Speaking on İlke TV following today’s meeting in Imrali, Mithat Sancar, one of the members of the DEM Party Imrali delegation, said that the first comments by Öcalan were: “This meeting is the opening session of democratic integration.” Sancar added that the meeting lasted a little over three hours and was very intensive. According to Sancar, Öcalan usually came prepared with a set agenda, listing around ten items to be discussed, and the meeting proceeded within that framework.
Sancar said that Öcalan described the first phase as having been completed, explaining that it concerned the decision to end organizational existence and armed struggle. “The essence of the first phase was the PKK dissolving itself and laying down arms. This is a strategic decision,” Öcalan said, emphasizing that it was a strategic decision both personally and organizationally. He added that significant steps had been taken in the first phase and that they had now moved to the second phase, whose most important issue is integration. The discussion continued largely within this framework, including a general assessment of how the second phase should proceed.
Dialogue is the only way
Sancar said that in discussions on integration, the main agenda item was the ongoing process in Turkey, but developments in Syria were also addressed under this heading. He recalled that Öcalan had previously proposed “democratic integration” as a solution for Syria as well, emphasizing that although the processes in the two countries differ, they influence one another.
Referring to developments in Syria, Sancar said that during the January 17 meeting, Öcalan stressed that clashes must be stopped and that the issue should be resolved through negotiations. He warned that if attacks deepened and conflict shifted, particularly east of the Euphrates, it could result in heavy casualties and instability lasting many years. According to Sancar, Öcalan strongly emphasized dialogue and politics as the only way out, warning that otherwise the region could be driven “to the edge of a cliff.”
“Extra-normal forces” could sabotage the process
Sancar recalled that in the December 2 meeting, before the attacks on Aleppo had begun, Öcalan assessed that while the likelihood of armed conflict was low, “extra-normal forces” might attempt to sabotage the process. He evaluated that such forces could intervene in Syria, cause regional destruction, and ultimately aim to disrupt the ongoing resolution processes.
Öcalan brought the process back to negotiation
Sancar stated that Öcalan viewed the March 10 agreement in Syria as the basic framework for negotiations and that these views had also been shared with state officials. He noted that serious concerns of rupture emerged after January 6, and that various actors played roles in returning to the negotiating table, including Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani. However, he said the main actor, long unspoken in public, was Öcalan, who, through active initiatives, made a significant contribution to bringing the process back “from the edge of the cliff” to negotiations.
Sancar emphasized that integration does not merely mean simple unification, but also includes recognition of existence and rights. He said that the achievements of the Kurdish people in Rojava, together with other communities, should be evaluated within this framework.
International talks carried out by the SDF
Sancar stated that representatives of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), along with Kurdish and other communities in Syria, held various talks within the framework of the Munich Security Conference and received significant attention. He said that the return to the negotiating table could be interpreted as one of the first indications that Kurds and the SDF would take part as joint actors in Syria’s future. He added that the current stage is critical not only for Rojava and the Kurds, but for all of Syria and the region.
Conditions must be provided for the second phase to begin
Sancar conveyed that Öcalan has a strong will to contribute to the process, but also underlined the necessary conditions: “Öcalan said, ‘I will do what is required of me in this matter. I have the theoretical and practical capability and strength. But conditions must be provided so that I can put this strength into practice. Not for myself, but for the process, for the solution, and for us to build and advance the architecture of the second phase.’”
Sancar added that given the gravity and importance of the process, improvements in Öcalan’s living and communication conditions are inevitable and would be a natural outcome of the process.
Main topics of the meeting
Sancar continued: “Öcalan said, ‘My fundamental reference and principle is the advancement of the democratic integration process and the construction of a democratic republic.’ He describes the first phase as the ‘negative dimension’, the stage of ending conflict. The steps taken to end armed conflict belong to this phase. Now we face the positive phase. The integration phase is the positive phase; it is the phase of construction. The general reference is, of course, the democratic republic, whose foundation is the free citizen. A free citizen is one who can freely express their identity, belonging, views, and ideas. Identities will be free, beliefs will be free, belonging will be free. But all of this will progress within Turkey’s unity and in integration with a democratic republic. These are the fundamental headings and concepts we discussed today.
The basis of this is the democratic republic. Individuals must be able to organize themselves through their culture, language, views, and beliefs. On a ground where these freedoms exist, Kurds too will be able to organize themselves freely with their culture, language, and beliefs. This is the foundation of integration with a democratic republic. This applies to all peoples, all beliefs, and all views.
Secondly, this is a matter that must be handled within the sphere of politics and pursued with the broadest possible consensus. We are not listing a catalog of ‘this must be done, that must be done.’ We are outlining the fundamental principles, framework, and concepts. From administrative practices to legal regulations, and eventually, when the ground is formed, to constitutional matters, we are speaking of a comprehensive process.
If you look back, during 2013–2015 and earlier periods under the BDP and HDP, we prepared democratization programs and roadmaps. Not only us; the AKP and CHP have also announced programs in the past and recently. The path toward a democratic republic based on the free citizen requires that democratic politics have the broadest freedom and guarantees. If weapons end, politics will replace them. And for politics to carry this burden, it can only do so with freedom and guarantees.
Commission report
It is clear that the commission report is important. However, a report presents a perspective; it does not prepare a full program. I hope it will be issued with full consensus and that the stages will move forward quickly. The first issue that will come before us is clear: the legal status of those who lay down arms or members of an organization that dissolves itself. We are talking about a broad circle here. Not only those who have taken up arms; there are those in prison, those abroad, those in Maxmur. All of these are consequences of the conflict process. If we are ending the conflict process, we must also find ways to remedy the problems and destruction it has created. This was one of the issues we discussed today. It is time to repair the damage caused by this process and to establish the fundamental principles of coexistence. Therefore, the framework law is important, but the process does not consist of that alone. At this stage, this is one of the most important headings. Legal regulations are essential for the integration of those who lay down arms. However, some practical steps do not require legal amendments. What is the expectation regarding imprisoned politicians and the appointment of trustees? What kind of picture do you encounter in discussions on these issues? The expectation here is clear. Some steps can be taken through administrative decisions. However, delays are occurring. Since the beginning of the process, there has been an expectation in society for gestures of goodwill and confidence-building steps.
Report will be issued before the end of the month
Responding to the question, “There are comments that Devlet Bahçeli’s statements about the process are not reflected in practice. Does Abdullah Öcalan have an assessment on this? Does he see resistance?” Sancar said: “I can say that he does not engage in such speculative evaluations. He focuses more on fundamental distinctions and the main principles of the process. He makes distinctions such as the ‘norm state’ and ‘extra-normal forces.’ Therefore, there is no approach like ‘Mr. Bahçeli said this, but it was not done. I wonder if something else happened.’ That kind of reading is not made. As for the other dimension, we have been saying these things from the very beginning. We say them in the meetings, and our party, especially our co-chairs, spokespersons, and authorized representatives, express them openly. Our view that these steps must be taken is clear. We also say there should be no delay. It appears that the commission report will include determinations on these issues. Many headings have been indexed to the commission’s work; this is also the case on the government and state side. This joint report is expected to be issued soon. I cannot say exactly how many days from now, but a meeting was held today. The date of the next meeting has not yet been finalized. However, it is now clear that the report will be issued before the end of this month. The commission also has a working period; it can be extended if necessary. The commission can extend its term in two-month periods; there is no problem in that regard. If needed, it will be extended. Afterward, especially if the commission makes recommendations on these matters, not taking these steps would go against the will of the large majority formed there. We wish it had happened earlier; we have demanded and clearly expressed this for all the issues you mentioned. Not only us, but many other circles have also argued that concrete steps must be taken quickly and have made calls. It did not happen, but we are now at a stage where it should happen soon and appears likely to happen. I am not authorized to give further details, because there is a commission will in place. There is the commission chair, the Speaker of Parliament Mr. Numan Kurtulmuş, a drafting committee, and a commission of 51 members. Beyond the headings I can respond to openly, the details will be clarified in the final round of discussions. It may not be called the ‘right to hope,’ but it appears that a regulation or recommendation regarding its content will be included in the commission report.”
Bridges from arms to politics
In response to the question, “Is there clarity regarding the framework of this special law? Whom will it cover, and what kind of regulation should it be? What is your expectation for permanence in conflict resolution?” Sancar said: “If I were addressing these questions only as a jurist and academic, I could answer them more comfortably. But there is an ongoing process, there are actors in this process, and its ground is the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. Democratic politics is also a matter of negotiation and dialogue. We, too, have undertaken certain duties and responsibilities in this process. In general, I can say this: there is not yet a concrete picture regarding technical details. However, the regulation must be inclusive, in line with the spirit of the process, and must create doors and paths that will open the way for progress. It is not possible at this stage to go into details such as ‘this many people, this scope.’ I would especially underline the issue of transition to democratic politics. I say this both as an academic and as a jurist. If a structure that has reached such broad prevalence and used armed struggle as a method for a long time lays down arms, two points must be clearly stated. First, when this structure emerged and over time, it set political goals; its program changed, its goals were reformulated, but it clearly had a political character. Second, it is clear that those who joined this structure acted with political aims. Therefore, if arms are ending, the necessary conditions must be created for these political goals to be expressed and defended on a democratic ground. The bridges and paths from arms to politics must be handled precisely within this framework.”
Munich Security Conference
Sancar continued: “The participation of Mazloum Abdi and Ilham Ahmed in the Munich Security Conference, their separate meetings, and their joint sessions with the Syrian delegation are important. It is necessary to look from a historical perspective. About 110 years ago, in 1916, the much-discussed Sykes–Picot order was essentially built on the denial and exclusion of the Kurds. That was its aim. Today, the Middle East is being reshaped and rebuilt. In fact, there are many related issues we could speak about at length. The global system is also being restructured. I will come to your question, but first I think it is useful to refer to a document. The U.S. National Security Strategy document, published in December 2025, contains very serious assessments regarding the new global system. There are signs that the post-1945 period has largely come to an end. It is clear that we are entering a truly new era. The Munich Security Conference took place at a sensitive time and with significant participation. The speech delivered near the closing by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was extremely important. It should be read, examined, and evaluated carefully. It contains very clear signals about how the coming period is intended to be shaped and the U.S. approach to this. As a new order emerges in the Middle East, the picture that appeared in Munich is important in terms of opening a path for the recognition of the Kurds’ existence, rights, and status. Is this participation, these meetings, and the attention shown a guarantee of everything? Of course not. Because in the world order we are entering, the interests of major powers are becoming much more decisive. We are speaking of a period in which raw power, military power, economic power, and other dimensions of power, come to the fore. Certainly alliances and various guarantees are important, but diplomacy is not an area that can be abandoned. In fact, it must be said clearly: the Kurdish people’s presence as an effective diplomatic actor on the world stage is long overdue. This presence is vital in preventing the formation of a Middle East order in which the Kurds are ignored. Of course, one must be cautious. But as the new Middle East order and the new global order take shape, you must evaluate the channels and opportunities through which you can preserve and realize your existence, identity, values, and goals. In this respect, the picture in Munich is important. Today, a power-centered, nation-state–focused tendency combined with populism is strengthening globally. Precisely for this reason, being visible in diplomacy, having a seat at the table, and being accepted as a joint actor carries vital significance.
We are also entering a period in which nationalism is being foregrounded, but a nationalism integrated with the state. In such a period, it is clear that you must seek the paths, methods, and opportunities to realize the values you defend together with the peoples you live alongside. I am aware of the questions that come to mind, but without going that far, I am trying to say this: this order is currently being built. Perhaps many of its steps have already been implemented. It is not yet fully shaped, but its direction is becoming clear. Just as the 1916 order was built on the denial and exclusion of the Kurds, the order to be formed in 2026 and beyond must be one in which the Kurdish people take their place with their existence, rights, and status. Contrary to the general direction of the world today, we must defend peace and the living together equally and freely. An understanding that places women at the center as founding subjects, prioritizing women, is being advocated. The more you can expand and realize this understanding, the more decisive it will be, not only for the Kurds, but for all the peoples with whom they live…
We want to save history, and this cannot be done without Kurds
I would like to add one more thing. I may sometimes be mistaken, but we may not be sufficiently aware that we are going through a very critical, historical process. Individual events can have an enormous impact. One event occurs and suddenly a psychology of defeat emerges; another occurs and suddenly a great sense of victory comes to the fore. In fact, such situations are ordinary results of transitional periods in which many things change. It is not always easy to see the whole picture. And when you tell people to ‘look at the whole,’ we know this does not necessarily have a calming effect. But it must be understood that this is a long-term process, one that will affect the coming decades, perhaps even a century. In Turkey, this is called the ‘Century of Turkey.’
Yesterday [Sunday 15], in Marco Rubio’s speech, the phrase ‘Western Century’ was used. Everyone is talking about the construction of a century. I would like to share this with our viewers and our peoples. Öcalan said, ‘The construction of a democratic republic is a very important and very serious matter. Integration is only possible with a democratic republic. We are talking about building a long-lasting new century. We are talking not about saving the day, but about saving history. And this cannot happen without the Kurds.’ He expressed it exactly in these words.”
Leave a Reply