain in power. This makes the political cost-benefit calculations behind any government actions a key indicator of the process’s success.
The Syrian Equation
As expected, the PKK’s statement made no mention of Syria. This omission reflects how both the PKK and Ankara have decided to leave the Syrian dimension for a later stage. While there are claims that the disbandment of the PKK will influence how the YPG and the broader Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are labeled in Syria, this sensitive topic has been shelved for now. Ankara knows the PKK will not make decisions about the YPG. However, there is still an expectation that the YPG will eventually be integrated into the Syrian army and dissolved as a separate entity. What unfolds in Syria until then will shape the fate of this expectation.
What Will the PKK Do Next?
The statement expressed the PKK cadres’ desire and intention to engage in political activity—unarmed and within civil society—wherever they are. The scope of legal reforms Turkey might undertake will be crucial for determining what happens to high-ranking and rank-and-file PKK members, both armed and unarmed. However, without concrete developments, it is highly unlikely that we will see scenarios like PKK leaders relocating to other countries or a full surrender of cadres. Progress here, too, will likely follow a step-by-step approach. Therefore, the moves made in the coming months will be highly significant.
Mehmet Uçum’s Remarks and a Historic Turning Point
One noteworthy response came from Presidential Advisor Mehmet Uçum, who, shortly after the announcement, declared: “The Republic of Turkey is also the National State of the Kurds.” In his statement, Uçum said, “This new era will strengthen Turkey in every aspect. Everyone accepts that we are entering a new phase where comprehensive reforms in democracy and the rule of law will be made concrete through a national and patriotic legal framework.”
This raises a key question: How will one of the most conservative-nationalist parliaments in the history of the Republic respond to such reforms? More importantly, does the current government have the capacity to carry out and implement these reforms? That’s the real issue: Is this shift in direction possible, and if not, how will all of this proceed?
Despite these uncertainties, the PKK’s decision—for the first time in its history—to disband and declare the end of its armed struggle is a development that cannot be dismissed. How this opportunity is managed, and the subsequent developments in the region, could take us far beyond the issues being debated today, opening the door to entirely new political conversations. This is a critical turning point—and how it is navigated will determine the future.
