• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
Democracy
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Sinan Ülgen"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Turkey’s Transformation"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Europe",
    "Türkiye"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform"
  ]
}
In The Media
Carnegie Europe

Erdogan’s Kurdish Gambit

Prime Minister Erdogan has conceived of an audacious plan based on a realignment between Turks and Kurds to enhance Ankara’s regional standing and extend his political dominance at home.

Link Copied
By Sinan Ülgen
Published on Apr 11, 2013

Source: Project Syndicate

Conflict in the Middle East threatens not only the security of many of its states, but also their continued existence. Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and others, now gripped by sectarian fighting, risk fragmenting into ethnic sub-states, transforming a region whose political geography was drawn nearly a century ago.

Surveying the regional scene, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has conceived of an audacious plan to enhance Turkey’s regional standing and extend his own political dominance at home. Facing the end of a self-imposed three-term limit as prime minister, he is intent on changing the Turkish constitution to introduce a presidential system – with himself on top as the first incumbent to wield much-enlarged power.

Erdoğan’s plan, however, depends on ending Turkey’s 30-year conflict with its own Kurdish population. As a result, the Erdoğan government has decided on negotiations with Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), the armed Kurdish resistance movement.

The hope is to agree on a new, more liberal constitution that will strengthen the rights of Turkey’s largest ethnic minority and include substantial devolution of power to regional governments. In return, the PKK is expected to end its three-decade-long fight against the Turkish state. On March 21, at a mass rally attended by almost one million people in the southeastern Turkish city of Diyarbakir, Ocalan delivered a message of peace from his prison cell. He called for the end to armed struggle, and invited the PKK’s fighters to leave the country.

For Erdoğan, the stakes could not be higher. Erdoğan envisions putting the constitutional changes and the terms of peace to a national referendum, a linkage that would transform Turkish politics. If the negotiations succeed, he will be remembered for his historic role in bringing peace, and will likely stand a better chance of realizing his presidential ambition, having gained parliamentary support for revising the constitution from the Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party.

If negotiations fail, however, Erdoğan will be held responsible for any deterioration in the security environment that results. A recently leaked account of Ocalan’s strategy highlights the risk, for it cites the PKK leader as threatening the government with full-scale war.

At the same time, the Turkish government is pursuing a separate path of negotiations, through a rapprochement with another Kurdish authority – the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq. The grand vision is to integrate Iraqi Kurdistan into the Turkish economy.

Turkey already supplies most of the KRG economy’s imports, which accounted for 70% of Turkey’s almost $11 billion in exports to Iraq last year. But it is the incipient energy deal between Turkey and the KRG that is set to build the foundation for a real strategic alliance.

The undisclosed deal is believed to grant Turkey substantial concessions to explore new oil and gas fields in northern Iraq, as well as preferential rates for energy exports to Turkey. In return, Turkey is to help the KRG build pipeline infrastructure that will allow oil and gas to be exported to Turkey without relying on Iraq’s national pipeline, which is controlled by the central government in Baghdad.

Within the Turkish government, this opening is viewed as an immense opportunity to reduce Turkey’s heavy dependence on energy imports. In addition to securing energy supplies, the deal would help Turkey to overcome its chronic current-account deficit: roughly 70% of the country’s $84 billion trade deficit is due to the import bill for energy supplies.

For the KRG, the deal would secure the region’s future economic wealth without holding it hostage to an increasingly unsympathetic Iraqi government. Under Iraq’s constitution, the Kurdish region is entitled to 17% of the country’s oil and gas revenues. But the distribution of proceeds from hydrocarbons is irregular, and the central government has accumulated significant arrears. The KRG hopes that a deal with Turkey would allow it to obtain more regular and predictable hydrocarbon revenues.

But the United States remains adamantly opposed to such a deal between Turkey and the KRG, claiming that it would undermine Iraq’s stability and fuel secessionist tendencies in the north. In late February, during his overseas trip, which included a stop in Ankara, US Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated these concerns in his talks with his Turkish counterparts.

America’s fears are not shared in Turkish government circles, where the deals between the US oil giants Exxon and Chevron and the KRG are seen as proof that America is more concerned about its share of the pie in northern Iraq than it is about alleged threats to that country’s stability. Not surprisingly, Erdoğan’s government has decided to pay little heed to US government concerns.

The sectarian strains that are now rending societies across the Middle East are likely to change the regional map. Erdoğan has now developed a plan that would take advantage of this development, ensure his political control, and lock in energy security for his country. He envisions a new regional order under Turkish leadership, based on a realignment between Turks and Kurds that underpins a strategic partnership for exploiting the region’s last untapped energy resources.

This article was originally published in Project Syndicate.

Sinan Ülgen
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Sinan Ülgen
Political ReformMiddle EastEuropeTürkiye

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Sada
    Sub-Saharan African Migrants in Morocco: Security Concerns and the Test of Human Rights

    Is Morocco’s migration policy protecting Sub-Saharan African migrants or managing them for political and security ends? This article unpacks the gaps, the risks, and the paths toward real rights-based integration.

      Soufiane Elgoumri

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?

    In return for a trade deal and the release of political prisoners, the United States has lifted sanctions on Belarus, breaking the previous Western policy consensus. Should Europeans follow suit, using their leverage to extract concessions from Lukashenko, or continue to isolate a key Kremlin ally?

      Thomas de Waal, ed.

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lithuania’s Potash Dilemma Raises Questions About Sanctions’ Effectiveness

    What should happen when sanctions designed to weaken the Belarusian regime end up enriching and strengthening the Kremlin?  

      Denis Kishinevsky

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    New Tricks and AI Tools in Hungary’s High-Stakes Election

    Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán faces his most serious challenge yet in the April 2026 parliamentary elections. All of Europe should monitor the Fidesz campaign: It will use unprecedented methods of electoral manipulation to secure victory and maintain power.

      Zsuzsanna Szelényi

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Is There Really a Threat From China and Russia in Greenland?

    The supposed threats from China and Russia pose far less of a danger to both Greenland and the Arctic than the prospect of an unscrupulous takeover of the island.

      Andrei Dagaev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.