The call for disarmament by Abdullah Öcalan, the jailed leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), has sparked debate over its scope and implications. While Öcalan explicitly stated that “all groups must lay down arms, and the PKK must dissolve itself,” Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) Commander-in-Chief Mazloum Abdi has rejected the idea that this directive applies to his forces.
Öcalan’s message, read aloud by a delegation involved in ongoing peace talks, appeared to go beyond just the PKK in Turkey, instead issuing a broader appeal for Kurdish armed groups to disarm. Given the historical and ideological ties between the PKK and Kurdish factions in Syria—most notably the SDF and its core force, the People’s Protection Units (YPG)—the wording raised questions about whether it was also directed at them.
However, speaking at an online press conference, Abdi was firm in dismissing any such interpretation.
“The call from Mr. Öcalan was meant for the PKK and its members. It was directly addressed to them. As for the SDF, Mr. Öcalan sent us a letter, just as he did to the Kurdistan Region’s leadership. That letter did not address the SDF or this region directly, but it touched on establishing a ceasefire and achieving a peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis,” Abdi clarified.
A Broader Peace Effort or an Unwelcome Demand?
Öcalan’s statement comes at a time when the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) has been working with the Turkish government to revive peace efforts between Ankara and the PKK. Earlier in February, a DEM Party delegation visited the Kurdistan Region to meet with senior Kurdish officials.
Despite this, the wording of Öcalan’s call—especially the phrase “all groups must lay down arms”—has raised speculation over whether his vision for a peaceful resolution includes the SDF. Turkey has long accused the YPG, which forms the backbone of the SDF, of being the Syrian branch of the PKK, using this claim as justification for military operations against SDF-controlled territories in northern Syria.
SDF’s Future: Towards Integration into the Syrian Army?
Beyond Turkey’s concerns, the future of the SDF remains uncertain, particularly as discussions continue over the potential reintegration of the force into the Syrian military. Over the past few years, there have been intermittent negotiations between the SDF and the Syrian government regarding its status in a post-war settlement.
The Syrian government has consistently insisted that all armed groups outside its control must eventually be integrated into the national military or disband. For the SDF, this could provide a way to maintain its autonomy while avoiding continued Turkish aggression. However, full integration would likely require concessions, including accepting Damascus’ authority and reducing its ties with the United States. Washington has been the SDF’s main military backer against ISIS, but with shifting U.S. priorities, the group may find itself forced to choose between long-term survival within Syria’s state structure or continued conflict with Turkey.
Abdi has previously signaled openness to negotiations with Damascus but has rejected full absorption under the current conditions. However, Öcalan’s broader disarmament call could signal a push—either from within Kurdish leadership or external actors—for a long-term resolution that includes the SDF’s transformation into a formalized force under Syrian command.
De Facto or De Jure Autonomy for Syrian Kurds?
If the SDF were to integrate into the Syrian military, this would likely lead to some form of Kurdish autonomy within Syria—whether de facto or de jure. While Damascus has historically resisted Kurdish self-rule, realities on the ground have changed since the Syrian civil war. The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), established under the SDF’s protection, has functioned as a self-governing entity for nearly a decade, with its own governing structures, security forces, and economic policies.
Even if the SDF were to merge into the Syrian Army, it is unlikely that Damascus could fully dismantle this existing governance structure. Instead, a negotiated settlement could lead to a power-sharing arrangement where the Kurds retain significant local authority over northeastern Syria while formally acknowledging Syrian state sovereignty. This could resemble the arrangement between the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad in Iraq, albeit with more limited formal recognition.
However, the extent of Kurdish autonomy will depend on several factors. One of the main factors is whether Damascus is willing to decentralize power under the guidance and acceptance of Turkey.
Implications for Rojava and the Region
Abdi, while distancing the SDF from Öcalan’s call, acknowledged that a ceasefire between Ankara and the PKK could bring stability to SDF-held northeastern Syria (Rojava).
“I believe that a ceasefire between the PKK and Turkey, or a broader peace process within Turkey, would have a positive impact on our region. We hope that such a process will extend its effects here,” he said.
However, the divergence between Öcalan’s broad disarmament message and Abdi’s insistence that it does not apply to the SDF reflects deeper tensions within the Kurdish political and military landscape. While some see Öcalan’s statement as a push for a new peace process, others interpret it as an unwelcome demand that could weaken Kurdish positions in Syria and beyond.
As discussions continue, the question remains: Is Öcalan’s call the beginning of a wider transformation for Kurdish armed groups, or will the SDF continue to chart its own course—whether through autonomy, U.S. backing, or eventual integration into the Syrian military?
By: News About Turkey (NAT)
