Abdullah Öcalan’s call for a PKK ceasefire presents a historic opportunity for peace, but Turkey’s hardline stance risks prolonging the conflict.

Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned founder of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), has issued a historic call from İmralı Prison, urging his organization to lay down its arms, dissolve itself, and bring an end to its decades-long conflict with the Turkish state. In response, the PKK declared a unilateral ceasefire—a move that could mark a turning point in Turkey’s four-decade-long Kurdish insurgency.

Öcalan’s announcement carries significant political and security implications for Turkey and the broader region. Kurdish political groups—including Iraq’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), as well as Syria’s Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—have welcomed his call. Their endorsement underscores the potential for a broader Kurdish political realignment. But will Ankara recognize this as an opportunity—or squander it?

Since the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923, the Kurdish minority has endured systematic repression. The state at times denied the very existence of Kurds, branding them “mountain Turks.” Kurdish language and cultural expressions, including the celebration of Nowruz, were banned for decades. This historical marginalization laid the groundwork for repeated Kurdish uprisings in the 1920s and 1930s—rebellions that were brutally suppressed.

The PKK formally emerged in 1978 as a radical separatist movement, seeking an independent Kurdish state. Its armed insurgency, which began in 1984, triggered violent clashes with Turkish security forces that have killed an estimated 40,000 people. Over time, however, the PKK has shifted its stance. It no longer demands outright independence but instead calls for greater autonomy, cultural recognition, and constitutional protections for Kurdish rights. These demands—far from extreme—align with fundamental democratic principles.

With Öcalan’s call for peace, the PKK has signaled a willingness to resolve the conflict politically. The question now is whether Ankara will meet this moment with diplomacy or double down on its hardline approach.

Thus far, Turkey has reacted with hostility. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, addressing supporters at a Ramadan fast-breaking dinner in Istanbul, dismissed the ceasefire, declaring: “We will continue our ongoing (military) operations, if necessary, until we eliminate the last terrorist without leaving a single stone on top of another, without leaving a single head on his shoulder.”

Beyond rejecting the ceasefire, Erdoğan’s party has made it clear that it expects all Kurdish armed groups in Iraq and Syria to disarm, including U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish forces. The Turkish government’s inflexible response raises concerns about whether Ankara genuinely seeks peace or merely views Öcalan’s call as a political maneuver.

Some analysts suggest Erdoğan could exploit the ceasefire as leverage to win over Kurdish voters ahead of potential constitutional reforms that would extend his rule beyond 2028. If so, it would be a short-sighted calculation—one that risks prolonging instability rather than resolving it.

Turkey has much to gain from engaging in sincere negotiations. A lasting peace would alleviate tensions in the country’s Kurdish-majority southeastern regions, where decades of conflict have left deep scars. By integrating Kurdish communities more fully into political and social life, Ankara could strengthen national unity and reduce polarization.

A diplomatic resolution would also bolster Turkey’s international standing. Ankara’s policies toward the Kurds have long been a point of contention with the United States and the European Union. A credible peace process could help repair relations with Washington and Brussels, opening new opportunities for economic and diplomatic cooperation.

Turkish policymakers fear that granting political and cultural rights to Kurds could pave the way for secession. For decades, Ankara has framed any recognition of Kurdish identity as a threat to the country’s territorial integrity. However, clinging to this outdated mindset only ensures that the conflict drags on.

If Erdoğan’s government truly seeks a resolution, it must take confidence-building steps to demonstrate goodwill. This could include releasing Kurdish political prisoners—most notably Selahattin Demirtaş, Turkey’s most prominent Kurdish politician—and halting military operations against Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq.

Öcalan’s call is a rare opportunity to break the cycle of violence that has haunted Turkey for decades. The only question is whether Ankara will seize it—or let history repeat itself once again.