Iraqi Kurdish Mediation in the Turkey-PKK Peace Process: A Comprehensive Analysis
Introduction
The recent diplomatic engagements between Turkish political actors, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and Iraqi Kurdish leaders mark a pivotal moment in the decades-long conflict between Turkey and Kurdish insurgents.
This article examines the multifaceted role of Iraqi Kurdish political parties in facilitating negotiations, analyzes the evolving dynamics of the peace process, and evaluates the challenges and opportunities shaping this complex geopolitical landscape.
Historical Context of the Turkey-PKK Conflict
Origins and Evolution of the Kurdish Insurgency
The PKK, founded in 1978 by Abdullah Öcalan, initiated an armed struggle in 1984 to secure Kurdish autonomy in southeastern Turkey.
Classified as a terrorist organization by Turkey, the U.S., and the EU, the group’s insurgency has claimed over 40,000 lives.
Early demands for an independent Kurdish state gradually shifted toward calls for cultural rights and decentralized governance within Turkey.
Failed Peace Processes and Regional Implications
Past negotiations, such as the 2013–2015 Oslo talks, collapsed due to mutual distrust and geopolitical shifts.
The breakdown triggered renewed violence and Turkish cross-border military operations in northern Iraq and Syria, where the PKK maintains bases.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s political parties, particularly the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), have historically mediated talks but faced challenges balancing regional alliances with Ankara and Kurdish solidarity.
Current Negotiations: Actors and Proposals
The DEM Party’s Bridgebuilding Role
Turkey’s pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) has emerged as a critical intermediary.
In February 2025, DEM lawmakers Pervin Buldan and Sirri Sureyya Onder visited Öcalan in İmralı Prison, securing his commitment to a “democratic and legal process” to resolve the conflict.
Their subsequent meetings with Iraqi Kurdish leaders—including KDP’s Masoud Barzani and PUK’s Bafel Talabani—aimed to align regional stakeholders with Öcalan’s roadmap.
Öcalan’s Vision for Decentralization
Öcalan’s proposals, relayed through the DEM Party, emphasize “society-based solutions” over top-down agreements.
He advocates for constitutional reforms in Turkey to enable Kurdish self-governance and urges Kurdish forces in Syria (Syrian Democratic Forces) to pursue decentralized governance models.
His call for a “new paradigm” aligns with broader regional democratization efforts but faces skepticism from Turkish nationalists.
The MHP’s Controversial Initiative
In a surprising shift, Devlet Bahçeli, leader of Turkey’s ultranationalist Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), proposed conditional amnesty for Öcalan if the PKK disarms.
While President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan endorsed the plan, critics argue it prioritizes electoral calculus over genuine reconciliation.
Bahçeli’s framing of the initiative as a “counterterrorism” measure risks alienating Kurdish factions demanding political concessions.
Iraqi Kurdish Stakeholders: Mediators and Powerbrokers
The KDP’s Pragmatic Diplomacy
Masoud Barzani’s KDP, which governs the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), has deepened ties with Ankara through energy deals and security cooperation.
Despite historical clashes with the PKK in the 1990s, Barzani reiterated support for the peace process during meetings with DEM delegates, calling it an “historic opportunity” to stabilize the region.
The KDP’s influence over cross-border trade and intelligence-sharing with Turkey positions it as a key mediator.
The PUK’s Balancing Act
Bafel Talabani’s PUK, traditionally closer to Iran and Syrian Kurdish groups, has adopted a more assertive role.
During talks with DEM representatives in Sulaymaniyah, Talabani pledged to “proudly fulfill any national duty” to advance peace, reflecting his father Jalal Talabani’s legacy of mediating ceasefires in the 1990s.
However, the PUK faces pressure from Ankara to curb PKK activities in Qandil, complicating its dual allegiance to Kurdish unity and regional stability.
Challenges to a Sustainable Peace
Turkey’s Military and Political Contradictions
Despite diplomatic overtures, Turkey continues airstrikes against PKK targets in Iraq and Syria.
The KRG’s ban on PKK activities in 2024—enforced under Turkish pressure—has strained relations with Kurdish civil society groups.
FAF review share that Fethullah Husseini argue that Ankara “thrives on conflict” and may exploit negotiations to suppress domestic Kurdish dissent.
The PKK’s Conditions for Disarmament
The Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), the PKK’s political wing, insists that Öcalan’s isolation must end before substantive talks proceed.
Co-chair Besê Hozat warned that Turkey’s simultaneous military escalation and peace rhetoric reflect “contradictory actions” undermining trust.
Öcalan’s delayed “historic call” for disarmament—initially expected in February 2025—highlights internal divisions over surrendering leverage without guarantees.
Regional Geopolitical Risks
Escalating Israel-Iran tensions and U.S. support for Syrian Kurdish forces have intensified Ankara’s fears of a “Kurdish corridor” along its borders.
Erdoğan’s government views demilitarization of Syrian Kurdistan (Rojava) as a precondition for peace, further complicating multilateral negotiations.
Conclusion
Pathways to Resolution
The involvement of Iraqi Kurdish parties offers a tentative framework for dialogue, yet lasting peace requires addressing core grievances
Öcalan’s Status
Lifting his isolation and enabling direct communication with PKK leadership.
Constitutional Reforms
Recognizing Kurdish linguistic and cultural rights within Turkey.
Regional Security
Coordinating with Baghdad and Erbil to demilitarize border regions.
While the KDP and PUK’s endorsement of Öcalan’s roadmap signals progress, Turkey’s willingness to trade military dominance for political concessions remains uncertain.
The DEM Party’s grassroots mobilization and international pressure could tip the balance, but without tangible steps toward decentralization, the cycle of violence risks perpetuation.
This analysis synthesizes insights from diplomatic exchanges, historical precedents, and regional geopolitics to outline the fragile yet transformative potential of current peace efforts.
The coming months will test whether Ankara and the PKK can transcend decades of enmity or succumb to the same forces that derailed past negotiations.
