History of PKK terrorist group’s disarmament and making sense of Imrali’s call

The “Terror-Free Türkiye” project, which began with Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahceli’s bold move in October 2024 and witnessed the collapse of the Baath regime in Syria, has reached a critical juncture. The anticipated message from Ankara was conveyed through the delegation sent to Imrali. The imprisoned terrorist Abdullah Ocalan’s statement was read by the People’s Freedom and Democracy Party (DEM Party) deputies on Thursday, prompting speculation about the next steps.

“All armed groups must lay down their arms and the PKK must disband,” he said in a declaration. This appeal represents a potential turning point, indicating that the organization may be shifting away from armed struggle. The call outlines the need for a congress where a formal decision on disarmament would be taken, marking a significant moment in the decadeslong conflict. However, the success of such an initiative depends on the response from the group’s leadership in Kandil and other factions.

The rumor is that two weeks prior to the declaration, the convicted orchestrator prepared three letters addressing key factions within the criminal network: Kandil, Rojava, and the European branch. These wings are central to the terrorist organization’s structure. However, the most closely watched response is expected from Kandil, as it remains the primary operational base of the PKK terrorist group and the main interlocutor of notorious baby killer’s call. Kandil’s stance on disarmament will likely reflect the criminal organization’s historical approach to cease-fires and peace talks.

According to a MetroPOLL survey published on Jan. 16, only 22% of Turkish people approved Bahceli’s call on Ocalan. It is yet to be seen what the Turkish public thinks of Ocalan’s call and the future peace prospects in Türkiye.

Lessons from 2004 PKK congress

Previous attempts at disarmament and political engagement without violence have been part of Türkiye’s history. Of these, the most similar precedent to today’s process was the PKK’s 2004 congress, where similar discussions on disarmament took place but ultimately resulted in a reversal of course—making it a critical reference point for Ocalan’s latest call.

Few years after following Ocalan’s capture in 1999, PKK leaders considered dissolving the group. A congress was ordered by him to be convened in Kandil with the expectation of declaring a formal end to armed conflict. Orhan Miroglu, a former journalist and a member of the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) Central Decision and Executive Committee, shared insights with Türkiye Today.

Having experienced a relative ease due to the five-year cease-fire, the Turkish government allowed the terrorist chief to convey messages advocating peace through his lawyers. The previous year, the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein had altered the balance of power in northern Iraq, prompting the PKK’s militant wing to relocate to the region. However, during the congress held that year, Imrali was allegedly sending orders for a political struggle to the key figures such as Murat Karayilan and Duran Kalkan.

Those figures initially delivered speeches in favor of disarmament, calling for laying down arms in their addresses. However, the situation took a dramatic turn when a helicopter arrived carrying Mahmut Sakar, a lawyer representing Ocalan. He brought a direct message from his client, instructing the congress to maintain armed struggle rather than pursue disarmament.

The intervention fundamentally changed the direction of the congress, leading to a renewed commitment to conflict rather than peace. Miroglu says the shift was influenced by external actors, particularly the United States, which was reportedly opposed to PKK’s disarmament at the time. 

Subsequently, a faction within the bloodstained group, including Osman Ocalan, broke away from the organization, taking approximately 2,000 terrorists with them upon the congress. Miroglu, in reference to how this event unfolded, stated that Ocalan’s brother confirms his witness to the fact that the events at the congress transpired in this manner.

The deputy remarks the 2004 process serves as a crucial lesson in understanding the internal and external pressures that shape PKK’s decisions regarding disarmament, noting “Much has changed since that day. The world has changed, the U.S. has changed, and the U.S. interests have changed. The Americans no longer pursue a strategy of telling the PKK to continue the war against Türkiye. Other actors, like Iran, are already preoccupied with healing their own wounds. The changes in Syria are also positioning the entire Middle East in a different way.”

Situation in Syria

A related issue is the status of the PYD/YPG, which is dominated by PKK-affiliated elements. Ongoing negotiations between the Syrian branch of the terrorist group and the new Syrian government have centered around the potential integration of the group into state security structures. If successful, this would mark a significant step in normalizing relations between Damascus and long-terrorist entities to adopt staying civilians.

Türkiye maintains the position that foreign militants must leave Syria. This stance is a critical point in diplomatic negotiations and could affect regional security dynamics. The results of these talks will likely influence Türkiye’s regional policy and the crime network’s operational decisions.

Syrian ringleader and a raise-up of Ocalan, Mazloum Abdi was quick to state that Ocalan’s call to disband and lay down arms was “only related to the PKK” and had no bearing on Syrian branch, despite the open appeal mentioning all groups on the declaration. 

Co-chairman of the PYD, Salih Muslim, while claiming to agree with Ocalan also set conditions for disarmament, stating, “There would be no need for weapons if we are allowed to work politically. If the reasons for carrying weapons disappear, we will lay them down.”

Miroglu suggested that negotiations in Syria are progressing, with potential agreements on oil resources in the near future. There are discussions about sending PKK-linked elements from within the YPG out of Syria conducted, he notes.

Perception of threat

The codes of this process are different from others. The government has repeatedly emphasized that no table will be set at the end of this process, no negotiations will take place, and no give-and-take process will occur. 

Sources close to the government and official statements indicate that the olive branch, which Assad had previously refused to use right before the revolution in Syria, is now being extended to these terrorist groups for a smoother and more solidly grounded transition.

Türkiye’s perception of threats also plays a role, tell Miroglu. While the Peshmerga, with its 300,000 members, is not seen as a threat—Irbil is considered a close ally of Ankara—the terrorist group’s continued presence is viewed differently.

Social impact 

One of the most overlooked aspects of the conflict has been the impact on families whose children were recruited into the PKK. Reports indicate that thousands of minors have been recruited over the years, raising concerns about their reintegration should a disarmament process take place.

Mothers of missing children, particularly those involved in protests in Diyarbakir, have long demanded the return of their sons and daughters. Miroglu documented those kidnapped forcingly by the PKK. A potential dissolution of the terror group could pave the way for reconciliation efforts with those not committing any crime actively, but the logistical and legal aspects of reintegration remain to be seen.

Next

Ocalan’s latest call for disarmament represents a potentially historic turning point, and the implementation of such a decision now appears to be more feasible than ever.

Nevertheless, changing geopolitical conditions and declining external support may push PKK leadership toward a strategic reassessment. The steps taken in the coming days will go a long way.