Kurdish leader calls for laying down of arms

Gulf Today

01-03-2025

It was something that was in the making for some months now. First came the appeal by Nationalist Movement Party leader Devlet Bahceli in October last for a terror-free Turkey, and his invitation to the Kurdish rebel leader of the banned Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) Abdullah Ocalan, serving a life-term in the Imrali prison, to come to parliament and renounce terrorism.
The overture was supported by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a historic window of opportunity. This was followed by meetings with Ocalan by members of the People's Equality and Democracy Party (DEM) in December last and again in January.
It was at their third meeting on Thursday that Ocalan issued the statement asking the PKK to lay down arms and dissolve itself. He has given his own reasoning why this needs to be done. He said that it is time to return to democratic norms.
The question remains whether the PKK rebels would heed his call. The armed rebellion has been on since 1984. The Turkish Kurds have not been able to achieve their goal of an independent Kurdistan in south-east Turkey. Ocalan said in his statement, which was read out in Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic and English, 'As in the case with any modern community or party whose existence has not been abolished by force, would voluntarily do, convene your congress and make a decision: all groups must lay their arms and the PKK must dissolve itself.' Ocalan is justifying the call by implying that the Kurds have not lost the war, and therefore they can join the democratic process in a politically dignified way.
And he had argued in detail the background of the emergence of the armed rebellion of PKK in the last century, and why it has to end now. He said that PKK rose in the context of 'intense violence, two world wars, the rise and fall of real socialism, the Cold War and the denial of Kurdish identity', but now it has to end because 'the collapse of real socialism in the 1990s due to internal reasons, the erosion of identity denial in the country, and advancements in freedom of expression, have led to the PKK's loss of meaning and excessive repetition. Therefore, like its counterparts, it has reached the end of its lifespan, making its dissolution necessary.'
It is a well-reasoned argument. Even if the hotheads in the PKK refuse to accept Ocalan's call, this will send out a message of reconciliation to the Kurds in general in Turkey. This also means that Turkey's hard stance over the Kurds has softened, and that it is possible for the Kurds to express their demands and be heard as well.
Ocalan has clearly expressed the demand of the Kurds for democratic freedom. He urged Turkey to respect ethnic minorities, the freedom of self-expression and the right of democratic self-organisation. He said, 'The language of the epoch of peace and democratic society needs to be developed in accordance with this reality.' Ocalan is making reasonable demands even as he gives up the path of violence as no more relevant.
The peace will not happen overnight, and the negotiations will be long drawn. The PKK can seize the opportunity and end its war which is harming the ordinary Kurds in Turkey more than helping them get their rights. This will bring to a close a long-fought war of terrorism, where neither the PKK nor Turkey can declare victory. So, Ocalan has rightly seen the peace offer as a solution which retains the dignity of the Kurd rebels intact. It is not an ignominious capitulation. It is not defeat. Ocalan has given them enough reasons to make them feel that their fight has not been futile, but that circumstances have changed.