PKK disarmament: What does it mean for Baghdad and Erbil?
The Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which has created significant challenges for Turkey-Iraq relations, is on the verge of disbanding.
As Middle East Eye reported on Friday, the PKK is expected to imminently announce the end of its armed struggle against Turkey, as requested by jailed leader Abdullah Ocalan.
All eyes are on how the process will unfold from here.
The group's disbanding will cast uncertainty on the future of its members in the Qandil Mountains, an area that has served as the PKK's headquarters in northern Iraq for decades.
Ocalan's appeal, which marks a turning point in the decades-long conflict between the PKK and Turkey, will have repercussions for regional actors. The possible closure of this tumultuous file could significantly alter the course of Ankara-Erbil-Baghdad relations.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
This geopolitical shift comes after the launch of Israel's ongoing war on Gaza in October 2023, followed a year later by the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. While weakening Iran's allies in the region, these developments also pushed Ankara to recalibrate its stance towards the PKK.
Although Turkey has focused more on disarmament than on democratisation of the Kurdish issue, this process remains of critical importance to the Iraqi government.
Cross-border operations
Baghdad has traditionally avoided defining the PKK, long embroiled in a conflict with Turkey, as its own issue, suggesting that Erbil and Ankara were responsible for confronting the armed group.
Ankara has drawn the ire of Baghdad by conducting military operations against the PKK in Iraqi territory, interpreted by the Iraqi government as a violation of its sovereignty. With the strategy of 'eliminating terrorism at its source' adopted in recent years, Turkey has extended air operations to Sulaymaniyah and Sinjar, while setting up dozens of military outposts inside Iraq.
Is Turkey on the brink of peace with the Kurds? Read More »
Iraqi leader Muqtada al-Sadr and some state-sponsored Iraqi paramilitaries within the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) have described the Turkish military presence as an 'occupation'.
Ankara's stubborn diplomacy, at the risk of damaging bilateral relations, resulted in Baghdad banning the PKK last year. The group's disarmament will thus neutralise a powder keg along their shared border.
Noting that Turkey's military presence in Iraq has been justified as a response to the PKK's activities, Iraq's national security adviser, Qasim al-Araji, has said that once a resolution is in place, 'all armed groups and foreign forces' would be expected to leave Iraq.
The PKK's tactical relations with Iran could also end in this new era. Ankara believes that Tehran uses certain armed groups to undermine its own influence in Iraq; the disbanding of the PKK could thus strengthen Turkey's hand in Iraq.
Ankara, which has established strong relations with Shia leaders in recent days, should focus on public diplomacy in this process. While Turkey might want to stay in Iraq to fight the Islamic State group, balance Iran, or increase its influence after a possible US withdrawal - despite the PKK problem being resolved - this could reinvigorate the 'occupier' rhetoric.
Basis for dialogue
Disbanding the PKK and putting an end to its attacks on infrastructure such as oil pipelines would also be good news for the local economy, with trade between Turkey and Iraq now reaching $20bn. In addition, the PKK has been seen as a threat to the Development Road rail and highway project.
The group's disbanding will mark a positive turn for Iraq's Kurdish region, where the PKK has been a disruptive actor, occupying hundreds of villages. The group's targeting of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), which has collaborated with Ankara, and its clashes with the Peshmerga have harmed the Iraqi Kurdish leadership financially and psychologically.
The strengthening of relations between the PKK and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has complicated matters further, reinforcing Ankara's anger towards the Sulaymaniyah-based political party.
The PKK laying down its weapons will ultimately facilitate a thaw between both the KDP and PUK, and Ankara and Sulaymaniyah
Amid Ankara's operations against the PKK in Sulaymaniyah and the closure of Turkish airspace to planes taking off from the northern city, a high-level politician I recently met there expressed excitement about the forthcoming disarmament process, noting: 'The PKK has harmed us more than Turkey.'
Ankara values the role of Iraqi Kurdish leaders in the disarmament initiative, which enjoys broad local support. If the PKK is ultimately eradicated, the KDP, a nationalist party, will be able to escape the reputational damage of acting in concert with Turkey in its battle against the armed group.
It is noteworthy that there is no mention of an independent Kurdish state and autonomy in Ocalan's call for disarmament. One of the main reasons why Ankara opposed the 2017 Kurdish independence referendum in Iraq was its fear of triggering separatist sentiments among Turkey's Kurds.
The PKK process will create a basis for dialogue among Kurds in Syria and Iraq, while strengthening the KDP's stance on Kurdish nationalism - at least, in the short term. But amid sharp ideological differences between the KDP and PKK, political competition is inevitable in the medium term.
The PKK laying down its weapons will ultimately facilitate a thaw between both the KDP and PUK and Ankara and Sulaymaniyah. But historical divisions and spheres of influence will continue to be decisive in regional politics in the months and years ahead.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
an hour ago
- Zawya
Iraq spent $19bln on projects in 2024
OPEC oil producer Iraq spent nearly $19 billion on projects last year and it managed to slash its forecast budget deficit due to higher oil revenues. The state budget recorded an actual deficit in 2024 of around IQD10 trillion ($8 billion), far below the projected shortfall of around $49 billion. The Iraqi Finance Ministry said in a weekend report that actual spending stood at around IQD 150 trillion ($115 billion) and revenue at IQD140 trillion ($107 billion). Current expenditure, mostly civil servants wages and government purchases, totalled IQD125 trillion ($96 billion) while project spending stood at IQD25 trillion ($19 billion). Oil revenues accounted for more than 90 percent of the country's total revenues, fetching nearly IQD127 trillion ($97 billion). The rest included taxes and customs fees. The 2024 shortfall was far below the forecast deficit of around $49 billion as actual average oil prices were much higher than was forecast by Baghdad. In mid-2023, Iraq approved a landmark three-year budget for the period 2023-2025 based on an average oil price of $70 a barrel and crude exports of 3.4 million barrels per day (bpd). Annual spending was set at around $153 billion with a shortfall of $49 billion but Parliament allowed the Finance Ministry to revise expenditure through the year depending on oil market conditions. Brent crude prices averaged nearly $80 a barrel while Iraq has been often accused of exceeding its OPEC-assigned production quota. An Iraq official warned last month that the budget deficit in 2025 could widen due to a decline in oil prices below the $70 assumed by the Finance Ministry. Mudhar Saleh, a financial adviser to Prime Minister Mohammed Al-Sudani, said spending is projected at IQD 200 trillion ($153 billion), equivalent to the 2024 budget. He said current expenditures, which comprise salaries to public servants and social security allocations, is expected to account for 68-70 percent of the total spending. 'The deficit in this year's budget is expected at around IQD64 trillion …it will be financed through domestic sources…it could rise in case oil prices remain below $70 a barrel and Iraq's crude exports fall below 3.4 million barrels per day,' he said. Nabil Al-Marsoumi, an Economics professor at Basra University, said this year that the actual 2023 deficit soared to around IQD 80 trillion ($68 billion) after the government overshot budgeted spending to nearly $171 billion. (Writing by Nadim Kawach; Editing by Anoop Menon)
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Labour's bruising road to sanction Israeli cabinet extremists
After almost a year of pressure to take action against Israel's more extreme government members, Britain sanctioned two cabinet ministers whose actions 'led to the deaths' of Palestinians. In the hardest-hitting statement from the British government to date, Middle East minister Hamish Falconer outlined the case against Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. To supportive shouts from Labour MPs, Mr Falconer stated that the ministers incited occupied West Bank settler violence 'which has led to the deaths of Palestinians civilians and the displacement of whole towns and villages'. Britain, along with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway, would 'not sit by while they wreck the prospects of future peace'. The path to sanctioning Israel's hardline cabinet members over Gaza has been arduous, bruising and, for many in the UK's Labour government, long overdue. Former Conservative foreign secretary David Cameron was exasperated at Israel's intransigence over aid to Gaza and almost sanctioned the pair in the spring of last year but the July general election intervened. In opposition, Labour had been rattled after Keir Starmer admitted in a radio interview shortly after the October 7 attacks that Israel had the 'right' to cut off power and water to Gaza to enforce a siege. That affected heavily in the July election when Labour lost four stronghold seats to Muslim independents standing on a pro-Gaza platform. Shaken and outraged by reports of death and human misery in Gaza, Labour MPs have since berated the government at every opportunity for not sanctioning the pair. The path to that action has been tentative, and for the Labour front bench, quite painful. Initially in September, it hoped to quell the disgruntled voices – and pressure Israel – by imposing a partial arms embargo on 30 weapons export licences to the country. The first hint of sanctions came in October after Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that action was being considered following new incendiary comments from the pair. Mr Smotrich had stated that starving two million people in Gaza 'might be justified and moral', while Mr Ben Gvir's labelled illegal occupied West Bank settlers who killed a teenage Palestinian as 'heroes'. But with the diplomatic push for a ceasefire with Hamas and release of Israeli hostages in the new year, the pressure for action receded. That was until Israel resumed its latest grim offensive with MPs in March accusing the British government of double standards on its position towards the country. A beleaguered foreign secretary was sent by Downing Street to make a statement in the Commons largely to placate the anger of Labour backbenchers fed up with the government's position on Israel. David Lammy admitted there had been an 'appalling loss of life', and said the UK is working with France and Germany to send Israel a 'clear message' that they 'strongly oppose' the resumption of hostilities. By April, The National had been told in confidence that Mr Lammy was now actively pushing for the pair to be sanctioned – as well as Palestinian state recognition – such was the anger felt in London over the humanitarian blockade and continued loss of life. But it became clear last month that relations with Israel had reached breaking point. Suddenly Mr Lammy's language had changed, condemning the country's actions in Gaza as 'intolerable' and 'repellent'. 'We must call this what it is. It is extremism. It is dangerous, it is repellent,' Mr Lammy told Parliament. 'I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.' Throughout last year, Labour back bench MPs have been outspoken in putting pressure on the government to change its stance. Joined by the Lib Dems, and a handful of Conservatives, their voices have been listened to with action now taken. But the pressure will not stop there. Calls will intensify for recognition of a Palestinian state and a full arms embargo. And a new line of attack emerged on Tuesday, with Mr Lammy asked why sanction the ministers but not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. His response was that the pair had used 'horrendous extremist language', indicating that their boss had not. Britain's and its allies' actions has affected the Israeli government which condemned them as 'outrageous'. Yet it will probably take its strongest ally, the US, to change its position for a significant impact on Israel's actions. Mr Falconer also warned that the two state solution 'is in peril' due to the 'catastrophic conflict in Gaza and a shocking deterioration in the West Bank'. Israel's actions were 'an attempt to entrench a one state reality where there are no equal rights', he stated.
Khaleej Times
3 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
US ambassador to Israel says he does not think Palestinian state is US policy goal
Washington's ambassador to Israel said he did not think an independent Palestinian state remains a US foreign policy goal, prompting the State Department to say he spoke for himself while the White House referred to past comments from President Donald Trump expressing doubts about a two-state solution. "I don't think so," US Ambassador Mike Huckabee said in an interview with Bloomberg News published on Tuesday, when asked if a Palestinian state remains a goal of US policy. Asked about Huckabee's comments, the White House referred to remarks earlier this year by Trump when he proposed a US takeover of Gaza, which was condemned globally by rights groups, Arab states, Palestinians and the UN as a proposal of "ethnic cleansing." The White House also referred to remarks by Trump from last year before he won the 2024 election when he said: "I'm not sure a two-state solution anymore is going to work." . Asked whether Huckabee's remarks represented a change in US policy, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment on Tuesday, saying policy-making was a matter for Trump and the White House. "I'm not going to explain them or really comment on them at all. I think he certainly speaks for himself," Bruce told reporters. Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, is a staunch pro-Israel conservative. "Unless there are some significant things that happen that change the culture, there's no room for it," Huckabee was quoted as saying by Bloomberg. Those probably won't happen "in our lifetime," he said. Trump, in his first term, was relatively tepid in his approach to a two-state solution, a longtime pillar of US Middle East policy. Trump has given little sign of where he stands on the issue in his second term. Huckabee suggested a piece of land could be carved out of a Muslim country rather than asking Israel to make room. "Does it have to be in Judea and Samaria?" Huckabee said, using the biblical name the Israeli government favors for the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where some 3 million Palestinians live. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, has been a vocal supporter of Israel throughout his political career and a longtime defender of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Trump has pursued strongly pro-Israel policies as president and his choice of Huckabee as ambassador signaled that they would continue. The United States has for decades backed a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians that would create a state for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel. The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered in October 2023, when Palestinian Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing 1,200 and taking about 250 hostages, according to Israeli allies. US ally Israel's subsequent military assault on Gaza has killed nearly 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, while internally displacing nearly Gaza's entire population and causing a hunger crisis. The assault has also triggered accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the International Criminal Court. Israel denies the accusations.
