On February 27, Abdullah Öcalan made a historic appeal titled 'Peace and a Democratic Society,' taking discussions abount a democratic solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey to a new level. With this declaration, he directly challenged the state’s long-standing claim that 'there is no Kurdish question, only a terrorism problem,' and clearly articulated the historical reality and legitimacy of the issue. The statement sparked significant reactions not only in Turkey and Kurdistan, but also internationally. In many responses, Öcalan’s call was welcomed, and the Turkish state was urged to take concrete steps to ensure the success of the process.

ANF spoke with Nicolas Walder, Deputy Co-Chair of the Swiss Green Party, Member of the Federal Parliament, and Member of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, about Abdullah Öcalan’s historic appeal and recent developments.

Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan, who has been held in Imralı Island Prison for 26 years, made a historic call on February 27 for a democratic solution to the Kurdish question. As a politician closely following the Kurdish issue, how do you view this appeal?

I believe Mr. Öcalan’s call is truly important. It is a call that signals the time has come to come together. It is time for the Turkish state to take concrete steps if it wants to live together with the Kurds or work in cooperation with them. This call expresses the need for the fundamental demands and issues of the Kurdish people to be addressed through political and diplomatic means, and that the time for weapons has passed. I also see it as a message to President Erdoğan, urging him to consider alternative paths forward with the Kurdish people.

Furthermore, I believe this call is also a way to protect the Kurdish people in northern Syria. The presence of a new and fragile government in that region gave the Turkish government the opportunity to conduct operations there. That is why I consider this a wise call, and I hope it will be taken seriously.

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) responded to this call by stating that if appropriate conditions are met, the question of disarmament could be discussed. However, while the Turkish state continues to demand that the PKK lay down its arms, it has not taken any concrete steps to ensure or guarantee the process so far. Considering global examples, what steps should the Turkish state take for this process to succeed?

I believe the essential condition here is what concrete steps the Turkish government will take in response to disarmament. The Turkish state must end its war and repression against the Kurdish people. As an initial step, it should release either all or some Kurdish political prisoners. It must put an end to arbitrary arrests and harassment and make a constitutional commitment to allow the Kurdish people to be officially represented politically.

This is a strong message issued by Mr. Öcalan. The statement that the Kurdish side is ready to abandon armed struggle has been made. Now it is time for the other side to act—to offer the Kurdish people an alternative way to express themselves, other than through weapons. This alternative must be the path of politics and diplomacy. The Kurdish people and those who disarm must be granted political space and treated with respect. In response to this call, President Erdoğan should immediately take action and declare his openness to negotiations.

A dialogue must begin with representatives of the PKK in order to find concrete solutions. During this process, all parties should commit to nonviolence. Such an approach would be a fitting response to this call. That is what truly matters. One side has declared its readiness to lay down arms, and that is a powerful message. I hope it will be taken seriously by the Turkish state.

Another crucial point is the release of Mr. Abdullah Öcalan. As the person who made such a call and clearly positioned himself in favor of peace, Abdullah Öcalan must be free in order for the process to succeed. His release would be a sign of goodwill from the Turkish government toward the peace process.

I believe that releasing Mr. Öcalan and inviting him to engage in genuine dialogue that could pave the way for peace would be a clear indication that the government is ready to open a new chapter. Because silencing the weapons alone is not enough; it is also necessary to build a lasting peace. Trust must be rebuilt, and this can only be achieved through concrete steps. In my view, the first of these steps should be the release of Mr. Öcalan.

Switzerland is known for its role as a mediator or provider of ‘good offices’ (French: bons offices) in post-conflict negotiations, and it has significant experience in this field. Could Switzerland play a role in this process as well? Has there been any request made to Switzerland in this regard?

Switzerland could play such a role if both sides were to request it. Switzerland does not impose itself as a mediator, nor does it have the legitimacy to intervene in a conflict that is not recognized as an international one. However, Switzerland is ready, and I believe we have built a strong enough foundation of trust with both the Turkish state and the Kurdish people. That is why we could play a role.

What matters here is that our government should communicate to both the Turkish government and Kurdish representatives to make clear that it is ready to contribute. In the coming days, we will hold a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and this topic will also be on the agenda. We will examine the current perspectives and evaluate how Switzerland might be able to play a role.

Europe has long kept the PKK on its list of terrorist organizations. Many experts point out that this stance has become a major obstacle to peace. With the recent call from the Kurdish People’s Leader, Abdullah Öcalan, this issue has become more widely debated in Europe. Considering the current position of the PKK and developments in the region, should Europe not reevaluate its policy? And what steps should it take to play a more active role in this process?

I hope Europe will become involved in this process and remove the PKK from its terrorist list. Europe’s decision to classify the PKK as a terrorist organization was purely political. It is not just a matter for Europe—many of Turkey’s other allies also designated the PKK as a terrorist group. These decisions were made to satisfy the Turkish government, not based on facts. Yes, there have been acts of violence, but what we are seeing here is not terrorism—it is a resistance, an uprising. That is why I believe labeling the PKK and its actions as 'terrorist' is not appropriate. It is a political label, and as we move toward peace and reconciliation, such labels will lose their meaning. I believe both sides need to take symbolic steps. Europe should also play a significant role in this process by encouraging both parties to move toward peace. And at some point, this will require stopping the practice of labeling one side or the other as 'terrorist.'

We have seen a similar dynamic in other conflicts, such as the Israel-Palestine issue. The increasing delegitimization of the Palestinian side has made the conflict so imbalanced that it is now nearly impossible to move toward peace. When one side sees itself as superior, it no longer feels the need to compromise. If we truly want to reach peace, both parties must have something to gain from it. It is essential to prevent one side from becoming overwhelmingly dominant. Likewise, classifying the PKK as a terrorist organization and delegitimizing this resistance has not been a helpful step toward peace—yet this is the current reality. I believe the countries that have labeled the PKK as terrorists should now seriously consider Mr. Öcalan’s call and acknowledge that PKK leaders may be ready to abandon armed struggle if the right conditions are met.

Turkey presents an image internationally of seeking a democratic solution to the Kurdish question yet continues its internal repression. Recently, the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), has been targeted, and Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu has been arrested. What is your view on the Erdoğan government’s stance during a time when peace is being discussed?

It is very difficult to interpret Erdoğan’s contradictory signals. Just when one begins to think that things are moving in a better direction, certain decisions are made that suddenly suggest the return of the Erdoğan government’s authoritarian reflexes. And today, there does not seem to be any concrete situation that would justify such a tendency.

I believe these signals also reveal the fragility of the government. The economic situation in Turkey is far from satisfying for the majority of people, and this weakens the government. We know that when governments are weakened for economic or socio-economic reasons—as we have seen in Russia—they tend to become more authoritarian and resort to force. Perhaps a gesture of friendship from Europe could bring some stability to Turkey and, why not, even encourage a return to a more democratic structure.

The attacks on the CHP primarily show how deeply fragile the government is right now. It seems likely that even Erdoğan himself is uncertain about which path to take. There are multiple ongoing conflicts in the region, the economy is in bad shape, and global geopolitical shifts are forcing Turkey to redefine its position. This uncertainty is also reflected in the government’s reactions to the opposition and to the Kurdish issue.

In my view, the Turkish government’s response to Öcalan’s call so far is entirely inadequate given the significance of the moment. The government should have immediately adopted a conciliatory stance and used this as an opportunity to present itself to its own people as a leader in favor of peace. Instead, we are seeing the opposite approach, and I find this response very unclear. I believe there is also significant internal conflict within the government itself.

Another key issue in the region is the situation in Syria. At a time when the future of the new Syria is being debated in the context of the jihadist organization Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the international community was shaken by the massacres of Alawites in the country’s coastal cities. How do you assess these developments and the international community’s response to HTS?

I was surprised to see the new government take control so quickly, to witness the initial calm during the first few weeks, and to hear such moderate messages at the beginning. However, with the recent massacres, we have also seen that the violence that has plagued Syria for years has not entirely disappeared. Of course, we still need to learn all the causes and details. But the fact that such massacres can still happen is not a promising sign for the future.

What has happened in Syria has alarmed all of us and has also been discussed in Parliament. We were particularly concerned about the situation of the Kurdish people, because they fought against the Bashar al-Assad regime for years and now face the risk of being trapped between two sides. On one hand, there are the commitments of the United States, and on the other, the withdrawal of Russia. In addition, the possibility that Turkey could use this situation to expand its control in the region has raised serious concerns—and continues to do so.

That is why I personally welcomed Öcalan’s recent statements and the potential for an agreement that could at least help reduce the violence. I believe the situation in Syria remains extremely fragile. I don’t know if we can trust the new government. Yes, they are in power today, and although they are sending out calming messages, there is still ongoing violence—which could easily spiral out of control again. That is why extreme caution is necessary.

After the fall of the Assad regime, the international community began discussing the future of Syria by engaging with jihadist leader Ahmed Al-Sharaa, also known as Al-Jolani, who seized power. However, there has been no meaningful change in the structure of the Syrian state. Meanwhile, a democratic model has been built in Rojava. Considering Syria’s sociological makeup, could this model not serve as an example for the country as a whole?

I hope that the future Syrian government will be pluralistic and that it will take inspiration—especially from the democratic model built in Rojava, which is representative and deeply inspiring. Of course, imposing a model of governance on a country is extremely difficult. In fact, we are witnessing this in several countries: when I look at Russia, China, and now even the United States, we see that democratic models are in decline. In China, they have already disappeared. Russia is the same, and autocracy is on the rise in the United States as well.

That is why proposing or imposing a model is a complicated matter. Nevertheless, in all areas—especially in the emerging field of economic cooperation—there must be a demand from the international community for the Syrian government to respect minorities, to form a representative government, and ideally to establish a broad and inclusive democratic system. What form should this government take? A presidential democracy? A purely parliamentary system? A monarchy or a constitutional monarchy? At present, there is a functioning system on the ground. The example of Rojava is truly inspiring, and I believe it would be very beneficial for Syria’s future government to draw from it.

We are currently in a phase of observation. However, it is absolutely crucial for political leaders in other countries to respond immediately and decisively to violations of international law or human rights. These kinds of violations must be condemned without delay—otherwise, they risk becoming normalized. In such fragile times, if action is not taken promptly, the daily life of the Syrian people could once again be shaped by violence, fear, and constant massacres. We must never return to such a period. For that reason, the international community must act without hesitation when serious human rights violations occur.