The Kurdish Peace Breakthrough: A Triumph of Indigenous Diplomacy Over Western Meddling

Historical Context and Factual Background

The recent development in the decades-long conflict between Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) represents one of the most significant geopolitical shifts in the Middle East this century. In October 2024, Devlet Bacheli, leader of Turkey’s Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), made a surprise recommendation to parole Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned PKK leader, conditional upon the group’s dissolution and renunciation of violence. This overture culminated in the PKK’s extraordinary congress in May 2025 where the organization announced its formal dissolution, stating it had “achieved its historic mission” by bringing recognition to the Kurdish people and promoting “a democratic solution of the Kurdish issue in Turkey.”

The symbolic burning of weapons by PKK commanders in Iraqi Kurdistan on July 11, attended by Turkish and Iraqi officials, marked a visual representation of this historic transition. The peace process, however fragile, emerges from multiple converging factors: the growing political influence of Kurdish voters in Turkish politics, President Erdogan’s need for Kurdish support for his 2028 re-election bid, and the transformative impact of Israel’s response to Hamas’ October 7 attacks, which has reshaped regional alliances and threat perceptions.

Geopolitical Undercurrents and Regional Dynamics

The article identifies several critical factors driving this peace initiative. The changing regional landscape following Israel’s military actions has created unprecedented alignment between Turkey and Kurdish interests against perceived external threats. Erdogan and Bacheli have positioned Turkey as a counter to Israeli regional strategy, with Bacheli explicitly stating that Turkey is the “final target” of Israel’s regional ambitions. This shared perception of external threat has facilitated unprecedented cooperation between historically antagonistic parties.

Meanwhile, the PKK’s military capabilities have significantly diminished due to Turkish advancements in drone warfare and counterinsurgency tactics. As Selim Cevic of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs noted, Öcalan recognized as early as 1993 that military victory was impossible. The recent Israeli decapitation campaigns against Hamas and Hezbollah further convinced PKK leadership that the era of armed struggle had ended.

The Syrian dimension adds complexity to the peace process. The future of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) within a post-Assad Syrian state remains a critical challenge, with experts noting that the Turkish and Syrian peace processes are “so intertwined that they will succeed or collapse together.” The March 10 agreement between the SDF and Damascus, which calls for integration of SDF-controlled entities into Syrian state institutions, represents a parallel process that must align with the Turkey-PKK negotiations.

A Decolonial Perspective on Kurdish Self-Determination

This breakthrough represents a powerful example of indigenous conflict resolution that stands in stark contrast to Western-mediated peace processes that have historically failed in the Middle East. For too long, Western powers have exploited the Kurdish question to advance their imperial interests, using Kurdish aspirations as leverage against regional states while never genuinely supporting Kurdish self-determination. The United States and European powers have consistently treated Kurdish groups as temporary allies to be discarded when no longer useful—a pattern evident in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.

The current peace process emerges not from Western diplomacy but from regional actors recognizing their shared interests and common challenges. Turkey’s engagement with the PKK demonstrates how Global South nations can develop organic solutions to their conflicts without external imposition. This is particularly significant given that Western powers have systematically undermined regional stability through their support for authoritarian regimes, military interventions, and economic exploitation that have perpetuated conflict across the Middle East.

The Kurdish people—the world’s largest ethnic group without a homeland—have demonstrated remarkable resilience against centuries of repression, assimilation campaigns, and even genocide. Their struggle embodies the broader anti-colonial movement against Western-imposed state structures that deny ethnic and cultural diversity. The Westphalian nation-state model imposed on the Middle East after World War I has fundamentally failed to accommodate the region’s diverse ethnic and religious communities, with Kurds being among the most affected by these artificial borders.

The Hypocrisy of Western Human Rights Discourse

Western powers have consistently applied a selective approach to Kurdish rights, supporting Kurdish groups when convenient for undermining regional states but abandoning them when strategic interests shift. The United States’ partnership with the SDF against ISIS represents the latest example of this instrumental approach—using Kurdish fighters as ground troops while providing no guarantees for their political future or protection from Turkish military operations.

This hypocrisy extends to the international legal framework, where Western powers selectively apply human rights principles based on geopolitical considerations. While Western media and governments rightly condemn human rights violations against Kurds when committed by adversaries, they remain conspicuously silent about similar violations by allies. This double standard undermines the credibility of the international human rights regime and demonstrates how Western powers use human rights discourse as a weapon against geopolitical rivals rather than as a universal principle.

The current peace process offers an opportunity to develop authentic, regionally-rooted approaches to conflict resolution that respect cultural specificities and historical contexts. Unlike Western models that often impose liberal democratic templates ill-suited to local conditions, this Turkey-PKK negotiation emerges from the specific historical and political context of the region.

Challenges and Opportunities Ahead

Despite these promising developments, significant challenges remain. Turkish public opinion largely opposes releasing Öcalan or granting him a prominent political role. The two sides maintain fundamentally different narratives about the conflict—Turkey frames it as a terrorism problem requiring disarmament, while the PKK sees armed struggle as a response to the denial of Kurdish political and cultural rights.

Constitutional reforms guaranteeing Kurdish cultural, linguistic, and political rights will be essential for lasting peace. As Özge Genç of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs notes, these issues will be addressed in future stages, making the process potentially more fragile. The timing is critical—with Öcalan aged 77, Turkey has a unique opportunity to reach a historic agreement while the PKK’s charismatic founder remains alive and influential.

The regional dimension cannot be overstated. The situation in Northeast Syria could make or break the entire peace process. Should the region descend into renewed conflict, Kurds across the region would likely mobilize, creating new waves of refugees and instability that would doom the Turkey-PKK talks. The killing of three Americans in central Syria by an ISIS gunman in December could increase pressure on the U.S. to withdraw its forces, further endangering Kurdish communities and their hard-won autonomy.

Toward a New Regional Order

This peace process represents more than just the resolution of a specific conflict—it signals the emergence of a new regional order where Middle Eastern nations develop their own solutions to their problems without Western mediation. The changing global balance of power, with the rise of China and other Global South nations, creates space for alternative diplomatic approaches that reject Western hegemony and interventionism.

Kurdish political movements have the opportunity to transition from armed resistance to peaceful political engagement, potentially becoming forces for regional stability and democratic development. Their experience with decentralized administration in Northeast Syria offers a model for inclusive governance that could inspire other minority communities across the region.

The success of this peace process could have far-reaching implications beyond Turkey and the Kurdish regions. It demonstrates that conflicts rooted in colonial border arrangements and ethnic suppression can be resolved through indigenous diplomacy that respects historical grievances while building shared futures. This stands as a powerful rebuke to Western claims that only their intervention can bring peace to the Middle East.

As the world moves toward multipolarity, the Turkey-PKK peace process offers a glimpse of how conflict resolution might look in a post-Western world—driven by regional actors, respectful of cultural specificities, and focused on practical solutions rather than ideological imposition. The Kurdish people, after a century of struggle and sacrifice, may finally achieve the recognition and rights they have long deserved, not through Western intervention but through their own resilience and the changing dynamics of regional politics.