Egyptian researcher: Turkey deliberately delays, seeks to avoid Abdullah Ocalan’s role in peace process

Questions have intensified both inside Turkey and internationally regarding the stringent isolation imposed on Abdullah Ocalan amid controversies surrounding the formation of a parliamentary committee that has yet to be granted full authority to perform its duties. Al-Meligy believes that Turkey’s policies reveal intentional procrastination aimed at freezing the democratic solution path rather than advancing a genuine peace process.

Al-Meligy emphasizes that the isolation is not merely a security measure but a political instrument to manage the conflict. According to him, Ankara “fears that Ocalan’s project, based on coexistence and brotherhood among people, could evolve into a binding and compelling force on the ground. Therefore, it adjusts the severity of isolation according to the political moment to ensure that the state retains the initiative and prevents a full opening that could fundamentally reshape the entire political landscape.”

Regarding the obstruction of the Turkish parliamentary committee’s visit comprising 51 deputies to Imrali Prison to meet with Abdullah Ocalan, Al-Meligy views this as a clear attempt to evade political responsibilities. Allowing such a visit would be interpreted as an acknowledgment of Ocalan’s central role in any peace process, something the state seeks to avoid by limiting communication channels to specific delegations, such as those from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party.

The Egyptian researcher describes this approach as “a calculated evasion” from the peace process, explaining that a real solution requires a new constitution guaranteeing equality, comprehensive reforms of the state’s security apparatus, and addressing the issue of “life imprisonment without review,” which has been previously condemned by the European Court of Human Rights.

However, he notes that Ankara continues to practice a “one step forward, half a step back” policy through symbolic announcements that are subsequently restricted by regulations keeping the issue under control.

Domestically, Al-Meligy holds democratic movements, labor unions, and civil society organizations responsible for maintaining pressure to enforce practical measures. These include regulating lawyers’ and families’ visits to Imrali, establishing a fair mechanism for reviewing life sentences, setting a timeline for reforms, and ensuring transparency in the parliamentary committee’s work by publishing its minutes.

On the international level, he believes that supporters of Abdullah Ocalan and his ideas worldwide have influential tools at their disposal, notably pressure through the Council of Europe and the United Nations, European parliamentary efforts to tie cooperation with Ankara to tangible steps, as well as media and popular campaigns highlighting that Ocalan’s physical freedom is not merely a Kurdish local issue but a key to comprehensive peace in Turkey and broader regional stability.

Al-Meligy concludes that maintaining isolation and obstructing the parliamentary committee’s visit is nothing but “deliberate political procrastination,” but he stresses that such a policy will not silence the voices demanding peace. Ocalan’s freedom has ceased to be an individual matter and has become an indispensable gateway to any historic and just settlement in Turkey and the region.

ANHA