Egyptian Political Analyst: Leader Ocalan’s Message redefines Syrian Crisis

Egyptian writer and political analyst Elhami Al-Meligy stated that Abdullah Ocalan’s New Year message cannot be treated as a conventional political statement, but rather as an attempt to redefine the nature of the Syrian crisis and the entry points for resolving it.

He explained that the importance of the message lies in shifting the debate from the level of military conflict and balances of power to a deeper and more fundamental level, namely the social contract and state-building on democratic and pluralistic foundations.

Al-Meligy noted that leader Ocalan’s diagnosis starts from the premise that the core of the Syrian crisis is not limited to the multiplicity of armed forces or the scale of foreign interventions, but rather lies primarily in the absence of a political model capable of accommodating ethnic, religious, and social diversity within the Syrian state.

From this standpoint, the message, according to Al-Meligy, emphasizes that a real solution cannot be achieved through security crackdowns or by reproducing a rigid centralist state, but through a democratic negotiation process that leads to a balanced political integration between the center and the regions, preserving the country’s unity while recognizing its diversity at the same time.

On linking the implementation of the March 10 agreement to opening the door to the political process, Al-Meligy explained that the message presents a precise equation: implementing the agreement is not an end in itself, but an entry point to a broader political path based on democracy and integration, not annexation or exclusion.

He added that this framing places the agreement in its proper context as a political instrument rather than a temporary security settlement.

He stressed that the concept of integration in the message does not mean dissolving the Autonomous Administration into the state, nor imposing a single political model on all Syrians, but rather reaching a participatory formula that recognizes local specificities and integrates them into the national framework through negotiation and constitutional and political guarantees.

He pointed out that this path requires clear and public political negotiations among the concerned parties, a constitutional framework that recognizes pluralism and guarantees rights, as well as implementation and guarantee mechanisms that prevent a return to the logic of force and imposed realities.

Al-Meligy emphasized that the intended integration is voluntary and negotiated, not forced, and that democracy in this context is not merely a political slogan, but a fundamental condition for achieving long-term stability in Syria.

Explaining the reasons behind the faltering of political meetings despite declared readiness for dialogue, Al-Meligy said the obstruction is not only due to a lack of political will, but also to conflicting approaches and divergent interests.

He clarified that there are differing interpretations of the agreements themselves: some parties view them as an entry point to a limited security settlement, while others see them as a comprehensive political path that reshapes the relationship between the center and the periphery.

He added that there are heavy and sensitive files—such as the future of military forces, resource management, administrative powers, and the shape of the Syrian state—that cannot be resolved quickly or without clear political and constitutional guarantees.

He also noted that regional and international interventions weigh heavily on the negotiation process, particularly the calculations of the Turkish occupation and broader Syrian and international dynamics, often turning the process into a card in wider conflicts rather than a purely internal Syrian track.

Regarding Turkey’s approach, Al-Meligy explained that leader Ocalan’s message includes a direct call to Ankara to move from the position of a wary and pressuring party to that of a facilitator and guarantor of the solution process. The message clarified that the constructive role required of Turkey does not mean passive neutrality, but a positive contribution to creating a climate for negotiations rather than obstructing them.

He said that the possibility of Turkey playing such a role remains theoretically possible, but is conditional on three main factors: first, recognizing that a stable political solution in Syria serves its security more than temporary military solutions; second, separating legitimate security concerns from rejecting any democratic formula in North and East Syria; and third, dealing with the Kurdish issue in Syria as part of a broader regional solution rather than as a permanent threat.

Al-Meligy concluded that leader Abdullah Ocalan’s message represents an attempt to open a political window in the closed wall of the Syrian crisis, affirming that the path to stability does not pass through domination or zero-sum conflict, but through negotiation, mutual recognition, and building a democratic and pluralistic state.

He stressed that the success of this vision depends on the willingness of the parties—internally and regionally—to move from managing the conflict to managing the solution, a difficult and complex transition, but one that has become more necessary than ever.

a.k

ANHA