Remy Pagani said that the process must be secured by international law and observer missions must be recognized.
International support continues to grow for the “Peace and Democratic Society” process led by Abdullah Öcalan, who has been held under severe isolation in Imrali Island Prison for 26 years. Recently, a group of international figures, including politicians, parliamentarians, and academics, visited Turkey as part of the “I want to meet with Öcalan” campaign and held a series of meetings. One of the members of the group was Remy Pagani, a prominent Swiss politician and former mayor of Geneva.
Pagani, who also closely followed the negotiations between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), spoke to ANF about their visit to Turkey and recent developments regarding the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question.
You visited Turkey as part of an international delegation under the “I want to meet with Öcalan” campaign. How did the visit go for the delegation? Was the main goal to meet with Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan?
We went to Turkey as a delegation of 50 people from different countries. Among us were trade unionists, members of parliament, scientists, and professors. Our main goal was to meet with Mr. Öcalan and to support the peace process initiated by his call. In a sense, we also aimed to bring international support to this process.
We reached out to the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) and held meetings with party representatives in Istanbul and Ankara to express our support for the process. Beyond meeting Mr. Öcalan, we wanted to contribute to this process with international backing.
We met with Mr. Öcalan’s lawyers. The first thing they told us was that they had been able to meet with him regularly and that we might also be allowed to visit. Therefore, all of us submitted requests to visit him in Imrali Prison. One of the main reasons for our trip to Istanbul was precisely this.
The next day, we were fortunate to receive a letter from Mr. Öcalan. In it, he welcomed the positive nature of our delegation and affirmed that the peace process would continue. This letter held deep meaning and importance for all of us.
Will the delegation continue its efforts in the coming period? Is there any plan in this regard?
Yes, we have discussed this matter extensively among ourselves. We also issued a statement regarding our demands. In particular, several of us, including myself, have significant experience with disarmament processes within the framework of the Geneva Conventions, and we had many discussions on this issue. We talked about whether Mr. Öcalan is being held under humane conditions, whether he is able to hold confidential discussions with members of his party, and whether he will be allowed to regain his freedom. It turns out that such meetings have indeed taken place; a delegation composed of party members is meeting with him. We also spoke in depth about whether he might be released. Furthermore, we clearly demanded the release of all political prisoners, especially imprisoned mayors and members of parliament, so that they can participate in this peace process.
I must also say that, as a delegation, we are deeply concerned about the prospect of disarmament without international protection. Because we all know that without international guarantees, that is, unless countries that are party to the Geneva Conventions provide security for this process, the situation will remain fragile. This was a shared assessment by everyone. The entire delegation agreed that international guarantees are necessary, and that such guarantees could be provided through the mechanisms set forth in the Geneva Conventions, particularly by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Why do you think there is resistance to involving an international mediating force in this process? And what needs to be done to ensure its success?
The answer we received was that President Erdoğan does not want an international presence involved in this process. He does not want an international body to accompany the process; he wants everything to remain solely between Turks and Kurds. In my opinion, an international guarantee and a legal framework are essential. A law must be passed in parliament to secure the process, to guarantee the release of all political prisoners, and to legally protect the process itself. This includes reintegrating former fighters into civilian life and ensuring their safety through legal guarantees.
These individuals must be able to reintegrate into society, to work, to engage in politics, and to have access to democratic freedoms. All of this must be safeguarded by law. And that law must be prepared in a measured, responsible manner and debated within the framework of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Anything less will not suffice.
A process this significant cannot be reduced to signing a piece of paper at the corner of a table. If it is treated that way, it will not go well.
The parliament, namely, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, must pass a law. And the first step of this parliament should be to pass a special law granting amnesty to all political prisoners, including the release of imprisoned mayors and members of parliament. Despite the ongoing process, they are still behind bars. This must be stated at every opportunity.
In short, a law on amnesty and a law governing the peace process are needed. Such a law must provide long-term guarantees for the conditions of disarmament over a two- to three-year period.
A 30-member Peace and Democratic Group composed of PKK guerrillas laid down and destroyed their weapons. What does this mean for the process?
First and foremost, it is a significant step for the success of the process. But I remain cautious because of the stance of the state. I had experience during the process between the Colombian government and the FARC. I personally supported the disarmament process, and I witnessed with my own eyes how the weapons were placed in containers and destroyed.
But then we also saw what happened in Colombia. Four hundred former fighters who had returned to civilian life were killed. We lived through this. We saw it. That is a very serious risk. Such risks must be taken into account. I see these kinds of actions as symbolic messages said, “Yes, we are laying down our arms and we are ready for this.” But this stage must be approached with great caution.
Because the state of war has not truly ended. There are deep-rooted hatreds, and these can easily turn into violence.
Can this act of laying down and destroying weapons influence public opinion or the attitude of Turkish state officials?
I believe that extending a hand to the enemy, because in war, the term “enemy” is used, is always a positive gesture. In fact, Mr. Öcalan did the same by calling from prison for the PKK to dissolve itself and end the armed struggle. Yes, this is a call to extend a hand. But caution is necessary; certain conditions must be met so that the other side can also reach out.
We have seen some initial steps from the other side as well. For example, President Erdoğan allowing Mr. Öcalan’s lawyers to visit him in prison, enabling party members to meet with him, develop strategies, and engage in politics. But these steps are not sufficient for the success of the process. Political and legal steps must be taken. Because such steps have not yet been implemented, I still have serious concerns about the process.
Can the international community, such as the United Nations or European countries, assume any responsibility in this process, or what role could they play?
Yes, they do have a responsibility. Switzerland also bears such a responsibility. Personally, I offered to help establish contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. My aim is to support this process and to formalize it within a legal framework signed by international bodies and United Nations officials.
Moreover, Switzerland has the personnel capacity to support this process. It also has highly qualified experts whom I have encountered during other armed conflict situations in the past.
You closely witnessed the process between the Colombian government and FARC. Considering examples from around the world, what do you think should be taken into account in such processes?
This was actually the subject of my conversation with Mr. Öcalan’s lawyers. I asked them, “Have you studied peace processes in other countries, whether in South Africa or Colombia?” These kinds of conflicts benefited from certain tools and mechanisms. They told me they were familiar with those experiences, but that Turkey was a different case.
In my view, such processes are not so different from one another. War is war, no matter where it takes place. What differs is how peace is achieved, how weapons are laid down. That is what makes each case unique. It is precisely for this reason that, after the Second World War, countries decided to codify the laws of war. Before that, these laws were not written.
Today, the laws of war are codified, and all parties have signed on to concepts such as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is based on these very principles: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes. These are not ancient concepts; they were incorporated into international law only after the end of the Second World War.
This is a crucial point. And this is why, in my opinion, existing international law can legally frame the peace process initiated by Mr. Öcalan. President Erdoğan must allow international forces to observe and mediate this process. He must agree to engage with the international bodies designated by the United Nations for such processes. There should be a mediator appointed by the United Nations. Experts with a high level of competence must be assigned to oversee this process. And to give it concrete form, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey should enact a law
