The self-determination of the Kurdish people remains one of the most pressing unresolved conflicts in West Asia. From the fragile state of autonomy in Iraqi Kurdistan and the de facto self-government in Rojava to the halted peace process in Turkey and repression in Iran, Kurds continue to face structural oppression and social exclusion across the region. Meanwhile, the dissolution of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), announced last month, brings with it both hope for a peaceful solution as well as uncertainty, given the party’s central role in the Kurdish movement.
Fayik Yagizay is the representative of the People’s Equality and Democracy Party (DEM) to the Council of Europe.
To learn more about the unfolding situation and prospects for Kurdish freedom, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Philip Degenhardt spoke with Fayik Yagizay, representative of the People’s Equality and Democracy Party (DEM) to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Yagizay discussed the state of the Kurdish movement, the latest developments in Syria and Turkey, and made a clear case for international recognition and solidarity with the Kurdish cause.
Let’s start with the broader context. How would you describe the state of the Kurdish self-determination movement across the four states that Kurdish people inhabit?
We are at a critical point. While the Kurdish cause has made political and institutional gains, these gains remain fragile and under constant threat. In Iraqi Kurdistan, for example, we see an autonomous administration with a functioning parliament and international recognition, but that doesn’t translate into real justice or democracy. Corruption is widespread, social services are weak, and political pluralism is limited. While it looks better from the outside, people on the ground still face many difficulties.
In Sinjar, the situation is even worse. After ISIS was pushed out, the Yazidi community tried to build their own autonomous structures. They have their own security forces and civilian administration, and they do not want to be governed by the Government of the Kurdistan Region (KRG) or the central Iraqi state, both of which abandoned them during the ISIS attacks. They are under siege. Roads in and out are controlled, humanitarian goods are restricted, and the region is completely cut off economically and politically. Despite all the international rhetoric, more than 2,000 out of the 5,000 women kidnapped by ISIS are still missing. There has been no justice, no recognition, no reconstruction.
In Rojava — or, as we now call it, the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES) — we have a similar story. The Kurdish-led administration built democratic, inclusive institutions with participation from all ethnic and religious groups, but the Syrian regime has not changed in any meaningful way. Even under the post-war leadership, the state remains dominated by people who previously led Islamist militias like Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra. They changed their uniforms, but not their ideology.
If international actors want to see the guns fall silent, they need to stop treating political actors like terrorists.
The international community, however, is moving toward normalizing Ahmed al-Sharaa. He is welcomed at diplomatic forums, invited to Paris and other capitals. This is extremely dangerous. Without guarantees or constitutional reforms, normalization may lead to new waves of repression. Al-Sharaa may bide his time until he is economically and diplomatically stronger, and then move to crush Kurdish autonomy once again.
What needs to happen in Syria to avoid a new escalation?
We need a political solution, not a military one. That means constitutional recognition of the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria. It means international recognition of the Kurdish-led structures — not just symbolic, but legal and institutional. Right now, the region is encircled. Turkey has closed its borders, the Syrian regime does not engage politically, and Iraq also maintains restrictions. It’s almost impossible to build a functioning economy under these conditions.
Ahmed al-Sharaa has said he needs five more years before elections or a new constitution, but that’s not acceptable. What he wants is five more years to consolidate power and remake Syria in his image. This would be a disaster — not only for Kurds, but for religious minorities, secular Arabs, and progressive forces in Syria.
We call on international powers to support a constitutional process now. Not in five years, not after the withdrawal of US troops, not after new waves of displacement — now. If the US and others want a stable Syria, they must push for a decentralized and inclusive system that guarantees Kurdish and minority rights.
How would you describe the current state of the peace process in Turkey?
There is no real process right now. After Mr. Öcalan’s declaration, the PKK decided to lay down arms, dissolve itself, and pursue a democratic solution. This was a historic decision, but Turkey has taken no steps to make it possible. Öcalan remains in complete isolation. He has no access to lawyers, journalists, family, or political interlocutors.
The Turkish state expects peace to be built without dialogue — but that’s not how peace works. The PKK clearly stated: we want to demobilize, but not surrender. We want to participate politically. But where is the legal framework? Will fighters be sent to prison? Will they be exiled? Who will receive the weapons? Where will they go?
The best chance for unity is peace. If Turkey and Syria move towards negotiated settlements, Kurds in all four parts of the region will be able to coordinate more freely.
Turkey refuses any third-party mediation. There is no monitoring mechanism, no amnesty, no roadmap. Meanwhile, thousands of members of HDP and its successor party, DEM, remain in prison. Our co-chairs, Selahattin Demirtaş and Figen Yüksekdağ, are still jailed. Ten of our elected mayors have been deposed and replaced by trustees. Ill political prisoners are being denied release.
These are not small technicalities — they are essential questions of legitimacy. Peace is not a word, it’s a process that requires trust, accountability, and infrastructure. We are willing, but the Turkish state is not moving.
Europe has long treated the Kurdish movement with suspicion or outright hostility, and considers the PKK to be a terrorist organization. How does this affect the dynamic of negotiations?
The PKK was labelled a terrorist organization by the EU and US in 2002. At that time, the PKK had already declared a ceasefire and withdrawn to Northern Iraq. We hoped that the Turkish government would use the opportunity to enter into negotiations. Instead, it used the terrorist classification as justification to abandon dialogue and criminalize all Kurdish demands.
Today, this designation makes democratic politics nearly impossible. The HDP and DEM are accused of maintaining links to the PKK simply because we represent Kurdish interests. Any call for autonomy or minority rights is portrayed as terrorism. If the EU and US really support peace, they should reconsider this listing — not as a favour, but as a recognition of political reality. The PKK is not fighting civilians, it seeks a political settlement. If international actors want to see the guns fall silent, they need to stop treating political actors like terrorists. This would also strengthen democratic actors like the HDP and civil society in Turkey.
How do you evaluate the current escalation between Israel and Iran, and what implications does it have for the Kurds?
We are against war on principle. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran are dangerous. They will not democratize the regime — on the contrary, they may strengthen it. We oppose the Iranian regime. We fight against its authoritarianism and its denial of rights to Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, Azeris, and women. Many of our friends have been executed for political reasons. Nevertheless, bombing will not bring change.
We support the protests that began after the murder of Mahsa Jîna Amini. This is how change will come — from below, through democratic resistance. International actors should support these movements, not escalate militarily.
Is Kurdish unity possible, given the differing alliances and power balances in each country?
It’s difficult, but not impossible. There have been positive developments. Mesut Barzani met with Mazlum Abdi from the Autonomous Administration in Rojava. The decision by the PKK to lay down arms was welcomed by actors in Iraq and Syria. A conference was held to build a common Kurdish position toward the Syrian regime.
These are important steps, but of course, there are challenges. The KRG has strong ties to Turkey, including economic dependencies, while the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) maintains close trade relations with Iran. These regional alliances complicate unity, but the shared goal — recognition and self-determination — remains.
Solidarity means taking sides — not in war, but in the struggle for dignity.
The best chance for unity is peace. If Turkey and Syria move towards negotiated settlements, Kurds in all four parts of the region will be able to coordinate more freely. The priority now is to secure legal status for Rojava and to ensure that Kurdish voices in Turkey can be heard without persecution.
How can progressive and socialist movements in Europe best support the Kurdish cause?
Governments act on interests, progressive forces act on values. That’s why we look to civil society, political movements, and organizations like the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. You are not neutral, you are guided by the principles of democracy, justice, and equality.
We ask for your support in four ways. First, support peacebuilding — through political pressure, projects, and solidarity. Second, support education and dialogue — help people in Europe understand the Kurdish question in its full complexity. Third, support local initiatives — municipalities, cooperatives, social and environmental projects. Fourth, help build pressure on your governments. Ask why they continue to arm Turkey or normalize Ahmed al-Sharaa without conditions.
Solidarity means taking sides — not in war, but in the struggle for dignity. We are not asking for charity — we are asking for alliances.