This article is an opinion piece whose contents represent the standpoint of its author and not UPF Lund or The Perspective’s editorial board.
The Kurdish issue in Turkey has reached a critical point in the current negotiations. The term ‘critical’ is used not to suggest abstract gains for Kurdish rights, but to indicate that the issue now transcends the Kurdish populace and has become an instrument for reshaping the entire country or even the region. The question we must ask is: what core principle is driving this process between the parties?
While many attribute the start of the process to a speech by Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and a key ally of Erdoğan, one could speculate that the plan was already in place. This is evident from Erdoğan’s statement upon returning from a U.S. visit, where he asserted the need for Turkey to consolidate its national unity. Returning to Bahceli’s speech, he invited jailed PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan to address parliament. This was an unexpected move from the MHP, a party with a long history of marginalizing Kurds.
This action could be viewed as a component of a larger strategy. Subsequently, a three-member delegation from the People’s Equality and Democratic Party (DEM), a political party affiliated with the PKK, was dispatched to Imrali Prison, where they publicly delivered a statement from Öcalan. The process, initiated by a letter to the government for peace negotiations and a series of public statements, has progressed methodically.
The numerous public statements and actions can be viewed as layers of a cake, with each actor contributing their own vision. Therefore, let us begin by analyzing Öcalan’s first letter.
In the first letter delivered by the DEM party delegation, Öcalan said: “I also have the strength and determination to make an important positive contribution to the new model and idea that Mr. Bahçeli and Mr. Erdoğan are working on,” and he emphasized Turkey’s role within the region.
…Öcalan is calling for the PKK to disband and lay down its arms in his letter.
To understand this proposed new model, an analysis of Öcalan’s second detailed letter is essential. Öcalan explicitly rejects the PKK’s Marxist-Leninist foundations, arguing that recent gains in freedom of expression have addressed the denial of Kurdish identity, rendering the armed struggle meaningless. He further contends that Turks and Kurds coexisted cooperatively for over a millennium, an alliance broken by the Republic’s monolithic interpretation.
Echoing this sentiment, Sirri Sureyya Onder, a Kurdish politician and visitor to Öcalan in Imrali prison, stated, “When the Republic of Turkey was founded, it put itself in the place of God; unlike Sharia, its limits are not knowable.” By rejecting the foundational idea of republicanism, Öcalan is calling for the PKK to disband and lay down its arms in his letter.
Abdullah Öcalan and Sırrı Süreyya Önder characterize the founding of the Turkish Republic as the primary scapegoat for the current state of Kurdish rights, and the statement from PKK militants follows suit. The PKK statement, accordingly, asserts that the denial of Kurdish identity is fundamentally rooted in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which is recognized as the foundational treaty of the Republic of Turkey.
The significance of the Treaty of Lausanne lies in thwarting imperial attempts to partition the former Ottoman lands (as previously outlined in the unratified Treaty of Sèvres). The stark difference between the territorial maps of the two treaties clearly illustrates this shift.
The stark difference between the territorial maps of the two treaties clearly illustrates this shift.
Erdoğan has reframed the PKK’s anti-republican stance, offering a sentiment that contrasts with the strict nation-state ideology of the Republic. He stated, “We as Turks, Arabs, and Kurds will live side by side forever in this geography.” This quote is interpreted as reflecting his Neo-Ottoman motivation, which seeks to unify diverse ethnic groups under the umbrella of Islam. This vision implicitly pushes back against the Republic’s founding secular principle.
Returning to the cake metaphor, the first layer is filled with a blend of anti-republicanism and anti-communism, and the second layer is characterised by strategic ambiguity. Unlike typical peace negotiations, which are often conducted publicly and embraced by all parties, the talks under discussion here lack transparency. The established commission, “Terror-Free Turkey,” holds closed-door meetings and conceals the meeting reports from the public. While one party says they do not have any demands, an anomaly in any negotiation, the other party says there is “no bargain” in this process. On what concrete terms, then, are the parties expected to reach an agreement? This is unknown.
The top layer of the cake is seen as Erdoğan’s aspiration for the following election, since he cannot be a candidate under the constitution. To amend this article of the constitution, he requires the Kurdish movement’s support. Following this, even without an electoral alliance with the DEM Party, by neutralizing it, new negotiations can be viewed as a preparation tool for Erdoğan.
To fully comprehend the broader project of regional re(design) and the context of Erdoğan’s visit to the US, it is also essential to analyze statements made by US Ambassador Tom Barrack.
In a remark where he described a Lebanese journalist as “animalistic,” Barrack asserted: “There is no Middle East. There are tribes and villages.” He argued that modern nation-states in the region were artificial creations of the British and the French.
This rhetoric can be interpreted as emphasizing an imperialist aim: the fragmentation of existing states into smaller, ethnically or tribally defined units. In a separate statement, Barrack pointed toward a solution rooted in history: “The ‘Millet system’ in the Ottoman Empire allowed different groups to maintain their presence within the central system for centuries…Turkey could be the focal point of all this.”
Barrack’s proposal to replace the national order with a Turkish-centered Millet system framework suggests that the ‘cake’ being prepared through Turkey is intended for consumption by imperialist actors. The influence of this regional re(design) on the broader Middle East is a complex topic that will be reserved for a separate analysis.
By Osman Yildirim
December 19, 2025
.jpg){kind=link}
