Former member of the Iraqi Parliament and Kurdish politician Muhsin Osman spoke to ANF about the ongoing transformation in the Middle East, emphasizing that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party’s (PKK) decision to end its armed struggle is not only an organizational step but also a historic and pivotal moment for the political future of the Kurdish people.
Osman stated that the decision was made by carefully analyzing the shifting dynamics of the global system and the regional equations. He explained, “This project that is unfolding in the Middle East did not begin today. It started taking shape during the era of George W. Bush. Within the framework of this project, many countries have already undergone or will undergo significant changes. The political map of the region is being redrawn. The transformations in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Syria are all part of this. What we are witnessing now is the birth pangs of that transformation.
Today, wars are increasingly being waged through softer methods, economic pressure and trade restrictions. Rather than direct confrontation, interventions are carried out indirectly against armed groups. That is why the leaders of armed structures seen as threats in the Middle East have been systematically eliminated.”
Osman emphasized the importance of the PKK’s decision to end its armed struggle, offering the following analysis: “The PKK’s decision to end the armed struggle at this stage is strategic and highly significant. The symbolic ceremony of burning weapons is not merely a gesture; it carries deep political meaning. European countries and several others have shown open support for the Kurds, yet they continued to keep the PKK on their list of terrorist organizations.
Now, a new political approach has emerged that will resolve this contradiction, and it marks the beginning of a new phase. The entire world can now see clearly that Kurds are not a people in love with weapons. Kurds took up arms only to defend their existence.
This process has demonstrated that achieving results through armed struggle is not easy. From now on, soft power, politics, and diplomacy will take precedence.”
Osman stated that the regional transformations taking place and those yet to come, in the Middle East cannot be confined to the Kurdish question alone. He continued: “These changes do not affect only the Kurds. At the moment, political and radical Islam is centered in Turkey. If Turkey fails to recognize this transformation, it too will become a target. In particular, the recent remarks by Devlet Bahçeli reveal that the Turkish state mentality is aware of this ongoing shift. His statement, ‘Turks and Kurds are brothers,’ actually signals that much has already changed. This transformation will not only shape domestic politics but also influence regional balances.
The perception of the Kurdish people is evolving. Throughout history, there has never been a case where the Kurds have caused harm to Israel or any other state. Kurds are secular; they represent a source of security for the peoples of the region against radical Islam and other forms of extremism. They also possess the organizational capacity to resist mercenaries such as ISIS. For this reason, it is not surprising that they have formed partnerships with powers like the United States and France.”
As a consequence of the painful transformations unfolding across the Middle East, Osman noted that discomfort and tensions directed at Kurdistan in all four parts have always been a real possibility. He stated: “The salary crisis and other economic problems in Southern Kurdistan (Başur) are not legal issues but fundamentally political ones. These are symptoms of the broader regional transformation. Turkey is also influencing the disputes between Baghdad and Hewlêr (Erbil). That is because certain states, including Turkey, do not want Southern Kurdistan to achieve stability. Their goal is to prevent the Kurds from being recognized as a self-governing society.
They want to present this instability to Europe and other powers as evidence that ‘Kurds are not capable of governing themselves.’
However, the model that has emerged in Rojava stands out as a meaningful and vital alternative. In that system, Alawites, secular Arabs, Druze, and various faith communities are represented. Today, many different groups are calling on the Kurds for support and protection. This is redefining the role of the Kurdish people in the region.”
Muhsin Osman emphasized that the PKK decision to end its armed struggle should not be viewed merely as an internal organizational matter, but as a development that deeply concerns all Kurds. He offered the following assessment: “Before making this decision, Abdullah Öcalan sent letters to all Kurdish political structures, both in the diaspora and within the country, seeking their opinions. This is a collective decision. We can say it was made not only by Qandil but through the consensus of all Kurdish political dynamics. In this sense, the decision also carries the character of a national congress.
This is the second time in Kurdish history that such a high level of unity has been achieved. The first was during the ISIS attacks, particularly around Kirkuk. The second is now unfolding through the PKK’s decision to end its armed strategy.
This is a national consensus among Kurds. The longing of Ehmedê Xanî for Kurdish unity is now on the threshold of becoming reality. We are one step closer. Diplomacy, unity, and a shared political will now have a stronger foundation. No matter how long an armed struggle lasts, its final destination will always be reconciliation and dialogue.
The Kurdish diaspora and its diplomatic efforts must grow stronger. Just as the Armenian and Jewish peoples established states through the power of their diasporas, the Kurds can walk the same path through unity. The will of this people has already been clearly demonstrated in the Newroz squares. Political actors must listen to this will. The future will be shaped by the spirit of the people.”