top of page

Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes

K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering politics.

Image Source: Rodi Said


PKK Announces Disbandment and Disarmament

On May 12, 2025, Abdullah Öcalan’s Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) declared its intention to dissolve the organization and hand over its weapons in a series of July 10–12 ceremonies in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq. The announcement followed Öcalan’s unprecedented video appeal from İmralı Prison, calling for a permanent ceasefire and an end to armed struggle. President Erdoğan hailed the move as a “critical threshold” toward a terror-free and united Türkiye, setting off cautious celebrations across Kurdish-majority regions and sparking hopes for deep political reforms.


I. Historical Roots of the Kurdish Question

A. Early Ottoman-Era Revolts (1914–1938)

Kurdish uprisings under the late Ottoman Empire began as tax and conscription protests, notably the Bitlis revolt in 1914 and the Barzan insurrection the same year. Following World War I, tribal rebellions in Koçgiri (1920) and the Sheikh Said Rebellion (1925) were brutally suppressed by Ankara’s forces, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and mass deportations. The Dersim massacre of 1937–38 eradicated Kurdish resistance in central Anatolia, leaving deep scars of violence and distrust.


B. Treaty of Lausanne (1923): Fragmentation of Kurdistan

The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne drew Türkiye’s modern borders without mention of Kurdish autonomy or statehood. It replaced the Treaty of Sèvres, which had contained provisions for Kurdish self-determination. By consigning Kurdish-majority lands entirely to Türkiye (and slicing the rest among Iraq, Syria, and Iran), Lausanne extinguished international support for Kurdish statehood and legitimized assimilation policies—laying the groundwork for nearly a century of Kurdish marginalization.


II. Kurds in the Turkish Republic: Denial and Discrimination

A. Cultural Suppression

In the early republic, Kemalist reforms outlawed public use of Kurdish language, dress, and toponyms, treating Kurds as “Mountain Turks.” Publishing or speaking Kurdish was banned until the 1990s; letters not used in Turkish (q, w, x) were forbidden. The state built boarding schools to isolate children from family and force Turkish language acquisition, a campaign later termed “linguicide” by scholars for its erasure of Kurdish identity.


B. Political Exclusion

Pro-Kurdish parties have been repeatedly banned—from HEP (1993) to DEHAP (2003) and BDP (2008)—and elected mayors and MPs removed under anti-terror laws. Kurdish activists, journalists, and academics have faced arrests and lengthy prison terms. Even constitutional reforms in the 2000s failed to guarantee genuine language rights or cultural recognition, reinforcing Kurdish perceptions of systemic injustice.


III. Rise of the PKK: Ideology, Insurgency, and Evolution

A. Founding and Early Ideology (1978–1984)

On November 27, 1978, Abdullah Öcalan and a cadre of Kurdish students established the PKK in Lice, Diyarbakır Province, fusing Marxism-Leninism with Kurdish nationalism. Their manifesto framed Kurdistan as a colonized entity and called for armed struggle against the Turkish state to secure independence and cultural rights.


B. Armed Campaign and State Response (1984–1999)

The PKK launched its insurgency on August 15, 1984, attacking military posts and symbols of Turkish authority in southeastern Anatolia. Ankara’s response involved large-scale military deployments, village evacuations, and airstrikes in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq’s safe havens. Between 1984 and Öcalan’s capture in 1999, more than 35,000 lives were lost, and an estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed, displacing over 3 million Kurds.


C. Ideological Shift: From Independence to Autonomy

After Öcalan’s trial and imprisonment in 1999, the PKK began moderating its demands. By the mid-1990s it formally abandoned calls for outright independence in favor of autonomy and cultural rights within Türkiye. Under Öcalan’s later “democratic confederalism” framework, the PKK advocated local self-administration and gender equality, emphasizing grassroots democracy over statehood.


IV. The 2025 Peace Process: Unprecedented Ceasefire and Disarmament

A. Öcalan’s Appeal from İmralı

In February 2025, Öcalan released a rare video message urging all armed groups to lay down weapons and dissolve their structures, citing new political openings under Erdoğan’s government. This marked the first recorded communication from him since 1999 and signaled a decisive break from decades of conflict.


B. Government Reaction and Negotiations

Turkish intelligence chief İbrahim Kalın led talks in Ankara and Baghdad, coordinating logistics for disarmament. President Erdoğan formed a special Parliamentary Peace Commission with pro-Kurdish DEM Party members to oversee the process. The government pledged to initiate constitutional reforms recognizing Kurdish language rights and local governance—a major concession that had eluded previous administrations.


V. Regional and International Dimensions

A. Stability in Iraq and Syria

The PKK’s bases in the Qandil Mountains of northern Iraq had fueled cross-border tensions. Disarmament in Sulaymaniyah is expected to improve security along the Türkiye–Iraq frontier and reduce clashes in Syria’s Kurdish regions, where PKK-linked groups had carved out autonomous zones during the civil war.


B. NATO and EU Reengagement

Western allies, long critical of Türkiye’s human-rights record, hailed the peace agreement as a positive step toward democratic consolidation. Brussels and Washington signaled readiness to resume stalled EU accession talks and deepen NATO cooperation, contingent on follow-through on minority-rights reforms.


VI. Comparative Perspectives on Ethnic Conflict Resolution

  • Northern Ireland (1998): The Good Friday Agreement ended decades of sectarian violence through devolved power-sharing and guaranteed minority cultural rights—parallels to Türkiye’s proposed autonomous councils.

  • Basque ETA (2011): Spain’s success hinged on EU mediation and Basque language recognition; however, ETA’s unilateral disarmament lacked the reciprocal constitutional reforms now on Türkiye’s table.

  • Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers (2009): A military defeat without political settlement left Tamil grievances unaddressed; contrastingly, Türkiye’s peace process seeks institutional change alongside disarmament.


VII. Timeline of Key Events

·      1923 – Treaty of Lausanne divides Kurdish lands, denies autonomy.

·      1925 – Sheikh Said Rebellion crushed; Kurdish identity banned.

·      1937–38 – Dersim massacre decimates Kurdish resistance.

·      1978 – PKK founded by Abdullah Öcalan in Lice.

·      1984 – PKK launches armed insurgency; martial law imposed.

·      1999 – Öcalan captured; PKK declares ceasefire and ideological shift.

·      2013–15 – Peace talks falter; violence resumes after 2015.

·      Feb 2025 – Öcalan calls for PKK dissolution from prison.

·      May 2025 – PKK announces disbandment and weapons handover.

·      July 10–12, 2025 – Disarmament ceremonies in Sulaymaniyah.


VIII. Conclusion: From Conflict to Coexistence

The Türkiye–PKK peace deal of 2025 offers a rare chance to end a conflict that has shaped Middle Eastern geopolitics for four decades. Disarmament is only the first step; true reconciliation demands constitutional recognition of Kurdish cultural and political rights, justice for past abuses, and sustained investment in economic development across former conflict zones. If Ankara honors its commitments and Kurdish leaders engage constructively in politics, Türkiye could emerge as a model for resolving protracted ethnic conflicts—a bridge between its diverse peoples rather than a battleground.


The journey from the Treaty of Lausanne’s denial of Kurdish statehood to a historic ceasefire in 2025 underscores the transformative power of dialogue, mutual concessions, and visionary leadership. Yet the path ahead remains challenging: fragmented factions, regional rivalries, and entrenched prejudices must give way to inclusive governance and shared prosperity. Only then can the century-old Kurdish question finally find its answer in peace.

Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes

K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering sport.


Image Source: Marco Bello


A Digital Surge in 2025

In early 2025, Formula One shattered its own engagement records as Gen Z overtook all other demographics to become the sport’s fastest-growing fan segment. Daily social-media interactions jumped by 85 percent, average race-week TikTok views exceeded 150 million, and the official F1 app saw 12 million new global downloads within six months. Sprint-race formats, immersive behind-the-scenes fashion drops, and sim-racing tie-ins have propelled F1 beyond the track—and straight into the heart of youth culture.


I. From Grand Prix to World Championship: Formula One’s Founding


The Early Grand Prix Era (1906–1939)

Motor racing’s roots trace to France in 1906, when the Automobile Club de France staged the inaugural Grand Prix at Le Mans. Over the next three decades, national events in Italy, Britain, and Germany codified basic rules on engine size and vehicle weight, but lacked a unified world series.


Post–World War II Rebirth (1946–1950)

After wartime hiatus, the FIA (then CSI) drafted the first “International Formula” in 1946, based on 4.5 L naturally aspirated or 1.5 L supercharged engines. The regulations took effect in 1947, leading to non-championship races across Europe. In 1950, the FIA inaugurated the World Drivers’ Championship. On May 13 at Silverstone, Giuseppe Farina won in an Alfa Romeo 158, etching the first line of F1’s modern history.


The Fangio and Ascari Golden Age

From 1951 to 1957, Juan Manuel Fangio seized five titles with Ferrari, Maserati, and Mercedes, showcasing driver virtuosity over mechanical variance. Alberto Ascari’s back-to-back crowns (1952–1953) underlined the ascendancy of Italian engineering and the sport’s growing spectator appeal.


II. Technical and Commercial Evolution


Ground-Effect and Turbocharged Power (1970s–1980s)

In 1978, Lotus’s 79 model introduced underbody venturi tunnels—ground-effect aerodynamics—which bolstered cornering grip without drag penalties. By the mid-1980s, Renault’s turbo engines eclipsed 1 000 hp in qualifying, prompting fuel-limit regulations and turbo boost controls to rein in costs and enhance reliability.


Safety Revolution and Global Expansion (1990s)

The deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger at Imola in 1994 spurred FIA mandates: the carbon-fibre survival cell, wheel tethers, and the HANS head-and-neck support. Concurrently, lucrative TV deals with ESPN in the U.S. and Sky Sports in the U.K. expanded F1’s footprint into North America and Asia, increasing race-day viewership from tens of millions to over 100 million per Grand Prix.


Hybrid Power Units & Sustainability Drive (2014–2025)

The 2014 switch to 1.6 L V6 turbo-hybrids marked a quantum leap in efficiency—cutting fuel use by 30 percent while retaining 900 hp outputs through energy-recovery systems. In 2025, sustained research into 100 percent sustainable drop-in fuels and next-gen battery tech aims to achieve zero-net energy balance by 2030, aligning the sport with Gen Z’s environmental ethos.


III. Formula One in 2025: The Gen Z Effect


A. Digital-First Fan Engagement

Gen Z craves short-form, authentic content. F1 answered with:

  • “GridStyle” live drops: five-minute paddock fashion reveals each race morning.

  • “PitChat” TikTok series: drivers answer fan-submitted questions in under 90 seconds.

  • In-app multi-angle streams and real-time polls, boosting average watch times by 40 percent.


B. Paddock as Runway

Drivers and team principals now feature in fashion editorials across Vogue and GQ. Highlights include:

  • Lewis Hamilton × Tommy Hilfiger capsule collections, selling out in under three minutes.

  • Ferrari’s “Rosso Street” line—co-designed with Milanese stylists—melding carbon-fiber aesthetics with eco-denim.

  • Custom sneaker collaborations between Red Bull Racing and global streetwear brands.


C. Sim Racing & Esports Pathways

The boundary between virtual and real racing continues to blur:

  • 14 million viewers tuned into the 2025 F1 Esports Pro Series finals, a 25 percent year-on-year increase.

  • Top sim talents like Jarno Opmeer and David Tonizza signed development deals with Alpine and Haas—mirroring rookie driver programs.

  • In-race telemetry and digital-twin technology synchronize real-world setups with sim rigs for authentic training.


D. Diversity, Inclusion & F1 Academy

Gen Z’s insistence on representation accelerated:

  • The F1 Academy, an all-female feeder series, loyalizes 42 percent of new female fans.

  • Sim-racing scholarships in India, Brazil, and Nigeria feed underrepresented communities into junior karting and virtual leagues.

  • Driver-led social campaigns on mental health, climate justice, and STEM education resonate with activist audiences.


E. Sustainability as Standard

Beyond hybrid engines, F1 is piloting:

  • 100 percent sustainable fuels tested in three Grand Prix this season.

  • Paddock operations powered by local renewable grids and zero-waste hospitality protocols.

  • Carbon-offset offsets integrated into fan travel packages, with traceable blockchain certification.


IV. F1 vs. Other Motorsports: A Competitive Landscape

MotoGP (Two-Wheeled Thrills)

Founded in 1949, MotoGP bikes breach 360 km/h but average race-day viewers hover around 4 million—versus F1’s 70 million per event. The split-second rider inputs and aerodynamic tunnels parallel F1 dynamics, yet MotoGP’s limited broadcast deals constrain its global reach.


IndyCar (Oval and Road Mix)

The IndyCar Series’ famed Indianapolis 500 draws 300 000 attendees and 5 million TV viewers in the U.S. Despite comparable top speeds on ovals, its single-supplier chassis and spec Dallara IR-18 model curtail technological diversity, unlike F1’s multi-constructor innovation.


NASCAR (Stock-Car Spectacle)

NASCAR superspeedway races captivate U.S. hearts with door-to-door drafting but rely on left-turn ovals that lack F1’s technical corner complexity. NASCAR’s domestic revenue outstrips F1’s U.S. earnings, yet its insular market limits international growth.


Formula E (Electric Street Racing)

Since 2014, Formula E has pioneered city-center circuits and battery-swap races. Top speeds of 220 km/h and spec Gen3 cars showcase EV tech, but the series trades pure performance for sustainability messaging, capping its appeal among speed-hungry fans.


V. The Business of F1: Revenue Engines


Media Rights & Digital Platforms

Liberty Media’s 2023 U.S. streaming deal with ESPN+—worth $250 million annually—reflected a 35 percent price climb. Global broadcast contracts now exceed $1.8 billion per season, fueled by pay-TV subscriptions and ad-supported streaming tiers.


Sponsorship & Hospitality

Corporate partnerships—from luxury goods to crypto exchanges—account for $600 million in title and secondary rights fees. Race-weekend hospitality and brand activations in paddock clubs contribute an additional $500 million annually, catering to high-net-worth and VIP audiences.


Merchandise & Licensing

F1-branded apparel, team jerseys, and limited-edition streetwear generated $1.8 billion in global retail sales in 2024—a 20 percent surge over traditional motorsport merch lines. Licensing deals now span gaming, collectibles, and lifestyle products.


Team Budgets & Cost Caps

Since the 2021 introduction of the $140 million cost cap, teams have reallocated resources toward aero development and driver academies. Despite restrictions, top squads still outspend rivals by up to 30 percent, underscoring performance stratification.


VI. Timeline: Milestones from 1906 to 2025

  • 1906: First “Grand Prix” race at Le Mans sparks organized motor racing.

  • 1946: FIA defines F1 regulations; post-war exhibition races commence.

  • 1950: Silverstone hosts inaugural World Championship Grand Prix; Farina wins.

  • 1962: Lotus 25 introduces monocoque chassis, revolutionizing safety and rigidity.

  • 1978: Ground-effect aerodynamics debut with Lotus 79.

  • 1981: First Concorde Agreement centralizes commercial rights.

  • 1994: Imola fatalities prompt sweeping safety reforms (Halo, crash barriers).

  • 2014: Hybrid V6 turbo power units debut, boosting efficiency.

  • 2023: Sprint-race format expands to 10 events; “We Race As One” social initiative.

  • 2025: Gen Z surpasses Millennials as F1’s leading fan base; sustainable fuels trial; “GridStyle” and “PitChat” digital series launch.


VII. Beyond the Checkered Flag: Emerging Frontiers

  • Augmented and Virtual Reality: Fan-immersive AR pit-lane tours and VR race simulations promise next-level engagement.

  • Hydrogen-Hybrid Concepts: Prototypes blending fuel-cell modules with electric drives aim for zero-emission demonstration in the late 2020 s.

  • Emerging Venue Expansion: Street circuits slated for Mumbai (2026) and Lagos (2027) will embed F1 in new economic hubs.

  • Fan-Driven Formats: Interactive sprint-race rules voted via the F1 app signal a shift toward participatory sports governance.

 

Formula One as a Cultural Phenomenon

Formula One’s Gen Z revolution transcends mere motorsport. It blends technological prowess, sartorial expression, and digital creativity into a unified cultural tapestry. As F1 accelerates toward sustainable power, AR innovation, and truly global fan inclusion, it cements its status not just as the pinnacle of racing, but as the ultimate lifestyle movement—where the thrill of speed meets the pulse of youth culture.

Hadisur Rahman, JadeTimes Staff

H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA

immigration
Imae Credit: Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

A federal judge has issued a sweeping temporary injunction against the Trump administration’s controversial immigration raids in Southern California, citing overwhelming evidence that federal agents have been targeting individuals based solely on race, accent, and occupation in violation of the U.S. Constitution.


The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, comes in response to a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Public Counsel, and other advocacy organizations. The plaintiffs allege that agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Border Patrol, and other federal agencies have been unlawfully detaining thousands of individuals including U.S. citizens without warrants or reasonable suspicion.


“This is an extraordinary victory,” said Mark Rosenbaum, a senior attorney at Public Counsel. “It is a complete repudiation of the racial profiling tactics and denial of due process rights that this administration has employed.”


Since early June, immigration agents have carried out aggressive operations in Latino-dominated neighborhoods across Los Angeles and six surrounding counties. Witnesses and plaintiffs describe federal officers in unmarked vehicles pulling people off sidewalks, from bus stops, and out of workplaces often without explanation or identification requests.


In one case, Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, a construction worker, said he and his co-workers were waiting at a bus stop when masked agents suddenly rushed toward them. “They handcuffed me before even asking for my ID,” he stated in a sworn declaration. Though later released, Vasquez Perdomo now faces deportation proceedings.


Judge Frimpong’s order, effective immediately, prohibits federal immigration officers from making arrests without reasonable suspicion and mandates that all detainees be given immediate access to legal counsel. While temporary, the ruling significantly limits the administration’s ability to carry out further raids as the case moves forward.


In court, ACLU attorney Mohammad Tajsar presented multiple videos and declarations showing ICE agents detaining individuals who “look Latino” without prior investigation. “They’re engaging in roving patrols where they stop people first and ask questions later,” said Tajsar. “Race is clearly a factor in these operations.”


The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), however, criticized the decision. Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin called it “an attempt by a single judge to undermine the will of the American people,” insisting that agents are removing dangerous criminals from communities. DHS also stated that agents are trained to evaluate the “totality of circumstances,” not just physical appearance.

But Judge Frimpong was unconvinced. “The government has not presented clear reasons for the arrests,” she said during Thursday’s hearing. “What they are considering must provide reasonable suspicion, and I’m not seeing that.”


Tensions escalated recently when Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) was removed by security after interrupting a DHS press conference, demanding accountability for the raids. Meanwhile, video footage of the arrests many posted on social media continues to fuel public outcry.


Legal experts say it remains unclear whether federal agents will alter their tactics following the court order. Civil rights attorneys have pledged to monitor compliance and hold the government accountable if violations persist.


As the legal battle unfolds, the case could set a significant precedent regarding immigration enforcement and constitutional protections in the United States particularly in racially diverse, immigrant-rich cities like Los Angeles.

bottom of page