Abdullah Öcalan’s historic “Peace and Democratic Society” declaration on 27 February marked a new phase in the debate over a democratic solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey. Through this powerful call, Mr. Öcalan fundamentally challenged the Turkish state’s long-standing claim that “there is no Kurdish question, only a terrorism problem,” and clearly outlined the historical truth and legitimacy of the issue. His declaration received wide attention not only in Turkey and across Kurdistan, but also on the international stage. In statements released across various platforms, Mr. Öcalan’s manifesto was welcomed, and it was emphasized that the Turkish state must take concrete and democratic steps to ensure the call is met with real engagement.

Senator Carlo Sommaruga, a member of the Swiss Council of States who closely follows developments in Turkey and the Middle East, spoke to ANF about Mr. Öcalan’s declaration, the current political atmosphere in Turkey, and the international community’s responsibility in supporting a democratic resolution to the Kurdish question.

An important call

As a politician who closely follows developments in the Middle East, how do you evaluate the “Peace and Democratic Society” call made by Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan?

To be honest, I must admit I was surprised by Mr. Öcalan’s call, but I believe what he has done today is the right thing. I see this call as vital for finally resolving the institutional crisis and for reducing, or even completely ending, the violence faced by the Kurdish people in Turkey. For this reason, I consider it to be an extremely important call, one that, under normal conditions, could trigger a peace process, social integration, and a healthier functioning of democratic institutions. At this point, I am saddened that President Erdoğan and his government have still not seized this opportunity to launch a process not only with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) but also with broader social forces, in order to bring lasting peace to Turkey.

The biggest problem in Turkey is Erdoğan’s desire to remain in power

As you mentioned, despite the time that has passed since the historic call, the Turkish state has yet to take any concrete steps. Do you believe the state is genuinely ready for a lasting peace process with the Kurds? What are your thoughts?

In my opinion, the biggest problem in Turkey right now is President Erdoğan’s absolute desire to remain in power. If the peace process and social stability contribute to strengthening his position, he will support it. But if such a process leads to the emergence of other political forces or new public figures, then he will oppose it by any means necessary, whether through political or even unlawful methods. This could take the form of renewed military offensives against Syria, for example. In short, there are no guarantees. At this point, I believe that only through the mobilization of civil society in Turkey, meaning its citizens, can Erdoğan be forced to change course. This could come in the form of initiating a peace dialogue or by securing the release of prominent political detainees, especially the Mayor of Istanbul.

Negotiations must begin

Mr. Öcalan’s call on 27 February was soon followed by a statement from the PKK, declaring their readiness to lay down arms. However, they also emphasized that they expect certain steps to be taken by Turkey. What legal or political actions are necessary for this process to succeed?

I believe it is important to be careful when using the term “Turkey.” Turkey is a whole, made up of all its citizens, from those living in remote corners of Anatolia to those in major cities. Therefore, it would be more accurate to speak specifically of the President and the government. The first step must be the establishment of a permanent ceasefire and the launch of a dialogue process, even if it begins abroad. Before even talking about negotiations, a trust-based dialogue must be initiated, and then delegations capable of negotiating should be formed. I do not think this can take place inside Turkey, nor do I believe it can happen through official channels at this stage. What is needed in the beginning are informal, confidential, and swift contacts.

Naturally, three parties are essential in such a process. First, a government that is willing to engage; second, representatives of the PKK or closely affiliated political movements; and third, a country willing to host these kinds of talks. At this early stage, it may be more appropriate not to involve officials currently in government, but rather individuals close to the presidency or the government who can play a mediating role. This was the case during the Geneva Initiative for Palestine, in which representatives from both sides were not in official positions but were close to those in power and were able to carry out the negotiation process. I believe this is how the process should begin.

NATO must pressure Turkey

What kind of role can international actors, especially Switzerland, play in encouraging Turkey or the Erdoğan government to adopt a strategy of reconciliation?

I believe Turkey’s traditional partners, particularly its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), should guide the country toward a more reasonable path focused on internal peace. Such a development would benefit the entire region. Switzerland has a modernized free trade agreement with Turkey. In the preamble of that agreement, there is a clear commitment to strengthening democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.

Therefore, Switzerland could communicate to Turkey the necessity of launching such a process. It could also, as it has done in other regions in the past, offer to host the talks. If requested, it could even assign qualified diplomats to accompany the negotiation process. Turkey has already experienced such a process before. About a decade ago, negotiations between the government and the PKK were initiated in Oslo. I believe the time has come to revive a similar process, one that would serve the interests of Turkish citizens, the government, and the country’s institutions alike.

Switzerland can play a role

Could Switzerland take on a mediating role between the two sides?

Yes, why not. As you know, Switzerland has a dual function. First, it has the infrastructure and capacity to host those who would take part in such talks. Naturally, this could be somewhere along Lake Geneva, in Geneva, Lausanne, or Montreux, but it could also take place in the German-speaking regions of Switzerland. For instance, Davos could be an option, though not during the World Economic Forum (WEF). In other words, Switzerland offers many suitable and discreet venues for confidential meetings, which is extremely important.

Secondly, Switzerland can appoint highly competent individuals to facilitate the talks. Switzerland played an active role in the process that led to the peace agreement in Colombia. Those talks were held in Cuba, and Switzerland, alongside Norway, was one of the countries that contributed to making that agreement possible.

Öcalan’s freedom would be a sign of sincerity

In many peace processes around the world, the release of historic figures has served as a turning point. Nelson Mandela in South Africa is one well-known example. Could Turkey adopt a similar approach for Mr. Öcalan?

I believe the release of Mr. Öcalan is very important today. You mentioned various peace processes, but the most obvious example that comes to everyone’s mind is South Africa. The release of Mandela opened the way for a peace process. Like Mandela, Öcalan is a historic figure who is widely recognized and respected among the Kurdish people. His release would therefore send a powerful message. I do not believe it would be perceived as a retreat or a sign of weakness by the Turkish government. On the contrary, Öcalan’s release would be a demonstration of strength and self-confidence on the part of the current administration, both the President and the government. It would show that they are confident enough to lead a peace process.

We saw something similar in Colombia. Some members of armed national liberation movements were released before completing their sentences, not as part of an amnesty, but to enable them to act as mediators and open channels for dialogue with the government. So yes, the release of Öcalan would be extremely significant. As I said, it would not be a defeat for the government, nor a direct victory for the Turkish public. On a personal level, it would mean the end of a long period of suffering for Öcalan himself. And yes, it could mark the beginning of a peace process.

Europe’s designation of the PKK is a political decision

You mentioned the importance of international support for the process. However, Europe still keeps the PKK on its list of terrorist organizations. Many experts argue that this position poses an obstacle to the peace process. What is your view on this?

In most cases, labeling an organization as “terrorist” is a deeply political decision. The real question is this: is the organization actually committing acts of terrorism, meaning armed attacks targeting civilians? That should be the fundamental criterion. If there are indeed mass attacks specifically directed at civilians, then it qualifies as a terrorist organization. However, I personally believe that even when dealing with groups that have used the most violent means or have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, there must still be room for dialogue. Labeling such groups as “terrorist” in a way that shuts down all channels of communication is counterproductive. No matter who the actor is, there must always be the possibility of dialogue.

For example, Switzerland has not designated certain organizations in Turkey as terrorist groups. This allows Swiss diplomacy, if necessary, to establish contact with both the Turkish government and these organizations and play a mediating role. In this way, dialogue can be initiated and solutions can be sought on the basis of law and respect for human rights. This, I believe, should be the general framework we consider.

Erdoğan wants to eliminate the ‘democratic threat’

The Erdoğan government has occasionally signaled a willingness to negotiate with the Kurds, yet at the same time it is attacking the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor Ekrem Imamoğlu has also been arrested. How do you interpret Erdoğan’s stance?

As I mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, Erdoğan’s biggest issue today is his personal desire to remain in power. And he is willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that. First, he created the perception of an external threat. Then he spoke of “internal threats.” Now, he is trying to eliminate what he sees as a democratic threat. In order to protect his power and privileges, especially the economic interests of those in his inner circle, Erdoğan appears ready to disregard the principles of the rule of law and show no respect for democratic institutions. Yet today, Turkey is facing a serious economic crisis, and it is the middle class and low-income segments of society that are suffering the most.

Peace cannot be discussed in an undemocratic environment

Can a peace process truly be pursued in an undemocratic setting? The PKK has declared its readiness for peace. Yet this announcement comes at a time when Turkey is experiencing an openly antidemocratic period. Under these conditions, how can a peace process be discussed?

In my view, a peace process is not simply about saying, “we are laying down our arms” or “we are ending armed conflict.” It is a comprehensive process. It requires more than just recognizing that weapons should no longer be used as a tool of conflict. It also involves conducting political struggles through democratic means, respecting political institutions, and not using the justice system as a tool to suppress the opposition. But today, if the Turkish government is not ready to enter such a peace process, and I believe this is largely due to Erdoğan’s determination to hold onto power, then we are facing a serious problem. Under these conditions, a genuine peace process cannot be launched. The only hope lies with the citizens themselves.

People across Turkey can exert pressure through civil mobilization, through protests. Today, I see remarkable courage, especially among the youth but also more broadly among the public. Despite Erdoğan’s repression and police violence, people are taking to the streets and risking harsh prison sentences. This popular movement may not necessarily lead to Erdoğan’s fall, but there is hope that it can at least bring democratic norms back into operation.

Otherwise, we are confronted with a dictatorship hiding behind a democratic façade, and that, in reality, is not much different from what we are seeing in Russia or in some other parts of the world.

Is there anything you would like to add as a final note?

I would like to express my admiration for the citizens in Turkey who are taking to the streets today to defend democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Through this interview, I want to send them a message of solidarity and let them know that they are not alone. Here in Switzerland, both in parliament and in daily life, there are democratic and supportive forces standing with them. I sincerely hope that the democrats in Turkey, whether Kurdish or Turkish, achieve their goals, and that one day they will have the chance to live in a truly democratic country. A country where everyone can live in peace, where differences, religions, ways of life, and cultures are respected. I believe this would be the best outcome for Turkey. And I genuinely hope that this powerful movement of the people will open the door to such a future.