According to KurdPress, one hundred and three years have passed since the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923. In the official narrative of Turkish history, this treaty is known as the international document establishing the republic. However, for the Kurdish movement in this country, Lausanne has a different historical meaning. From the perspective of this movement, Lausanne is the beginning of the Kurds' landlessness and political statuslessness and one of the most important historical turning points that marked the beginning of a period full of conflict that has lasted for more than a century.

Abdullah Öcalan's recent statements, as well as the decision of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)K) has once again drawn attention to references to the Treaty of Lausanne in order to end the armed struggle and dissolve its organizational structure. However, this time the discussion is less focused on the historical nature of the treaty and more on how it should be interpreted in the context of a new political era.

The Treaty of Lausanne is one of the fundamental documents that gave the Republic of Turkey legitimacy and international recognition and defined the borders of the new state. At the same time, it was a historical moment when a new nation-state order was formed in the region and the Kurdish demands for political status did not receive a response in the international arena. From the perspective of the Kurds and the Turks, the Treaty of Lausanne is often evaluated alongside the Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920.The Treaty of Sûre included provisions on the formation of a Kurdish state and the guarantee of political and legal rights for the Kurds, but it was never implemented and with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, this issue was removed from the agenda of the international community. One of the most important criticisms of the Treaty of Lausanne is that no independent Kurdish delegation was present in its negotiations and that minority rights were defined solely on the basis of non-Muslim communities. These criticisms are not limited to the negotiation process or the issue of representation. The centralized nation-state policies implemented since the establishment of the Republic of Turkey, the suppression of uprisings, the policies of forced migration, the ban on the Kurdish language and the policies of denial of identity are also seen by critics as a continuation of the same political order that was formed after Lausanne.

A fixed interpretation, a different way of fighting

The PKK’s decision to dissolve the organization, as well as Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,” marked the beginning of a new era after more than half a century of armed struggle over the Kurdish issue. However, the movement’s recent positions show that its historical understanding of the Treaty of Lausanne has not fundamentally changed. What has changed is the way in which this historical critique is positioned within the framework of the political struggle and the new regional conditions. The balance of political power in West Asia, as well as the position of the Kurdish people in the region, has undergone significant changes since 1923. The experience in the Kurdish areas of Syria, as well as the common reactions of the Kurds to regional attacks in recent years, are among the clearest examples of this development, which has strengthened the sense of unity and common identity among the Kurds.Discussions within the movement also emphasize changing regional conditions. Duran Kalkan, a founding member and senior commander of the PKK, told the Euphrates News Agency that the Treaty of Lausanne was the foundation of the political order that governed the Middle East. He argued that the issue today is no longer Lausanne itself, but how the order that Lausanne created will change in its second century.

The Search for a Political Solution

One of the main themes of the current discourse of the Kurdish freedom movement is the transfer of the process of resolving the issue from the field of armed struggle to the legal and political arena. The movement does not see this shift as a retreat from its historical understanding of the Treaty of Lausanne, but rather describes it as a strategic change in the method of struggle. Zubair Aydar emphasized that the dissolution of the PKK does not mean the end of the political demands of the Kurdish people. He said: “The PKK has dissolved itself and the armed struggle has ended, but the Kurdish people will not remain disorganized. The method of struggle may change, but the struggle for rights through democratic activities, political participation and diplomatic efforts will continue.” This approach is also in line with the movement’s recent emphasis on the concept of “peace and a democratic society.”With the end of the armed struggle, attention has increasingly turned to legal reforms, political reforms, and discussions on a new constitution.