13.05.2026 11:40
While legal expectations regarding the process to resolve the Kurdish issue continue, AK Party officials responded to MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli's second call to grant status to PKK terrorist organization leader Abdullah Öcalan, stating, "To grant him a special status, his conviction must first be ended through amnesty or similar means. However, it could be possible not to provide a status, but to create an environment to increase his effectiveness, facilitate dialogue, and share his views."
{
"text": "
Debates continue regarding when legal regulations concerning the terror-free Turkey process will begin.
AK Party officials evaluated MHP Chairman Devlet Bahçeli's second call for a \"status\" for Abdullah Öcalan during last week's group meeting, along with the proposal to establish a \"Peace Process and Politicization Coordination,\" DEM Party Co-Chair Tülay Hatimoğulları's call yesterday for \"establishing a mechanism to advance the process,\" and DEM Party members' statements that \"disarmament and legal regulations should be simultaneous.\"
\"NOT ONLY THE İMRALI DELEGATION, BUT ALSO ACADEMICS, ASSOCIATION HEADS, AND DIFFERENT GROUPS CAN VISIT\"
Regarding Devlet Bahçeli's proposal for a status for Abdullah Öcalan and the DEM Party members' definition of Öcalan as a \"chief negotiator,\" AK Party officials stated that a \"status\" definition is not possible. Officials said, \"Ultimately, he is currently a prisoner serving his sentence. To give him a special status, that conviction must first end, such as through amnesty. But it could be like this: rather than a status, dialogue, meetings, and sharing his thoughts with different segments of society could be more effective in terms of increasing his influence. Journalists could go and interview him, ask directly, and he could give his answers. It doesn't have to be just the İmralı Delegation; different academics, individuals beneficial to society, association heads working on these issues—if any—could have opportunities for closer meetings and sharing ideas with everyone contributing to the process.\"
AK Party officials noted that the title under which these meetings take place is unimportant and said these meetings could occur with permission from the Ministry of Justice. Officials stated, \"It does not matter under what title this is done. You can arrange this within the conditions of penal execution, because these can be done with the Ministry of Justice's permission on these matters. It could be an environment where he can easily convey his ideas to all segments of society and express his expectations. Because currently, only the İmralı Delegation conveys these, and some disruptions can occur. A clearer, more comfortable environment could be provided.\"
\"DISARMAMENT IS NOT YET AT THE DESIRED LEVEL; DELAYS REDUCE ÖCALAN'S EFFECTIVENESS\"
Pointing out that the joint report of the National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy Commission emphasized disarmament as a \"critical threshold,\" AK Party officials stated that \"disarmament is not yet at the desired level.\" Officials said, \"Since February 27, Öcalan has made very assertive statements to both the DEM and the PKK regarding disarmament. He says, 'Leave it also in your minds.' Despite Öcalan's instructions, the delays unfortunately reduce Öcalan's effectiveness. Ultimately, he is someone who founded and managed the PKK. He could be more effective in disbanding it and laying down arms, but they undermine this; both Kandil resists and the DEM does not do what is necessary.\"
AK Party officials reminded that both their own report and the joint report included the proposal to prepare a standalone temporary law, and reiterated that disarmament is awaited for this. In response to the DEM Party members' call that \"disarmament and legal regulations can be done simultaneously,\" AK Party officials recalled the work done so far. Officials explained that a commission was established, heard many institutions and individuals, the commission delegation visited İmralı, and a joint report was prepared with consensus from all parties in the commission. They added, \"Disarmament must be at a satisfactory level. As long as the presence of arms continues, if organization members want to come, there are already laws, there is effective remorse, Article 221/B of the Turkish Penal Code. Let them say, 'I reject the gun, I left the terrorist organization, I am sorry.' If you lay down arms, let's talk.\"
RESPONSE TO HATİMOĞULLARI'S PROPOSAL FOR A MECHANISM: \"FIRST COMPLETE THE EXISTING MECHANISM\"
AK Party officials also evaluated DEM Party Co-Chair Tülay Hatimoğulları's call yesterday for \"establishing a mechanism to advance the process and serve as a bridge between parties\" as follows:
\"That mechanism was already established. With the commission formed alongside the PKK's self-dissolution, that mechanism began operating at the center of Parliament. The commission was a mechanism. The commission delegation visited İmralı. The visit to İmralı, gathering reports from parties, and the joint report were a mechanism. The commission worked, and a joint report was produced. Are all these not mechanisms? Yes, symbolically, arms were laid down; it cannot be said nothing happened. Weapons were burned, some caves were subsequently emptied, but at a satisfactory level, despite these mechanisms, the presence of disarmament could not be demonstrated. We established the mechanism at the center of Parliament, İmralı was visited, and we spoke of a standalone temporary law signed by everyone. These are mechanisms in themselves. But despite this, arms were not laid down. How much did disarmament progress during the period this mechanism operated?
Are they saying let's set up a new mechanism? Complete the existing one first, then we'll see whether to establish a new one. Currently, disarmament should have been at a satisfactory level. It has been a year since the PKK dissolved itself, but it hasn't happened. Law does not build a text on uncertainty, speculation, or interpretation. Law is based on material reality. Arms have been laid down, the organization has dissolved itself; the law defines this. Arms remain, the organization exists, no actions. How will you define this in law? As long as the reality of disarmament has not ended, how will we define the material truth?\"
}