In the second part of this interview with ANF, journalist Gabrielle Lefevre said that progressive people in Belgium have always stood in solidarity with the Kurdish people's struggle.

The first part of this interview can be read here.

Although there is constant discourse on the need to uphold international law and treaties in wars (and we have the same situation in Ukraine and Gaza),  they are not being followed. We discuss and debate war crimes and crimes against humanity, yet nothing changes. States continue to invade other nations’ territories and massacre civilians. Considering all this, do you think some international treaties are insufficient or need to be renewed?

It is truly a complex situation. I do not know, perhaps the problem is not that these treaties need to be modernized, but simply that they must be enforced. That is where the real issue lies. The world’s major powers have no desire to implement these treaties. Unfortunately, this makes sense because these very powers do not want them to be enforced. For example, the United States does not respect any treaties. It ignores international law and believes such agreements do not apply to it.

This is truly a matter of power balance. As citizens, we must pressure our governments to take action. But even small countries can intervene and make their voices heard regarding the situation in Rojava. This applies to Belgium, for example, a small country with diplomatic influence. If several small or medium-sized nations unite, we can change the international landscape. That is why I believe we must not lose hope.

I think that while we continue resistance and urgent protest efforts, we should also consider the need to review certain treaties. However, as you well know, revising legislation and international agreements takes decades.

But right now, without waiting, we must take action to prevent death and massacres in Rojava. We must stop not only the destruction of an existing people but also the eradication of their culture, their memory, and the example they could set for the rest of the world.

The Assad regime has fallen, and now the future of Syria is being debated. Meanwhile, it is well known that the ruling structure is a jihadist organization. We are also witnessing international powers engaging in discussions with this transitional government, despite its jihadist nature. Do you think it is right to discuss Syria’s future with such a group, or could the Rojava model serve as an example for Syria’s future?

The Syrian people will need to want this themselves. For now, they do not have the power to do so. As you mentioned, they are under a transitional regime where a jihadist group is in power.

At the same time, this group claims it is willing to change its approach to governance. They say they will not do what the Islamic State did. We are waiting to see. It seems they are also supported by the United States at least, that is how it appears. This is not a promise of democracy, but it might be a promise of a slightly more controlled rule.

As I said, it is not exactly democracy, but it also no longer seems to be a scenario of a bloodthirsty, fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship. The question is whether they will be able to bring together the different components of Syrian society. Syria is highly diverse, with various peoples living together, some voluntarily, others forced into coexistence due to colonialism. Syria is an artificial construct. Can Syria become a sovereign country despite its diverse components? This is a huge gamble an enormous one.

But it is not a gamble that has been lost yet. I believe we are in a real transitional phase, and I am not an expert enough to fully decipher what is happening there.

If accepted by officials, we hope that the model in Rojava can serve as an example for other segments of Syria’s population. This model is an exceptionally advanced and remarkable example of democracy one that could serve as a reference even for countries that consider themselves democratic, including our own.

We live in a democracy that is increasingly restricted by the rise of the far right. In other words, we are not a model. The Rojava model is something we should advocate for as a model we ourselves should aspire to reach. That is why I believe in supporting it as much as possible because the future lies within this model.

If we want a democratic future, Rojava represents that future. It not only addresses disparities between the rich and the poor or entrepreneurs and non-entrepreneurs, but also resolves tensions, conflicts, and inequalities between men and women. It is a highly modern model that aligns with the technological, philosophical, and cultural evolution of our societies.

 Whether it can be implemented in Syria depends on whether officials recognize forms of autonomy. If they do, it would be a significant step forward. However, what we call autonomy, those in power often frame as sovereignty, opposing other forms of governance with their own rigid understanding of control.

To me, these are not the same things. But this is a debate in political philosophy that should be further explored by those more specialized than myself. What I can say with certainty is that Rojava is an incredibly powerful example, one that provides immense hope and perspective not just for the region but for the entire world, including our so-called democratic and so-called developed countries.

You have emphasized the significance of the Rojava model for a democratic future. At the same time, we know that this model is inspired by Öcalan’s paradigm. Öcalan has been held in harsh conditions as a prisoner in Turkey for 27 years. On one hand, he is a leader known for shaping a paradigm for the future of democracy; on the other, he remains in isolation, imprisoned under severe conditions. What would you like to say about this situation?

If I am not mistaken, negotiations between Turkey and Öcalan have just resumed. Therefore, I cannot say much more on the matter. What I can say is that I have always supported the struggle of the PKK and Öcalan, and many others have as well. Progressive people in Belgium have always stood in solidarity with this struggle. So, I cannot comment further on the current political dynamics between Turkey and the PKK, as I do not have specific information on the subject.

What I do know is that the President of Turkey does not want the Rojava model within Turkish borders. His latest statements also indicate that he does not accept such a model. This is why he seeks to destroy this model in Syria.

For Erdoğan, the success of such a model, not only within Turkey’s borders but also just beyond them in Syria, is seen as a significant threat.
 That is why he wants to destroy it. Of course, I am saying all this based on the information I have, as Erdoğan is unpredictable. His communication is often ambiguous and convoluted.

This is a complex situation, and I do not have the tools to analyze it in depth. What I can say is that there are still many progressives in our countries who have long supported the Kurds, people who have been oppressed for years and who have fought to defend their communities.

I simply believe that we must not lose hope and that it is essential to continue promoting the Rojava model. I firmly believe this model should inspire everyone who seeks more democracy and societal transformation. It represents an evolution that transcends traditional divisions between rich and poor, men and women. It guarantees everyone the right to find their place in society, to participate in and enrich their communities in their own way, within a framework of tolerance and respect for diversity.