Abdullah Öcalan, who remains imprisoned on Imrali Island, was visited by a delegation from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) on 27 February. He called on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to lay down its arms in a statement read by the delegation at a crowded press conference in Istanbul. Lawyer Faik Özgür Erol, a delegation member and Öcalan’s lawyer, shared details of the meeting.

How did the visit proceed? What did you discuss with Öcalan? What was your reaction when he read the call to you?

First and foremost, it was an incredibly valuable and striking visit for us. After so many years, being able to observe the conditions in Imrali, take in the atmosphere there, and once again meet face-to-face with Mr. Öcalan was deeply significant. Many of my colleagues at the Asrın Law Office have dedicated years of effort to gaining access to him, monitoring his rights and conditions, and establishing direct dialogue with him. Each of them has contributed immensely. Beyond that, many political figures have also worked tirelessly in this process. And, most importantly, a significant portion of the public has been closely following this situation, hoping for an end to the isolation imposed there. In truth, this visit was the collective achievement of all these efforts. During the visit, we had the opportunity to meet not only with Mr. Öcalan but also with Mr. Hamili Yıldırım, Mr. Veysi Aktaş, and Mr. Ömer Hayri Konar. It was a sincere and engaging conversation, which made the visit all the more meaningful.

The central agenda of the meeting was the call itself. Everyone was present, our entire delegation was there, and the discussion took place collectively. Of course, the leading voice in the conversation was Mr. Öcalan. We primarily took a listening position. At times, the discussion evolved into a question-and-answer exchange. He presented a handwritten document and said, 'I need to give this a title; I am considering calling it Call for Peace and a Democratic Society.'  From the very beginning, he framed it with this title. Then, he began his analysis of the document. First, he read it aloud to us. As he read, he paused at certain points, explaining each paragraph in detail. As a result, the three-and-a-half-hour meeting transformed into an in-depth discussion of each section of the text. He started by revisiting the historical relationship between Kurds and Turks. Then, he elaborated on efforts, dating back to Özal’s era, to resolve this ongoing conflict. There were sections in which he explained the intervention of coup-driven approaches that obstructed these efforts. He broke it down, section by section, in a methodical manner.

Öcalan essentially explained to you the full subtext of what has been analyzed in the media for days, didn't he?

Yes. I actually understand this effort to decipher his words. Since the document itself is only about one and a half pages long, and those who are deeply engaged in this issue have not had the opportunity, as we did, to listen to its full explanation over an extended period, they are now trying to analyze it sentence by sentence. Their efforts are significant. However, in some ways, it also feels unfair.

Why?

It is unfair both to these people and to Mr. Öcalan himself. In a matter of such significance, one that the entire world is closely following, Öcalan should have the means to communicate beyond just a one-and-a-half-page document. Of course, I can try to convey what he meant to the best of my ability. But, in reality, this would neither be entirely accurate nor ethically appropriate. He must be the one to explain and articulate his thoughts himself. Anyone who seeks to understand, learn, and engage with his ideas should be able to communicate with him directly. To think otherwise would simply not be right. The intermediary must be removed, and the fundamental voice must be allowed to speak directly.

Speaking of this, you also witnessed the conditions of isolation there. Yes, everyone saw Öcalan in a photograph, but what is his health condition? What impressions did you get of his daily life there?

Mr. Öcalan appeared stronger and more energetic than he looked in the photograph. In that sense, I do not believe the photo fully reflected reality. He was more upright, more resolute, and in higher spirits. And there is an undeniable reality, Mr. Öcalan has been there for 26 years, enduring those conditions. This fact must never be overlooked. Living under such severe isolation for 26 years, with extremely limited means of communication, and with contact with the outside world almost entirely cut off, yet still possessing the strength and will to manage such a critical process in its entirety, is truly remarkable.

At one point, when a couple of our colleagues from the delegation suggested, 'Perhaps we could stay here for a while to assist and discuss these matters with you,' he smiled and replied, 'You wouldn’t be able to endure this place.' It is genuinely not as easy as one might think. Even after three and a half to four hours of discussion and analysis, he continued to engage in debate and consider suggestions. Yes, we could observe the physical effects of isolation, but despite everything, his morale remained high, and he was exceptionally composed.

How did the other prisoners participate in the discussion and meeting?

Mr. Öcalan led the discussion with his assessments, while the others primarily listened. However, once the initial presentation ended and the conversation shifted to mutual discussion and suggestions, they began expressing their thoughts as well. When we had the chance to share a meal together, we were able to have a more in-depth conversation about their conditions, needs, and any messages they wanted to convey. It is important to remember that they were also brought to the island in 2015. Since then, they have not seen a single lawyer, and for the past five years, they have had no contact with their families. If I recall correctly, only two of them were able to make a brief phone call in 2021. Naturally, they were also curious about the outside world. After all, during their time in isolation, major global events occurred: the COVID-19 pandemic, devastating earthquakes, and many other significant developments. We had the opportunity to talk about these events with them as well.

In these conditions, what sources does Mr. Öcalan rely on to analyze and work through this process? Were you able to gain any insight into this?

We have long been aware of Mr. Öcalan’s ability to think, analyze, and produce ideas. Even with highly restricted access, he has managed to create numerous works. His last major presentations and defenses in the 2000s were particularly striking, and a significant amount of time has passed since then. From what we understand based on the meetings held between 2013 and 2015, his intellectual framework and body of thought have undergone profound renewal and significant progress over the past decade. Particularly in his analyses of women’s history, he has developed in-depth assessments reaching far into the past. Similarly, in his critiques of socialism and communalism, he has expanded beyond democracy alone, now incorporating an even stronger analysis of the state. Additionally, his historical perspective on Turkish-Kurdish relations is noteworthy. What is truly striking is how effortlessly he recalls dates, concepts, and figures, presenting them with exceptional fluency and precision. During our conversation, he told us, 'I could write a six-part study, particularly on socialism.' At one point during our meal, Veysi Aktaş remarked, 'If he could put his thoughts down in writing, it would be something extraordinary.' He is considering doing it, and we are encouraging him.' Now, we will all have to wait and see what comes of this.

As his lawyer, you have also witnessed these conditions firsthand. What makes it urgent and necessary to lift the isolation in İmralı and to discuss the right to hope?

We have been Mr. Öcalan’s lawyers for many years. From the very beginning, our primary focus has been his freedom. That has not changed, and today, it is even clearer that the circumstances demand change. The issue we refer to as the "right to hope" provides the legal foundation for this necessity, while his public statement has now laid its political groundwork. At the same time, we recognize that this process has its own unique dynamics. A dialogue has been established between the relevant parties. Outside, there is a political delegation and a political party, and on the other hand, there is an organization that is the direct recipient of this call. Within this circle of dialogue, it is understandable that some aspects of the process may unfold gradually and according to a planned framework. I do not dispute this. However, at this stage, the priority must be ensuring his freedom to work and communicate.

First, Mr. Öcalan has drawn a very broad framework for this issue. It is neither realistic nor acceptable to confine this framework to a one-and-a-half-page document. He must be able to explain it fully. He must be able to communicate it to his comrades. He must be able to directly address and articulate it to the public. For that, he needs the ability to speak freely and directly. This is why the channels of communication must be expanded. The discussion should no longer be about whether isolation should exist, because it should not. In fact, it should no longer be about standard prison conditions either. His ability to express himself must be completely restored.

Second, there are many opponents of this process, whether within Turkey, among the Kurdish community, or among foreign powers. We are witnessing a flood of propaganda, filled with criticism and accusations from those who have not even taken the time to read or understand the text. Without any effort to analyze or engage with the statement, they are quick to develop all kinds of narratives against it. In order to protect and safeguard this process, Öcalan himself must be able to respond directly. Of course, as a delegation, we will advocate for this and defend its necessity. We have no hesitation about that. However, this issue should not be handled through proxies. The primary voice must be allowed to speak for itself.