In the second part of this interview with ANF, Swiss-French theorist, editor, and writer Nils Andersson, said that "beyond Öcalan’s fundamental right to freedom, he must be included in the negotiation process under free conditions."

The first part of this interview can be read here.

Mr. Öcalan’s call for the PKK to lay down arms was directed specifically at Turkey. He did not extend such a call to forces engaged in struggles in other countries. In response, the PKK announced a ceasefire, stating that they would comply with Öcalan’s call. At the same time, the PKK also emphasized that disarmament could be discussed if certain conditions were met. What conditions must be fulfilled for this process to succeed?

This issue is indeed an additional note in Öcalan’s message, but it is of critical importance. The first and most crucial step is that Turkey must put an end to military violence and political repression. If Erdoğan and Turkey do not take any steps in this regard, it will render the democratic path that Öcalan advocates impossible. This is an absolute prerequisite. The key point here is not just about rhetoric but about how concrete action will be taken in practice.

We have seen a similar process before—in 2013, there was a ceasefire and a political process. However, it was violated by Erdoğan and the Turkish state. Therefore, what Öcalan states in his additional note is a fundamental precondition for the success of this process. And even today, I believe there are still many uncertainties surrounding this condition. We do not know whether Erdoğan will respond with a different political approach toward the Kurds in Turkey, whether he will acknowledge the call, or whether he will end the war, the repression, the imprisonments, and the sentencing of Kurdish people. I do not have an answer to these questions.

For the process to succeed, the state must take concrete steps. Otherwise, if political recognition and a legal framework are not established, which is precisely what the additional note demands the path to the democracy envisioned and advocated by Öcalan will not be possible."

There have been discussions suggesting that  Öcalan’s call signifies the end of the PKK. How do you evaluate such claims?

No, absolutely not. The political struggle continues. The Kurdish identity and the PKK remain ideological and political matters that cannot simply disappear. Of course, the Kurds have democratic, political, and cultural rights, and these must be respected. Without recognizing these rights, democracy cannot exist. Democracy also means legally acknowledging and securing all these rights for the Kurdish people. This is a negotiation process, but if this call is not met with recognized, accepted, and implemented rights, it will lead to yet another deadlock, a democratic impasse.

Even though the disarmament of the PKK is being discussed today, the PKK and its leadership hold a broader vision for the world. Öcalan’s works, his ideas on coexistence among peoples, and his vision of unity between different cultures and languages can only materialize within a truly democratic system, one where the people have a greater say and where democratic principles are genuinely upheld.

If the state does not fulfill these conditions and this is precisely the uncertainty created by the call then the feasibility and concreteness of these conditions must be questioned. I do not wish to call this a gamble because the future of peoples is not a matter of speculation. However, this is a commitment a vision that must be verified and translated into concrete reality.That being said, the PKK is not merely an armed organization; it is also a movement that represents the Kurdish cause in political, diplomatic, and cultural spheres.

Therefore, the issue is not just about laying down arms. The struggle must now continue in political and diplomatic arenas because we are talking about negotiation diplomacy. This is about creating avenues for democracy to flourish within Kurdish society. However, for these avenues to be meaningful, concrete steps must first be taken toward the Turkish state, which still maintains a dictatorship over the Kurdish people. Öcalan’s aim is not only to transform the PKK but also to change and reshape the power that stands against it.

Are you suggesting that Mr. Öcalan also aims to change and transform the Turkish regime?

Yes. The war against the Kurds must end, the bombings must stop, and the arrests and imprisonments must come to an end. If these do not cease, if the regime does not undergo change, then democracy cannot emerge. Once again, I must emphasize that Öcalan’s additional note holds immense significance in this process. His call is a bold step, made in alignment with the realities of the present moment. We are living in an era of extreme instability, not only in the region but across the world. Moreover, this is not just a regional issue; we are in a global crisis period where the risk of real conflict among imperialist powers is very high.

For this reason, defending democracy and the rights of the people is of vital importance, and this is precisely the essence of Öcalan’s call. However, adhering only to principles and objectives is not enough; concrete responses must be given through real actions and decisions on the ground. The implementation of this call depends on tangible steps taken in the relationships between the parties involved. Once again, I want to stress that, for me, the significance and future of Öcalan’s call lie exactly here. This is a monumental development. And I must reiterate writing history is not enough; as we write history, we must also turn this project into a concrete reality.

Mr. Öcalan’s call has resonated strongly on an international level, with various statements of support being made. Until now, Europe and the United States have kept the PKK on their 'terrorist organizations' list, using this classification to criminalize the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom. In your opinion, how will Öcalan’s call impact this international stance? Is it not time for the PKK to be removed from this list?

The inclusion of the PKK on this list is an unfounded accusation against the Kurdish movement. In reality, it is Turkey that should be labeled as the terrorist state. It is the Turkish state itself that commits acts of terror against the Kurdish people. ‘Terrorism’ is a label arbitrarily applied to movements and organizations that fight and resist with the means available to them.

On this topic, there is a well-known statement from Larbi Ben M’hidi, one of the leading commanders of the Algerian War. The French accused him of organizing bomb attacks and, after capturing him, mockingly asked, ‘Do you not feel ashamed to use baskets to carry out attacks?’ His response was clear: ‘Give me your planes, and I will give you the baskets.’ This perfectly illustrates the power imbalance faced by all peoples engaged in armed struggle.

The 'terrorist' label attached to the PKK and many other movements is merely a tool used to delegitimize them in the eyes of the public and to deny their legitimate rights including armed resistance. This classification is a political instrument, primarily used by Western governments rather than by their people. If this label were removed, Western countries would have to acknowledge that all peoples have the legitimate right to resist in various ways. Now, following the PKK’s decision, how will the West respond? Logically, the 'terrorist organization' designation should no longer be used. After all, this label has always been a political and propaganda tool, and at this point, it has lost all justification.

I do not know exactly how the West will react in the future, but it is clear that Western governments are currently preoccupied with the Ukraine issue. This crisis has drawn their full attention. However, sooner or later, they will be forced to take a stance on this matter. If the path to democracy is truly to be pursued, then the 'terrorist' label must be removed immediately. Once again, Öcalan has laid out a clear democratic resolution. If Western governments are sincere in their stance on Kurdish rights, they must act accordingly and remove this designation. Because, as I must emphasize once more, this term is nothing more than a tool of propaganda and political manipulation, used to discredit the Kurdish cause.

Although negotiations are taking place, Mr. Öcalan continues to lead this process under severe prison conditions. How crucial is his freedom for the success of this process?

If there is genuine honesty and sincerity, you cannot negotiate with someone who is imprisoned. This is blatantly obvious. Beyond Öcalan’s fundamental right to freedom, he must be included in the negotiation process under free conditions this is an absolute necessity. There is no other way for this process to succeed. Negotiations are essential to establish a clear legal framework and achieve concrete results. You cannot conduct meaningful negotiations with someone in prison. Öcalan must be released. If a truly sincere process is being pursued, then this is not just a demand, it is a democratic necessity.