BERFÎN EVRAN

News Center- The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) held its 12th Congress in the Medya Defense Zones between May 5 and May 7, 2025, following the “Call for Peace and Democratic Society” by Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan on February 27, 2025.

On May 12, 2025, the PKK announced that it dissolved itself and ended its armed struggle, calling on the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye to play its role in building peace. It also called on all political parties, the government, the main opposition party and civil society organizations, religious groups, democratic media outlets, opinion leaders, intellectuals, academics, artists, labor unions, women-youth organizations and ecological movements to participate in the process to build peace and democratic society by taking responsibility.

NuJINHA interviewed Kariane Westrheim, professor emerita at the Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway and the chair of EU Turkey Civic Commission (EUTCC), about the decision of the PKK.

Before answering our questions, she talked about her relationship with the PKK.

“It is about 20 years since I first visited the PKK units in the mountains - it was springtime in Xinere, but even then, it was difficult to access. I was excited about how I would be received as a researcher and essentially a stranger,” said Kariane Westrheim. “I need not have been worried, the reception surpassed most of what you find in civilian life, it was warm and open. I do not want to romanticize life in the mountains for those who have fought there for many decades, or are relatively newcomers, life there is hard and sometimes exceeds even our wildest fantasies. That so many have endured all these years demands great respect. But of course, disagreements, friction, and contradictions may also arise when so many people live so close to each other over a long period of time, while the enemy is constantly knocking at the door.”

Women’s double struggle

Speaking about the women and their “double” struggle in the mountains, she said, “However, it is difficult not to express at the same time how strong an impression they made on me, particularly the women and their double struggle. I got to share sleeping space, meals, and classroom with them, and not least, I was included in conversations and discussions around a variety of political, ideological, and everyday topics. What struck me and which I have encountered in many different contexts in meeting the Kurdish movement, is the warm and friendly tone you meet with and a hospitality that you will hardly find anywhere else. The guerrillas had a desire to learn, to develop, to liberate themselves and to share their views, thoughts and models with others. It is not without reason that PKK calls itself an educational revolution. This testifies to high morals, and a community of values that is as far from what is associated with an armed guerrilla as is possible.

“This feeling of solidarity and fighting spirit, not only in the guerrilla, but in the movement in general, has made an indelible impression on me. For this reason, it is also bittersweet to recognize that the historical era of the PKK is over and will be replaced by something else that we do not yet quite know what it is.”

 What do you think about the decision of the PKK?

When the news of the PKK's dissolution and disarmament came, it was not unexpected, it has been talked about for a long time, but expectations increased especially after Mr. Öcalan's historic call on February 27 this year. I assume that the reactions have been many and partly extremely strong. People must have reacted with disbelief and probably also despair for many. The PKK has been considered a lifeline, the safe card to keep the enemy at bay, although this has not always been the case. Kurds have sacrificed themselves, their children and relatives for the fight, thousands have been killed or injured - and then - overnight there is no longer a PKK. I understand very well that this is difficult to accept.

But anyway, we must consider PKK’s decision to dissolve itself and pursue disarmament as a historic and deeply consequential development. From the perspective of peacebuilding and democratic transformation, this marks a potential paradigm shift. For decades, armed conflict has shaped the sociopolitical landscape in Turkey and the broader region, often limiting possibilities for democratic engagement and coexistence. The move toward demilitarization, even fragile, opens space for dialogue, education, and civic participation - all of which are essential for long-term peace. However, as an educational scholar, I would emphasize that the real impact will depend on how this decision is implemented and how other actors, particularly the Turkish state, respond to the decision of the 12th PKK Congress.

Although the PKK's decision was not entirely surprising, it was unexpected that it came now and completely without conditions or demands directed to the Turkish authorities. A process had begun and although it cannot be said to have come far or could be called anything close to negotiations, something was still going on that could eventually lead to something. The PKK had a negotiating card in the armed HPG, but now when everything is closed it is harder to believe that Turkey will respond by inviting talks, so far there is nothing to indicate that.

Do you think this decision will pave the way for the process to build peace in Türkiye and the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question?

It certainly creates an opportunity - perhaps the most important one in recent memory. Disarmament removes a major barrier to open dialogue and may help shift public perception, allowing the Kurdish question to be addressed not as a security threat, but as a political, cultural, and historical issue that demands democratic solutions. In the long run education will play an important role here: peace education, inclusive curricula, and recognition of diverse identities must accompany political reforms. Still, this is not a guaranteed path - much depends on whether the Turkish government moves from securitized approaches to inclusive and rights-based policies. Without structural and legal reforms and genuine political will, the opportunity could be lost. But unfortunately, there is no response from the Turkish side. On the contrary, Turkey continues to attack targets in Kurdish areas in Syria and do everything they can to keep the Kurds at a distance when it comes to decision-making.

As of today, there are no signs that the Turkish authorities will respond positively to the PKK's decision. Shortly after the decision was made, President Erdogan announced that he saw the decision as positive and that they could expect a surprise soon. What this consisted of no one knows and it has not materialized. There are probably talks going on with Mr. Öcalan and perhaps also with others in the back room, but we know little about this.

Do you think that this decision will also affect the Middle East?

Yes, its effects may ripple across the region. The Kurdish issue is transnational, with political and cultural dimensions that span Iraq, Syria, Iran, Kurdish diaspora and beyond. A peaceful transition by the PKK may influence how Kurdish movements elsewhere approach their struggles - potentially encouraging more political engagement. At the same time, it may shift how regional powers calculate their strategies, especially in places where Kurdish autonomy and identity remain highly contested. However, the regional context is complex and volatile, so we should be cautious in predicting outcomes.

Turkey's role in Syria is particularly uncertain. Erdogan has a hand in most of what happens there and has so far only tried to keep the Kurds away from anything that could give them the opportunity to participate in Syria's future. However, the Kurds in Syria are strong, and have experienced numerous attacks, yet they stand tall and have managed to build a solid democracy and society based on ethnic and religious diversity, equality and gender liberation - a model that is an example for the world. All of this is at stake if Turkey is not reined in and other powers help.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

This decision should be seen as a critical opening - not a conclusion. It offers a chance for all parties to reimagine what coexistence, citizenship, and democracy can look like in Turkey and the broader region. But peace is not just about the absence of arms; it’s about the presence of justice, dignity, and mutual recognition. As an educational scientist, I believe that investing in intercultural education, language rights, and historical understanding will be essential to consolidate peace. We now face a moment where symbolic change must be matched by institutional and societal transformation.

Whether that happens remains to be seen.

A crucial question, especially considering how international institutions, their recognition, support, and diplomacy, will respond to this matter - because they can shape the success or failure of peace transitions. So how should the international community and the big political institutions like the UN, the EU, the Council of Europe, and national states respond and act regarding this matter?

The international community has a vital role to play in supporting this potentially historic turning point. The PKK’s decision to disarm and dissolve its armed structures should not go unnoticed or be met with silence. Institutions like the United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe, and influential nation-states should acknowledge the significance of this step and encourage all actors to engage in a comprehensive peace and reconciliation process. Although Turkey rejects third-party intervention if the PKK's initiative eventually leads to negotiations, it is nevertheless crucial that we all drive diplomacy forward and encourage and pressure the major institutions to act - not just in words, but in action.

They could publicly support peaceful democratic solutions to the Kurdish question, reinforcing the idea that political dialogue and not militarized responses is the legitimate path forward. They could offer political support for transitional processes, including mechanisms for disarmament, reintegration, and truth-telling where appropriate. Drawing on international experiences in conflict resolution could be valuable here. Promote human rights, minority rights, and cultural rights as non-negotiable pillars of any future peace framework. The Kurdish issue cannot be resolved without addressing long-standing political and military abuses and grievances related to language, identity, political representation, and regional development. The big institutions should encourage Turkey to take concrete steps toward democratization and inclusive governance, not just as a response to this decision, but as a broader commitment to pluralism and justice.

At the same time, the international community should avoid instrumentalizing the issue for geopolitical interests or treating it as merely a security concern. Peacebuilding requires long-term commitment, not short-term strategic calculations.

Civil society, media, and international actors also have a role to play in supporting such a process. This is a moment for international institutions to align their democratic and human rights principles with action. A passive, silenced or indifferent response would not only undermine the opportunity for peace in Turkey, but also send a discouraging message to other non-state actors considering demilitarization in favor of political paths.