At the heart of this moment is the enduring Kurdish demand, not for separation, but for dignity, inclusion and rights.
The image of Kurdish fighters casting their weapons into flames in the mountains of northern Iraq is both a powerful symbol and a cautious beginning. For the first time in four decades, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), long defined by its armed insurgency, has taken a public step toward disarmament.
Whether this act marks a genuine end to one of the region’s longest-running insurgencies or simply a pause in its complex history remains uncertain.
This move is historic, not only because of the enduring nature of the conflict, but because of a marked shift in tone from the PKK’s leadership. Abdullah Ocalan, the group’s imprisoned founder, now speaks of “politics and social peace” rather than armed struggle. His message, broadcast from prison and followed by the PKK’s decision to disband, signals a fundamental change, from fighting to participating in political life.
The reaction from Turkey, officially renamed Turkiye, has been one of cautious support. While President Recep Tayyip Erdogan believes the disarmament opened new page in history for his country, the Parliamentary Speaker Numan Kurtulmus acknowledges that much work remains. Devlet Bahceli, a longtime nationalist figure and a key player in initiating the peace process, welcomed the ceremony as a sign of progress.
Devlet’s suggestion that Ocalan could be granted parole if the group fully renounces violence marks a striking departure from his traditionally hard-line stance. What’s more, the government, for its part, is seeking to institutionalize the fragile peace by establishing a parliamentary commission to oversee the process.
But there are reasons to worry. Only thirty fighters took part in the initial ceremony, and officials describe the disarmament as symbolic and gradual. Previous peace efforts have collapsed, including the most recent one in 2015, and skepticism is rooted in experience.
Indeed, real progress requires more than burning weapons; it demands sustained political commitment and mutual trust, both of which have been in short supply.
Beyond Turkey, the consequences of peace are being felt in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq’s Kurdish region, where the PKK has long had a presence and Turkish strikes have displaced many, the ceremony has stirred cautious hope. Yet many of those displaced know that even if peace holds, their homes may be gone and their children have only known life in exile.
At the heart of this moment is the enduring Kurdish demand, not for separation, but for dignity, inclusion and rights.
The PKK’s pledge to continue its struggle through democratic and legal means places the responsibility on Turkey to respond in kind. Disarmament alone is not peace; it must be followed by meaningful political steps. Without them, the promise of this gesture risks fading.
Meanwhile, the future of Kurdish fighters in Syria remains unresolved. Ankara continues to view the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as a threat, primarily due to their ties with the PKK, despite growing indications of tactical flexibility elsewhere. If Turkey is indeed warming to one PKK faction, the question is whether this signals a broader shift, one that could eventually impact its posture in Syria. For now, efforts to fold the SDF into the Syrian army, a proposal recently floated across the region, remain stalled.
Nevertheless, the act of disarmament, however small and however symbolic, matters. It begins a conversation that has too often been drowned out by violence. If Turkey truly seeks to end this chapter, it must not only welcome disarmament, but commit to a process that includes reconciliation, justice and political recognition.
Only then can the weapons laid to rest in the mountains stay buried for good.
Syafruddin Arsyad is an independent researcher focusing on the latest current affairs in the Middle East and their impacts on other regions of the world, including Southeast Asia.
OpEd Column Syndication 