Alwaght- After four decades of armed struggle with Turkish government, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has begun disarming following a decision made by its leaders.
In this connection, on Friday in a symbolic event, 30 of the terrorist group members laid down their weapons and handed them over. The event took place with the presence of official and political figures from the Iraqi government, Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and representatives from Turkey. PKK leaders have voiced hope that this move will mark an important step towards peace and end of violence.
The group, acting as an armed movement since 1984 against Turkey, over time developed its trans-national network and alliance in Iraq, Syria, and Iran. So, any fundamental development in its military status will have profound implications not only to Turkey, but also to the whole region. The move is described as serving to de-escalate tensions in the region with indirect and direct impacts on the regional actors and the balance of power.
Regional implications
Politically speaking, disarming the group can help PKK transformation from an armed group to a civil one. In Turkey, this can provide an opportunity to resume peace process between the government and the Kurds, something put in hold over the past years due to distrust, military conflict, and crackdown of the Turkish government against the Kurds.
If complete disarmament is achieved, Turkey will witness structural changes in its domestic policy, and Ankara will likely face a reduction in security threats in the east and southeast of the country, which could free up significant financial and human resources for the economic development of these regions.
There will also be significant political consequences in other countries in the region. In Iran, the PKK-related branch, the PJAK, is considered one of the security challenges that has carried out armed activities against the Islamic Republic in the western border areas of the country in recent years. Therefore, If the PKK is disarmed and logistical and ideological support for the PJAK is cut, the possibility of weakening the group and reducing border conflicts will increase.
On the other hand, the PKK has had an active military presence in the mountainous regions of northern Iraq, especially in the Qandil Mountains and the Sinjar region, over the past years, and this presence has inflamed frequent tensions with the central government of Iraq, the KRG, and also Turkey. Therefore, the disarmament of this group could help ease tensions in these areas.
Meanwhile, disarmament could pave the way for the revival of areas affected by war and conflict. Areas such as Diyarbakir in Turkey, Qandil in Iraq, and Hasakah in Syria, which have been affected by continuous conflicts for decades, could benefit from a new space for economic development, infrastructure reconstruction, and attracting domestic and foreign investment. Also, the return of displaced persons and local residents who were forced to leave their homes in recent years could strengthen the process of social normalization.
Also, PKK weapons lay-down will reduce military challenges to the KRG as the PKK over the past years have been competing and sometimes clashing with the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, two of the leading actors in Kurdistan region of Iraq. Erbil is hopeful it can take advantage of rebuilding Turkish peace process for settling its challenges with Ankara and boost business ties with it. This means that Turkish military actions will step in the autonomous region.
By eliminating the excuse for Turkey’s military presence on Iraqi soil, the central government can also take a stronger stance against violations of its national sovereignty, and this process can end up benefiting Iraq’s stability and national sovereignty.
From a security perspective, a significant reduction in clashes and military attacks between the Turkish army and PKK forces in border areas will lead to greater stability in southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and even the Kurdish areas of Syria.
Over the past decade, Ankara has established a large military presence in northern Iraq and Syria, relying on the PKK threat excuse, and with the reduction of the direct PKK threat, international pressure will be built on Turkey to withdraw from these areas. This issue has become one of the main points of difference in relations between Baghdad and Ankara. Speculations put the number of illegal Turkish military bases in northern Iraq at 20 to 80, which have been established 30 to 50 kilometers deep inside Iraqi territory.
The Iraqi government has repeatedly condemned the military presence of the Turkish army and the violation of the country’s territorial integrity in airstrikes and has filed a complaint against Ankara with the United Nations. However, the Turkish government has refused to withdraw its troops from Iraqi soil, citing the presence of PKK elements. Now, after the PKK’s decision to lay down its arms, Iraqis are also hoping that Turkey will take action to dismantle its military bases without any excuses. This is an issue that Turkish officials have not yet responded to.
Challenges remain in place
Despite PKK leaders agreeing to the disarming process, the road to peace remains bumpy, especially that Syria-based Kurds have not joined the process. Ankara argues that the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are a branch of the PKK and pose a direct threat to the Turkish national security and need to be disarmed.
On the other side, Syrian Kurds led by the Democratic Union Party (PYD) have rejected this Turkish claim, saying that they are an independent movement aimed at defending their autonomous regions and fighting the ISIS terrorists.
Therefore, this clash of views poses a serious challenge to any possible peace process between the Kurds and Turkey. While Turkey insists on the complete elimination of the armed structures of the PKK in Syria, the Syrian Kurdish leaders are not willing to accept such preconditions. If this stalemate continues, it will not only prevent the realization of a comprehensive agreement in northern Syria, but also could lead to counterproductive results that, if the process fails, could rekindle the cycle of violence.
In the absence of an optimistic and clear perspective for settling this challenge, regional mediation is underway, especially by Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iraq, so that the Syrian Kurds and the new Damascus government led by Abu Mohammad al-Jolani can reach an agreement to resolve their differences and integrate the Kurds into the new Syrian armed forces. Otherwise, peace prospects will remain dim and risky.
Historical experience has shown that in West Asia, even ending one crisis can produce other crises, unless it is done with foresight and careful planning. If done in cooperation with the Turkish government to remove the shadow of threat and occupation in Iraq and Syria, PKK disarming can promise moving to sustainable stability, but if done improperly, it can lead to new instability.
