Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society'' was announced on 27 February by the Imrali Delegation. Responding to this historic call, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) declared a ceasefire starting on 1 March. The statement also stressed the necessity of creating an appropriate political and legal framework to ensure the practical success of this initiative.

Nilüfer Koç, a member of the Executive Council and spokesperson for Foreign Relations of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), spoke to ANF about Öcalan’s historic call.

Abdullah Öcalan’s much-anticipated 'Call for Peace and a Democratic Society' was announced by the Imrali Delegation. With this stance, he has initiated the beginning of a new era. How do you interpret this call?

After ten years, seeing Mr. Öcalan’s photo filled us with great excitement and morale. It was truly a historic moment. This image is the outcome of a historic step taken with immense determination, vision, and courage. It is directly linked to the immense struggle waged over the last 26 years, especially Öcalan’s resistance against the torture system in Imrali and the heroic struggle of the guerrillas to put an end to it. The Kurdish people and the movement have resisted continuously alongside their leader throughout this period. All these developments are the result of great resistance.

Since the establishment of this movement, for fifty years, the pursuit of peaceful and conciliatory solutions has remained a fundamental principle, and this has once again been reaffirmed. This process has been incredibly exciting. Of course, not everyone perceives it the same way, as it carries ideological, strategic, diplomatic, and political dimensions. Naturally, this has led to questions and concerns in some circles. This is entirely expected because understanding such a historical step takes time.

These concerns are quite understandable from the perspective of the Kurdish people. For a hundred years, they have seen nothing positive from the state—only bloodshed, violence, and terror. A people subjected to genocide policies since the Ottoman era will, of course, be cautious towards the state. However, Öcalan took this major step by trusting his people and his comrades. With this trust, he has raised the bar. In negotiation processes, such a move is rare. When we look at Catalonia, the Basque Country, or South Africa, we do not see such a political maneuver. This is why this step is of great importance and is being recognized worldwide as a historic moment.

On the other hand, there are concerns and questions from the opposing side. How will the Turkish state respond to this call? Can a century-long policy of genocide suddenly change? The steps the state takes will be decisive. However, our struggle and resistance must continue. If we do not apply pressure, the state may attempt to buy time and maneuver out of its current crises, as it has done in the past. Therefore, criticisms and concerns are natural. We will see how the state chooses to respond.

Although this statement was not included in the official text of the historic call, Sırrı Süreyya Önder conveyed Öcalan’s words: 'Undoubtedly, in practice, laying down arms and the dissolution of the PKK require the recognition of democratic politics and legal frameworks.' Despite this, confusion still exists in certain circles. What should be done next to ensure the success of this process?

Even though this statement was not included in the official document, the final paragraph conveyed by Sırrı Süreyya Önder holds great significance. While it was not incorporated into the Turkish text, it was added to its translations into other languages. In any case, Mr. Öcalan made this statement in the presence of the delegation, and it was also recorded on camera.

One of the most frequently asked questions now is: What is being requested in return for these major steps? The answer lies in what Öcalan stated in he final paragraph: legal and political arrangements, in other words, a democratic Turkey. This is a call for a democratic transformation where Kurds and other peoples can exist with their own identities, freely practice their languages and cultures.

On another level, the dissolution of the PKK and disarmament is not something that can happen immediately. Confidence-building measures and guarantees are necessary for this. The PKK is a movement that has left an indelible mark on 50 years of Kurdistan’s history and has evolved into a force beyond itself. Mr. Öcalan has called on the PKK to hold a congress, and the PKK and its affiliated forces need to evaluate this process within their own internal procedures.

Previously, Murat Karayılan also stated that a direct video message from Mr. Öcalan alone would not suffice. In PKK congresses, Mr. Öcalan has always presented political reports and outlined perspectives. Now, to accelerate the process, he must be able to convey his call directly under free conditions.

This process is also of great importance for Kurds living in Europe and the broader Kurdish diaspora. On October 10, 2023, the campaign 'Freedom for Mr. Öcalan and a Political Solution to the Kurdish Question' was launched. These efforts continue, and we remain steadfast in our demand for Mr. Öcalan’s freedom. His call has received significant international support. Both states and the United Nations have responded positively to this development in their statements.

Through this campaign, we have always asserted that the path to peace goes through the freedom of Mr. Öcalan, and we remain resolute in this demand. I do not know what the PKK’s position on this matter will be, but as those living abroad, our priority is the freedom of Mr. Öcalan.

During the meetings in Imrali, was there any discussion about Öcalan’s participation in the PKK congress? Do you have any information on this?

As the saying goes, if the objective is clear, the means will be found. Mr. Öcalan and the Kurdish side have done what they needed to do. There is nothing more to add. If you pay attention, even Germany, which has been engaged in a struggle against the PKK for 30 to 40 years, is now calling for change. The Kurds have taken the step with Öcalan, and now it is time for the other side to act.

So how is the Turkish state responding? Simply making statements is not enough. Yes, there are far-right groups whose rhetoric may not be taken too seriously, but overall, the opposition’s stance has been positive. This has been reflected in the general approach of the opposition in Turkey. However, it is no longer enough for the government to offer only verbal acknowledgment. Concrete steps are needed. If a congress is convened, Mr. Öcalan must be granted the necessary conditions to participate. This is now their responsibility.

What matters to us is that Mr. Öcalan must be able to speak in some way. In this era, there are powerful technological means available. However, the most crucial aspect is his direct participation in the congress. That is our ultimate goal. Participation via phone or video will not fully satisfy us. We demand his complete freedom. For 26 years, an injustice has persisted. The torture system in İmralı has no legal or political legitimacy. It was imposed solely due to power-driven policies, enforcing a severe punishment.

Along with Öcalan, the Kurdish people and all those advocating for peace have been punished. This historic mistake must be corrected. That is why we insist on fully exposing and dismantling the conspiracy imposed on the Kurdish people through Imrali.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan also made a statement on this issue. What are your thoughts on his remarks? Did they meet expectations?

President Erdoğan’s statement on this matter took a long time to come. If you notice, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader, Devlet Bahçeli, has also been attempting to create a debate on this issue since October 1, but even his response was delayed and only recently articulated in concrete terms.

However, I believe the fact that these statements are being made at all is significant. If we recall past processes, there were times when President Erdoğan said, ‘The Kurdish issue is my issue.’ After coming to power, he used phrases like, ‘The Kurds are my brothers.’ Later, during the Oslo process and the İmralı negotiations, he also made statements in support of the process. His current remarks are, of course, important, but we must expect more.

The step taken by Öcalan is far more risky for him than for anyone else. We know this state well enough. If Erdoğan is making these statements, then concrete steps must follow quickly. Practical measures such as constitutional amendments should be pursued. The state must present concrete actions.

It is time to abandon rhetoric like ‘we have eliminated this, we have defeated that’ and to stop using terms like ‘terrorism’ in this context. This language must change. Mr. Öcalan has demonstrated his sincerity in this matter, taking a great risk in doing so. If that is the case, then the state must also take steps. From the highest levels of leadership, this language must be transformed, because it is a discourse that puts pressure on our people. It is also a discourse that makes our work more difficult. Therefore, I strongly believe that this language needs to change.

Öcalan has warned that if this process is prolonged, the coup mechanism could come into play. How should we interpret this warning?

I would like to give an example from a previous period: the 2013 process. The meetings conducted in December of that year became official. Then, on January 9, 2013, Sakine Cansız, Fidan Doğan, and Leyla Şaylemez were assassinated. A brutal attack was carried out against Sakine Cansız, one of the founders of the PKK. Later, Öcalan openly stated, "This was directed at me. It was the same whether it was Sakine or me."

Therefore, the possibility of similar incidents occurring always exists. The way developments unfold in Turkey and the Middle East often makes it difficult to determine who is acting in whose interests. We are in a period of multi-faceted dynamics. One state's actions may align with or contradict another state's interests, leading to internal competition among them. Moreover, foreign states often maintain a presence within the very states they oppose. Because of this, internal balances are never homogeneous. That is why caution is necessary. The Paris massacre was a significant message for us at that time. The coup mechanism was activated during that period as well, and an intervention took place to block the process. Today, similar situations must be carefully monitored. That is why Mr. Öcalan is emphasizing the need for swift action.

The state must now take concrete steps. Because, under the current conditions in İmralı, Mr. Öcalan's life is not safeguarded. The only guarantee for his safety is his own movement. The present conditions in İmralı pose a serious issue in this regard. Additionally, there will always be forces seeking to sabotage the process. For example, there is a possibility of events similar to the January 9, 2013 Paris massacre. We have already experienced this before. That is why I believe swift action is necessary.

In this process, is there a third-party observer or a monitoring country, as we have seen in other peace processes? Or is this topic being discussed?

This process has not yet been formally named. It is described as a process of mutual initiative-building. In fact, it does not fully align with concepts such as negotiation or peace. At this stage, it is difficult to categorize it definitively. Rather, it can be seen as a period in which both sides are trying to understand each other, and the current conditions are facilitating the process. Turkey’s internal situation, the shifts in the region, and the emergence of a strengthened Kurdish movement and people amidst this chaos all play a role in shaping the process.

Considering these factors, it can be said that both sides are inclined to carry out this process together. The role of a third party could be significant in this regard. In the 2013 process, Mr. Öcalan stated that civil society should primarily assume this function. In this context, groups consisting of Kurds and other peoples of Turkey organizations that hold social respect, have authority, and represent conscience and justice could contribute to the process. Additionally, international binding mechanisms could also come into play.

At this point, Kurdish diplomacy has the power to fill the third-party gap. Turkey has signed numerous international agreements and documents, and Kurdish diplomacy could play a crucial role in ensuring the implementation of these commitments. Other mechanisms could also be established to fulfill the third-party function. However, whether the parties have such a request remains unknown.

In Öcalan’s call, it is clear that he seeks to resolve the issue directly with Turkey. Whether Turkey has initiated such an effort is still uncertain. However, a third-party conscience-based mechanism could be activated. In fact, Mr. Öcalan has explicitly named this by emphasizing the concept of a "democratic society." A democratic society must take ownership of this process and establish an organized structure. A mechanism should be formed through committees, commissions, or initiatives to oversee and follow the process. Because ultimately, this solution serves the benefit of society as a whole.

One of the recipients of Öcalan’s letter was the Kurdish Democratic Societies Congress in Europe (KCDK-E). Was this letter also shared with the KNK? Where does the KNK stand in this process?

Despite the severe conditions of torture and isolation in İmralı, the fact that Mr. Öcalan still thinks of us and seeking our views is truly an honor. In this regard, we feel profound gratitude towards him. We also extend our thanks to the KCDK-E for sharing the letter with us.

It was humbling that Öcalan wanted to hear our thoughts and, before taking any steps, asked: 'What do you think? How should this be?' The fact that he made such an effort under those conditions deeply moved us all. At the same time, it placed a great responsibility upon us. It is a moment of deep moral reflection, one that brings a sense of humility. Because we can only imagine the conditions he is enduring. The reality of İmralı has been a wound in our hearts for 26 years.

Despite this, Mr. Öcalan’s unwavering belief in his comrades, in his people, and in democracy led him to seek the opinions of the largest Kurdish umbrella organizations in Europe, such as the KCDK and the Kurdish Women's Movement in Europe (TJK). For us, this is both an immense honor and an overwhelmingly emotional moment. Our gratitude to him is boundless. For those of us living and working in Europe, the greatest responsibility we bear is to fight for Mr. Öcalan’s freedom and the resolution of the Kurdish issue. Because peace necessitates the freedom of Öcalan.

The way he prepared us for this process in his letter and explained how we should respond is a deeply meaningful approach. Once again, he demonstrated his greatness and leadership. He reinforced our determination, strengthened our resolve, and further ignited our passion for struggle.

Following Öcalan’s call, international responses have emerged. Can we say that this call has also forced powers like Europe and the United States, who have long sought to criminalize the PKK and the Kurdish people under the pretext of violence, to reconsider their stance? What should their approach be moving forward?

We have always stated that the designation of the PKK as a banned 'terrorist' organization is nothing more than a legal pretext. At its core, this is a political decision. This decision was a continuation of the policy of Kurdish denial, benefiting those who have exploited this denial for over a century. However, the mask is now falling from these prohibition policies. The real issue here is not the PKK but the future of an entire people. This is why the ongoing struggle cannot be ignored.

The recognition and acceptance of a 50-million-strong people as a nation is at stake. But instead of addressing this reality, they used the PKK as an excuse. At the same time, they sought revenge against the PKK, because the PKK enabled this nation to express itself and made its struggles visible. In Berlin, London, and Paris, Kurds have begun to ask, ‘You made us a problem. Now justify it.’ Mr. Öcalan’s struggle brought the Kurdish people to the point of posing this fundamental question.

And precisely because of this, a political war was declared against the Kurds, with legal mechanisms turned into weapons of this war. Thousands of people were imprisoned. Many Kurds living in Europe had their passports, identification documents, and citizenship rights revoked.

Now, as their excuse for labeling the PKK as a threat loses credibility, what will happen? What will happen to the Kurds? What will they do with them? Mr. Öcalan’s call has forced Europe to confront these questions. Many of our friends are reaching out, asking, "What can we do about this?"

What will Europe do now? The European Union placed the PKK on its list of terrorist organizations in 2002. At that time, there was a ceasefire in place, and discussions of transformation and peace were underway. It was a period in which political struggle was prioritized, yet such a hostile move was made. Now, a new process is unfolding, and the possibility of a new step being taken is on the table. From media reports and statements by circles close to the state, one thing is clear: compared to the bans imposed on the PKK in 2002 or in Germany in 1993, the situation today is different. In recent years, Turkey itself has become a problem for other states. In the past, the Kurdish issue was at the forefront; now, for Europe, the issue is increasingly about the current Turkish government.

Now, everyone is waiting. Many circles are saying, "Öcalan has made a move, now Turkey must respond." Mr. Öcalan has made a historic call. There is a growing consensus that guarantees must now be provided for the Kurdish people. Those who once criminalized the Kurds’ peaceful efforts are now in a difficult position due to the oppressive policies of the AKP government. This time, Europe is shifting responsibility onto Turkey, saying, "You must change."

This is a highly significant development. Mr. Öcalan’s statement, made with full consideration of all possibilities, has also created a new reality in international politics. This presents a major opportunity for Kurdish diplomacy. Many countries are disturbed by the direction in which the AKP has taken Turkey. In the past, Europe supported Turkey unconditionally. But now, that support has begun to shift. There is a saying: 'Raise a crow, and it will peck your eyes.' This is precisely what Europe is experiencing now—it feels betrayed by Turkey and is demanding change.

This is a critical moment for Kurdish diplomacy. If this process is managed well, the gap left by the absence of a third-party mediator can be filled. Because now, it is openly acknowledged that the regime in Turkey is problematic. There are circles that are increasingly looking toward the Kurdish movement with hope, and these statements reflect that shift.