At a time when the Middle East is being reshaped and crises are deeply affecting not only state borders but also social memory, the Kurdish and Kurdistan question has once again taken a central place in regional balances. The shock created by the attacks against Rojava targets not only a territory but also a shared political vision; these developments have made debates about national unity among Kurds more visible, more urgent, and more pressing.
In precisely such an atmosphere, the spirit of national unity that rose in the Newroz squares carried a powerful message for all political movements of Kurdistan. While this spirit nourishes the search for a common will against fragmentation and uncertainty, it also opens discussions about the possibilities of a new political direction.
ANF spoke with Nilüfer Koç, Foreign Relations Spokesperson of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), about these discussions that have increasingly occupied the agenda of the people and political actors in all four parts of Kurdistan in recent times.
Recently, the KNK held a meeting about the issue of national unity that is on the agenda of the Kurdish people. The most fundamental demand that began with the attacks against Rojava and became prominent in the Newroz squares was indeed Kurdish National Unity. What is the reason for this urgency?
The process we are in today points to a historical period that compels Kurds toward one another. The major crisis taking place at the center of the Middle East, what can be called the “dynamics of a Third World War,” has created a reality that directly affects the Kurds. A decision taken in one part can now directly affect all other parts. This new situation indicates a stage for the Kurds that goes beyond classical forms of politics.
The attacks against Rojava in particular and the strong demand for national unity revealed in the Newroz squares showed that society clearly feels this need. As KNK, we have kept this issue on our agenda for a long time. Because national unity is no longer a matter of preference but a matter of existence.
Today, no power in the region has accepted the Kurds as an equal people with constitutional rights. This constantly leaves us fragile and vulnerable to becoming a target. Every development—from Iran to Syria, from Turkey to Iraq—directly affects the Kurds. For this reason, a wrong step or fragmentation in any part can put the entire Kurdish people at risk.
The wars and crises experienced recently have also shown this clearly. The process in Iran, developments in Syria, and the continuous tension in the region make it necessary for Kurds to act in a more coordinated way, complementing one another and moving with a shared political perspective.
As KNK, we have been carrying out work in this framework for a long time. In our most recent executive council meeting, this urgency was addressed again. With 27 years of experience and through the contacts we have maintained with Kurdish parties, we are now discussing the need to move to a more concrete ground.
What we are focusing on today goes beyond simply saying “let us unite.” It is about how this can become possible. In other words, we must establish a more realistic basis—from defense policies to political coordination, from coordination between the parties to joint decision-making mechanisms.
What is needed now is not a romantic or abstract call for unity, but a concept of unity based on realpolitik, one that sees the risks on the ground and organizes itself accordingly. Because in this geography, remaining fragmented in the face of powerful actors seriously threatens existence.
For this reason, national unity for the Kurdish people today is not only a goal but also the most fundamental guarantee of existence and the future.
Are the political parties of Kurdistan paying enough attention to the regional crisis and the necessity of national unity? In the past, the reason national unity could not be achieved was often attributed to the parties’ own perspectives and mutual criticisms. Does this approach continue today, or have parties begun to understand the necessity of this new process?
There is a very important factor that facilitates this process: the direct will expressed by the people. Especially after the attacks around Rojava and when millions gathered in Newroz and declared “Kurds are one” without ideological distinctions, this was in fact a clear instruction to Kurdish politics. Today politics must take this instruction into account. Because at no other time has the people expressed their demand for unity so strongly and clearly.
Therefore, today, it is no longer easy for any political actor to say, “I do not see this as appropriate.” Because there is a social reality in front of them that directly says “be united.” One of the reasons we as the KNK have accelerated our work is precisely this social will—both to remind politics of it and to develop processes of persuasion in this direction.
Of course, the problems have not completely disappeared; there are still difficulties and contradictions. For example, tensions between the KDP and the PUK in Southern Kurdistan can still produce harsh mutual criticisms, as seen in discussions about the Iraqi presidency process or the Kirkuk governorship. Such situations show that there are still obstacles to national unity.
However, despite this, the current conditions are different from the past. I believe both the KDP and the PUK are structures that read the changes and risks in the region and try to position themselves accordingly. Evaluations about the current political conjuncture lead many actors to similar conclusions. This makes the ground for unity more favorable than before.
On the other hand, some practices emerging in different parts are also noteworthy. In Eastern Kurdistan, various parties have developed a common stance by saying “this is not our war,” and more generally, a tendency within Kurdish politics that prioritizes political methods over war has been strengthening. This creates a de facto parallelism.
A similar picture emerged in Rojava. The interventions of Abdullah Öcalan, the involvement of Mesut Barzani, Nechirvan Barzani, and Bafel Talabani, and the strong mobilization of the people… All of these showed that serious risks can be overcome through politics outside of war. This has also revealed an important self-confidence in Kurdish politics.
Therefore, what must be done now is to transform this emerging self-confidence and these de facto convergences into a concrete basis for national unity. Because under the current conditions, despite all the difficulties, it is very clear that we are compelled to do so.
Are there external interventions or policies aimed at preventing Kurdish national unity? Do you think external actors have an influence on this matter?
When we look at the four states, Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq, we must read the emerging picture correctly. In Turkey there is a dialogue process. In terms of confidence-building steps, Leader Apo and the Kurdish Freedom Movement have done what was necessary. The strategy of armed struggle has ended, and a position has emerged entirely based on democratic politics where words and actions are shaped accordingly.
A similar situation exists in Rojava. Despite the oppressive and chauvinistic approaches of the HTS administration, Kurds insist on seeking solutions through diplomatic and political means, in other words, through negotiation. There is such a line in Syria as well. We have seen that Kurds have adopted a similar attitude to developments in Iran. In Southern Kurdistan as well, in a place that everyone wants to use as a buffer zone, a position that does not want war has again emerged. In other words, in practice, Kurds in all four parts are on a line that does not want war.
This is very important because, for example, not taking a war position against Iran creates the ground for Kurds to say in the future, if national unity is achieved, “our unity is not against you.” As in Turkey and Syria, the approach of resolving problems through dialogue and democratic methods stands out. This is not merely a declaration of intent, but a process supported by concrete steps. Therefore, we are in the process of building trust in these four states.
At this point, the perspective of Leader Apo [Abdullah Öcalan] that “Kurds must act with strategic intelligence” is important. Kurdish strategic thinking is based on securing the Kurdish right to existence through legal and constitutional guarantees in agreement with the four neighboring states. Democratic politics, social struggle, and the search for legal solutions are at the center of this approach.
Of course, this does not mean that Kurds have no other options. The multi-actor and multipolar structure of the region also offers Kurds different possibilities. However, under current conditions, the rational path is to push for solutions through non-war methods.
As to global powers: if concrete steps are taken in relations with these four states at the regional level, their effect will also be reflected globally. For example, even a small step taken by Turkey regarding legal and political status in line with Leader Apo’s proposals could be highly decisive for the region and could positively influence Iran, Syria, and Iraq as well.
Today the world is evolving into a multipolar political system and Kurds have more options than before. Therefore, a Kurdish National Unity shaped on a democratic and non-war basis could become an option that both regional stability and global powers will have to take seriously. Kurds have more options on the table than before, and I believe everyone is aware of this.
You mentioned that you are conducting discussions among different circles about what Kurdish National Unity should look like. Considering developments in the region, what priority steps should be taken in the short term?
The steps that need to be taken in the short term can be gathered under several main headings. First of all, the four-state equation we are in, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, produces interconnected developments. In this framework, the ground that has formed especially in Turkey and Northern Kurdistan is important. The steps taken by Leader Apo and the Kurdish Freedom Movement have created a serious political basis. If this basis is strengthened with legal steps, it could direct not only Turkey but also the other three parts toward a discussion process that is less violent and more focused on political solutions.
Here the role of national unity also changes. For a hundred years, the Kurdish question card was often seen as a tool of instability. Today, however, the solution of the Kurdish question could become a “gold-value” opportunity that produces stability for the region. National unity must evaluate this opportunity correctly.
Second, there is the issue of legal guarantees. As long as the Kurdish right to existence is not guaranteed at constitutional and international levels, defense policy will remain a fundamental priority. For this reason, the question of “how will we make defense common” stands at a critical place in discussions of national unity. Developments in the region move very quickly and the future of a people cannot be left to chance.
Third, the dimension of international diplomacy is important. Kurds possess a strong argument that could stabilize the region: the solution to the Kurdish question. This creates an important basis that can be presented to both regional and global actors. It is also a fact that, in a multipolar world, Kurds have more options than before.
At the same time, the limits of ideological approaches must be correctly drawn in discussions of unity. Every party can preserve its own ideological structure, but these differences should not become obstacles to the future of a people of sixty million. What is necessary is agreement on common principles at the national level.
On the other hand, this process should not remain limited only to political parties. Kurdish society has a very colorful and multilayered structure. Women, young people, and different social segments are direct participants in this process. National unity cannot be built through decisions taken by a few parties within a narrow framework; social participation and a democratic ground are essential.
The role of women in particular is very important here. In Kurdistan, women are not only victims of war but also carriers of a non-violent social culture. For this reason, they need to participate more strongly in discussions of national unity. Already women in all four parts of Kurdistan and in the diaspora have serious efforts and platforms in this direction.
In conclusion, what must be done in the short term is to strengthen the legal ground, develop common approaches in defense and diplomacy, agree on national principles that transcend ideological differences, and most importantly socialize this process. Because the message given by the people is clear, and fulfilling this message is now a responsibility that can no longer be postponed.
Leave a Reply