PKK disarmament: What does it mean for Baghdad and Erbil?
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
The National
3 hours ago
- The National
UK must drop conditions for Palestine recognition
Keir Starmer is coming under pressure to recognise Palestine without his scheduled delay until December as insider described the decision making process as a formality. With more than half the public now hostile to Israel's conduct of the war, the UK government should see it has the scope to formalise the decision. Public disapproval of Israel's war in Gaza is growing, a new YouGov poll found. Just over half of Britons (51 per cent) consider Israel's actions to be unjustified, but just one in five believe that it is (21 per cent). 'In practice the decision is taken,' said Sir Vincent Fean, a former Consul General to East Jerusalem, who is urging the prime minister to drop conditionally. "Recognition of Palestine is an opportunity – and a threat or punishment for no one." Mr Fean believed this was likely to impact the UK government's approach to issues beyond recognition, such as "ensuring Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank changes," he told The National. The UK has said it is ready to recognise Palestine in September but has given Israel weeks to meet certain conditions. Objections have been raised from all sides to Prime Minister Keir Starmer's pledge to recognise Palestine at the United National General Assembly in September. Mr Starmer told Israel that he would do so if Tel Aviv does not take steps towards ending the war and restarting a peace process by then. Many believe that recognition will go ahead, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to reject the proposal of a peace process. Foreign Office assessment The assessment on whether or not Israel has met the Prime Minister's conditions is likely to be made by the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office in late September ahead of UNGA. The Cabinet Office being consulted about their conclusions, Mr Fean told The National. The decision cannot be challenged as it was taken using prerogative powers at the government's disposal. 'There won't be a committee, there is no requirement for parliament to decide,' he said. British officials are working on the 'nuts and bolts' of judging how Israel would meet the criteria set out by Mr Starmer 'and how that would be agreed or disagreed', sources told The National. Legal advisers said the resolution on recognising Palestinian statehood can be put forward to the UN General Assembly, a vote is undertaken 'and that's it'. Yet Whitehall insiders accept that unless there is a change of government in Israel or a 'change of heart from Netanyahu in the way he's prosecuting the war', they will not fulfil the British conditions. 'This is an attempt to get the peace process back on track, but it's quite clear that the Israelis don't want to go there,' a Whitehall source said. 'So Palestinian state recognition is going to happen.' With relations between Israel and Britain at possibly their lowest ebb, it is understood there will be no visit of any UK ministers to the country in the coming period. Hostage pleas Opponents of the decision include the families British hostages in Gaza, who fear that it would give Hamas an incentive to prolong the war. Members from the four families met with the FCDO on Thursday evening to raise their concerns. 'It was clear from the meeting last night that the British government's policy will not help the hostages, and could even hurt them,' said their lawyer Adam Wagner KC. 'It was made obvious to us at the meeting that … in deciding whether to go ahead with recognition, the release or otherwise of the hostages would play no part', he wrote in a statement. Political question The Labour government said it would be guided by international law in its foreign policy making. But the decision to recognise Palestine is being framed as a political question, with Business Minister Gareth Thomas telling Sky News that 'recognition of another state is a political judgment'. Nonetheless, it is likely that Mr Starmer will 'want to have legal cover' for the recognition with lawyers from the foreign office working up a 'cold, technical approach to it,' former diplomat Edmund Fitton-Brown told The National. 'They will likely set up a mechanism which will enable them to say that the British conditions have not been met,' he said. The former ambassador to Yemen suggested that UNGA was the 'least problematic forum for the upgrade' where many heads of state or government will be present in September, including Mr Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and potentially Mahmoud Abbas from the PA – if the US allows him to enter. This is not lost on critics. 'The government usually tries to shut down debate by characterising political issues as legal questions (immigration, Chagos Islands),' said Shadow Attorney General Lord David Wolfson, writing on social media. 'It's now trying to argue that recognition of a foreign state, which has always been and universally as a legal question, is only a political issue.' Earlier this week, peers and leading lawyers opposing recognition wrote to Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer, to warn that the move could break international law. Mr Hermer's office would not comment on whether or not he had advised the Government on recognition, citing a long standing convention. Conditions questioned Mr Starmer also faces pressure to recognise Palestine at UNGA but with the conditions he set out this week. The Bishop of Southwark, who is the House of Lords Lead Bishop for the Middle East said it was 'disappointing' that the recognition had been used as a 'bargaining chip.' 'The UK has a particular historical and moral duty to recognise the State of Palestine, and it is therefore disappointing that this recognition has been made conditional,' the letter said. 'The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination is not a bargaining chip, and there can be no conditions placed on it,' he wrote, in a letter cosigned by other Church of England Bishops, including Stephen Cottrell Archbishop of York. We urge the Government to move ahead with recognition of Palestine regardless of the facts on the ground.
Middle East Eye
10 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Does Trump care about the issue of Palestinian statehood?
The US president's sentiments on Palestinian statehood have shifted significantly over the past week, as three of his G7 allies proclaimed they would recognise the State of Palestine at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. French President Emmanuel Macron's somewhat sudden announcement on X came first, to which Donald Trump - prompted by a reporter - said nonchalantly, "That's fine if he does that. It's up to him. I'm with the United States, I'm not with France". On Monday, just hours after a sit-down with Trump in Scotland, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he too would recognise a Palestinian state in September. "I'm not in that camp... if you do that, you really are rewarding Hamas," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. By Wednesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had joined the UK and France, as all three parties argued that this was the only pathway to ending the 77-year-old Israel-Palestine conflict and the war on Gaza. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters "Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh' [sic] Canada!" Trump wrote on his TruthSocial account. He then raised tariffs on Canadian products from 25 percent to 35 percent. Is Trump just feeling the isolation of now having nearly 150 countries - many of them US allies - recognise that Palestinians are entitled to a state, or are others in his close circle driving his policy for him? Why Trump has little interest in delivering a ceasefire in Gaza Read More » "I think that Trump was caught flat-footed initially, and so he was just dismissive, and anything that's not an initiative that he would take, or any action or comment that doesn't turn the attention to him and give him the impression that he is the master of whatever issue is under discussion, he will viscerally reject or oppose," Glenn Carle, a national security expert who spent 25 years in the CIA's clandestine services, told Middle East Eye. "Once matters had evolved a little, he started to think, well, this could create some headaches for me," he added. "The bureaucracies weighed in to the extent they remain capable and relevant. That would be the State Department largely saying, 'Well, this is fraught'." Indeed, US Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio has been leading the administration's official messaging on the matter. Rubio had been a staunch pro-Israel voice during his years in the Senate. "Irrelevant. It's irrelevant," he said of the recognition of Palestinian statehood on Fox Radio on Thursday. "The UK is like, well, if Israel doesn't agree to a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognise a Palestinian state. So if I'm Hamas, I say, you know what, let's not allow there to be a ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to agree to a ceasefire, it guarantees a Palestinian state will be recognised by all these countries in September," Rubio said in the radio appearance. 'Trump's not in control' A ceasefire that was in effect for six weeks in January - brokered by the Biden administration and enforced by the Trump administration - was broken by Israel on 1 March. Since then, Hamas has insisted that a full restoration of UN aid distribution and a permanent end to the war are the only two conditions it would accept for another deal with Israel. 'Trump's not in control. I think we need to take a look at the first three months of Trump's presidency, and then we need to compare that to the last four or five months,' Abdelhalim Abdelrahman, a political analyst and host of the podcast Uncharted Territory, told MEE. Abdelrahman says that in the first three months, Trump managed to negotiate a successful ceasefire with the Houthi rebels, diplomacy with the Iranians, and his envoy Steve Witkoff managed to twist Netanyahu's arm into accepting a ceasefire. 'If you look at who Trump has surrounded himself with, there's no doubt who's guiding his Middle East policy' - Abdelhalim Abdelrahman, host of Uncharted Territory "I know that Senator Lindsey Graham has been in the president's ear, pushing back against this. Mark Levin, who's a host at Fox [News], who was really pushing Trump to bomb Iran, has also been pushing back on this." There's also the Heritage Foundation, a highly influential right-wing, Evangelical Christian think tank in Washington that was key to formulating Trump's playbook for both his terms in office. The organisation celebrated this achievement back in 2018, and has undoubtedly seen more of its recommendations go into action now with the doxxing, firing, and deportation of students and faculty who took part in pro-Palestine protests last year. At a Thursday event in the US capital hosted by Heritage, speakers included the US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee and the chairman of the scandal-plagued Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, Johnnie Moore. Organisers pledged to help Israel annex Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the occupied West Bank, and never once mentioned the word Palestine or Palestinians during the 90-minute discussion. Moore in particular referred to them as the "Arabs of Gaza". "The Heritage Foundation has very much been peddling this idea that A, Palestinians are not indigenous to the land, and B, that the Trump administration should take just about every pro-Israel avenue that they possibly can," Abdelrahman said. "There is no such thing as a Palestinian people," to the Evangelical Christian community to which officials like Huckabee and groups like Heritage belong, Carle said. Is the two-state policy dead in the US? Washington adopted the policy of two states, Israel and Palestine, at the signing of the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. It became official at the signing of the 1993 Oslo Accords in the White House Rose Garden. No administration has officially, on paper, overturned that policy since, but now more than ever, no government action even remotely suggests that it remains in effect. "The two-state policy is undoubtedly dead," Abdelrahman said. Carle said that US policy now effectively only serves the objectives of the Israeli right-wing, its current government run by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party. US calls Saudi and French-led conference on two-state solution a 'publicity stunt' Read More » "It used to be a pretty clear majority of Israelis who favoured a two-state solution and opposed the colonisation of the West Bank," Carle said, but the numbers have dwindled. Just one week ago, the Knesset voted 71-13 on a non-binding motion to annex the occupied West Bank. "The Trump administration has never taken any steps towards a two-state solution. The Biden administration was quite a classic American one, in that it did want a two-state solution, but was feeling caught between the contradiction of supporting Israel's existential existence, which then meant that the US never pushed Israel," Carle said. In a move that the State Department insisted is unrelated to the momentum building around Palestinian statehood, the Trump administration on Thursday placed sanctions on officials in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) over their work taking Israel to international courts. The unnamed officials were "not complying with their commitments and undermining the prospects for peace", the State Department said. "Ironically enough, the PLO de-armed about 40 years ago, and has recognised Israel's right to exist, has abided by the Oslo security apparatus, and has just done about everything to appease the United States," Abdelrahman noted. Efforts by US lawmakers Also on Thursday, Jewish Insider revealed that California Congressman Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat, had begun circulating a draft letter among colleagues, calling on Trump to recognise Palestinian statehood. The US must " recognise the need to meaningfully address the decades-long conflict and injustice underlying these 22 months of horrific war", the letter read. "With such an outcome opposed by the current Israeli government and actively undermined by its accelerating annexation campaign in the West Bank - as well as open calls by Israeli ministers to annex much if not all of Gaza - meaningful action is necessary to bolster the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood," the letter concluded. At the time when it was obtained, there were no signatures added to the letter yet. Khanna quickly shared the article on his X account and insisted that its revelation hampers discussions with the White House. "Someone leaked our effort to try to sabotage it. Sad. It won't work," he wrote. "Recognising a Palestinian state is an idea whose time has come. The response of my colleagues has been overwhelming. We will build support and release prior to the UN convening," he added. Abdelrahman told MEE it's likely "going to be nipped in the bud", at least until Republicans gauge where public sentiment is after the 2026 midterm elections for lawmakers. More and more young America Firsters have questioned US loyalty to Israel's objectives over the past several weeks, highlighting a split among Trump's most ardent supporters. And even if all the other G7 countries recognise Palestinian statehood, there won't be much of an effect anyway, Carle argues. "I think the reality is that there are only two countries that can really affect Israel's foreign policy. One is Israel, and the other is the United States".
Middle East Eye
13 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Why are people protesting against the Boston Consulting Group?
In San Francisco, Boston, Dallas and other cities around the country, protesters have marched and chanted outside the offices of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The demonstrators were demanding accountability for BCG's role in creating a deadly new aid distribution system backed by the US and Israel that a United Nations official described as using starvation as a bargaining chip. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, BCG is one of the most prominent consulting firms in the United States and advises clients on a large number of topics, including security and humanitarian issues. BCG is one of the world's three largest management consulting firms by revenue and is no stranger to controversy. It has been reported to have worked with Isabel dos Santos, who was accused of exploiting Angola's natural resources. It is also reported to have been one of the firm's "critical" in helping Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman consolidate his grip on power in the kingdom. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Middle East Eye examines the BCG's role in Gaza's humanitarian crisis and efforts to hold the consulting firm accountable. Collaboration with Gaza Humanitarian Foundation Between October 2024 and May 2025, BCG helped establish the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). The GHF began to invite increased scrutiny in early June as evidence of massacres at GHF aid sites emerged, prompting BCG to cancel its contracts with GHF and describe their previous cooperation as 'unapproved'. 'Two former partners initiated this work, even though the lead partner was categorically told not to. This work was not a BCG project. It was orchestrated and run secretly outside any BCG scope or approvals. We fully disavow this work. BCG was not paid for any of this work,' BCG wrote on their website. But a Financial Times (FT) investigation revealed that BCG's cooperation with the GHF was extensive and discussed with senior BCG figures, while the Washington Post's reporting showed that BCG was filing monthly invoices of over $1m a month. The FT investigation found that BCG was originally contacted by Orbis, an American security company working on behalf of an Israeli think tank, to do a feasibility study for a new Gaza aid operation. Senior partners at BCG 'step down over Gaza humanitarian controversy' Read More » BCG then helped create Safe Reach Solutions (SRS), a mercenary firm that would provide security at aid sites, along with GHF. At one point, SRS reportedly chastised a contractor under its command for refusing to shoot Palestinian children. GHF's executive director resigned hours before GHF's public launch in May, claiming it was impossible to implement GHF's Gaza aid plan 'while also strictly adhering to humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence'. UN aid chief Tom Fletcher also criticised the GHF, describing it as 'a fig leaf for further violence and displacement'. BCG planned to bill GHF around $4m for work that included developing financial models of what the UN described as 'ethnic cleansing' in Gaza. The model included 'voluntary relocation', where Palestinians in Gaza would have been given $5,000, rent subsidies for four years and subsidised food for a year. The model predicted that a quarter of the population would leave, and three-fourths of them would never return, according to FT. As Israeli air strikes indiscriminately kill Palestinians and children starve to death under Israel's suffocating siege, such an offer could hardly be considered voluntary and was widely condemned by rights groups. Why is the GHF controversial? Set up to bypass UN aid distribution networks that have been in place for decades, but that Israel alleges are now linked to Hamas, GHF sites have proven deadly for Palestinians seeking aid. Israeli soldiers have admitted to deliberately killing unarmed Palestinian aid seekers at GHF distribution sites, with one Israeli soldier describing the aid centres as 'killing fields'. Over a thousand Palestinian aid-seekers have been killed, mostly at GHF sites, since May, according to the UN. Yet as malnutrition spreads across Gaza, hungry Palestinians have little choice but to brave Israeli bullets to search for aid. Israel alleges that violence at the aid sites is necessary to stop the aid from being stolen by Hamas. However, an internal US review examined 156 instances of stolen or lost aid and found no evidence that Hamas was stealing it. Rather, Israel directly or indirectly caused the loss or theft of aid in 44 instances, according to the findings. Meanwhile, Israel has admitted that it supports anti-Hamas gangs notorious for stealing aid. How other aid organisations reacted to BCG On 13 June, Save the Children International became the first charity to pause cooperation with BCG over its role in the GHF. Save the Children CEO Inger Ashing said BCG's modelling of a plan for the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza 'disregards fundamental rights and dignity, and raises serious ethical and legal questions' - and that Save the Children would suspend work with BCG pending the outcome of an external investigation. Several days later, BCG's chief risk officer and the leader of its social-impact practice resigned from their roles. Yet despite the international outcry against GHF, some humanitarian aid organisations have been hesitant to cut ties with GHF. Although the World Food Programme told The New Humanitarian that it planned to review its ties with BCG, other humanitarian aid organisations, including some that decried the GHF, did not indicate that they were considering ending their relationship with BCG. What protests have there been against BCG? Some protesters have found BCG, with dozens of locations across the US, an accessible target to protest against the killing of aid seekers in Gaza. On 25 July, demonstrators banged pots and pans outside BCG's headquarters in the Seaport district of Boston. GHF chief attacks UN and media, avoids saying 'Palestinians' when referring to Gaza Read More » A security guard at the building seriously injured one protester when he pushed the protester into a metal pole, breaking several ribs. 'Very quickly, a security guard ran from within the building without me noticing him, and slammed into me and pushed me away from the door with all his strength,' the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, told Middle East Eye. Multiple witnesses corroborated the account, and the protester was later taken by ambulance to a hospital with a trauma centre. On 25 July, at least a dozen protesters were arrested when demonstrators staged a sit-in at a BCG facility in Dallas. Protesters also demonstrated outside a BCG office in Dallas on Thursday. On the west coast of the United States, the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) organised protests outside of BCG's offices in San Francisco and San Diego. 'The time to act is now! The genocide in Gaza had reached a critical moment with thousands facing starvation due to the brutal siege on the strip… we will make ourselves heard,' a statement from the San Diego chapter of PYM said.
