Elisabeth Decrey Warner is a Swiss peace activist and politician. As former director of Geneva Call, a humanitarian organisation which set out to involve armed non-state actors in banning the use of landmines, she has worked long-term with the Kurdish movement to promote peace and protect civilians in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict.
Warner recently participated in ‘New World Embassy: Lausanne‘, a theatre project uniting Kurdish and international politicians, experts and artists to address questions of stateless democracy and solidarity. Medya News spoke to Warner to hear her perspective on the positive, concrete steps forward which can be taken to promote peace and dialogue in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict.
Did the ‘New World Embassy’ event suggest ways in which the Kurdish movement could make a positive contribution to solving the crisis in the Middle East?
I would like to say yes and no. It would be naive to think that just opening a dialogue between Turkey and the Kurds will resolve all the problems in the Middle East. There are many other factors, and governments, involved. But it could contribute, and I think events [like the New World Embassy] show the positive willingness of the Kurds in negotiations. At the same time, what was discussed is very local democracy, taking into account the rights of the people, and I think if you can increase the number of these very small areas where there’s real democracy respecting people’s rights, you can create a more peaceful society.
How did your work with Kurdish armed groups come about?
You have armed groups playing an important role in many conflicts, but they can’t sign any convention. This is why we have to negotiate with them, and invite them to sign a convention for armed groups. For instance, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party [PKK] and also the Peoples’ Protection Units [YPG] in Syria banned anti-personnel mines and child soldiers. Positive steps, for the better protection of humanitarian law.
When you approached these groups, how did they respond?
It takes time. If they had agreed to sign at the first discussion, we would have been a little bit sceptical because it means a lot – if you agree to stop using anti-personnel mines, you have less weapons in your arsenal. It’s an important decision, and you have to be clear on that and how you will inform your fighters. But finally, they understood this was a better option for protecting civilians, whose support they need, and they understand that at the end of the day, peace cannot be built on atrocities during conflicts. If you want to negotiate one day, if you’ve respected the norms of humanitarian law, it will be easier to negotiate in a peace process.
Are there steps that EU countries can take to promote the move to a peace process?
This is a very difficult situation, and the isolation of Abdullah Öcalan is not helping. He’s been totally cut of from the world for more than 30 months, and he cannot express his point of view and proposal. I’ve seen the Kurds have the willingness to find a solution, and negotiate on a peace process. Unfortunately, the Turkish government is closed to all proposals, and President Erdoğan is like this. The problem, I think, and the Kurds have to work on this aspect, is the behaviour of [other] states. They need Turkey, on many political issues like migrant flows, when a country would like to join NATO, or agreements linked to the country in Ukraine.
Are there geostrategic reasons why EU countries should be challenging Erdoğan?
Insecurity in the Middle East, economic crisis in the Middle East, are threats for European states. We have to make them understand that it is in their own interests to find a solution, but it’s totally blocked. We all know Öcalan’s situation, we know how the Kurds are attacked in northern Syria, that this is a clear violation of several conventions. But as long as states don’t react, this will continue, and Erdoğan will continue until the Kurdish people are silenced and all the fighters are eliminated.
The full podcast can be viewed here.
