Erdogan, pro-Kurdish MPs meet in 'new phase' of rapprochement
DEM, Turkey's third-biggest party, has played a key role in facilitating an emerging peace deal between the government and jailed PKK founder Abdullah Ocalan, whose Kurdish militant group is expected to begin laying down its weapons later this week.
The meeting, which lasted just over an hour, brought together Erdogan, Efkan Ala, a senior figure in his ruling AKP, and spy chief Ibrahim Kalin with DEM lawmakers Pervin Buldan and Mithat Sancar.
"Our delegation conveyed their views and suggestions on the new stage the process has reached and what to do next," the DEM lawmakers said in a brief statement after the talks.
DEM lawmaker Buldan called the meeting "historic".
"The process is now entering a new phase in which consultations are needed," she told reporters before the meeting.
"It is important to consult to take the necessary steps," she added, saying the sides would "exchange views".
Fellow DEM lawmaker Mithat Sancar said the new phase was "very important" and that they would use the meeting to "share our views" and to "listen to them".
"We will consult with the president and his delegation about the characteristics of this new phase and the upcoming requirements."
On Sunday, the pair held a "very productive" meeting with Ocalan on Imrali prison island. The jailed 76-year-old PKK founder also characterised the upcoming talks with Erdogan as "historic".
He told them a parliamentary commission being set up would "play a major role" in directing the peace process.
The meeting came as the PKK was to hold a ceremony in Iraqi Kurdistan to start destroying a first tranche of weapons -- which will likely take place on or around July 10-12.
Erdogan said the move would give momentum to peace efforts with the Kurds.
The disarmament process is expected to unfold over the coming months.
bur-hmw/jhb
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cities can fight back with guaranteed income programs
Mayors for a Guaranteed Income helped fund a pilot project at Santa Fe Community College. (Courtesy SFCC) If you are like me, you are still reeling from the news that the 'big beautiful bill' (which is unparalleled in its ugliness) received the necessary votes in the U.S. House and Senate, along with the president's signature. Although the U.S. Senate was close (and Dem senators all voted nay) what kind of madness is this? The very notion of passing legislation that dismantles Medicaid; blunts the effectiveness of nutritional assistance; and cuts funding to rural hospitals highlights the degree that a philosophy of philistine self-interest has infiltrated the current political climate. Trepidation over the fallout spreads nationwide. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham says the bill 'will hit New Mexico hard' and state officials have outlined nightmarish scenarios in which more than 88,000 New Mexicans lose Medicaid and more than 58,000 to lose their Supplemental Assistance Program help. 'This is draconian,' Victor Pineda, executive director of the Center for Independent Living in Berkeley, California, which provides quality of life assistance to the disabled, reportedly said. 'The cuts are a direct hit to our ability to help people stay in their homes who will now be forced into homelessness or institutions.' In the meantime, what can help supplement the loss of basic services in underserved communities? What can cities and mayors do? For one thing: They can put more of their remaining resources toward expanding guaranteed income programs. In 2018, Mayor Michael Tubbs of Stockton, Calif. initiated the first guaranteed income program in the USA, which for two years gave $500 every month to 125 low-income residents. A study in the program's aftermath conducted by a team of independent researchers determined that the money significantly improved participants' mental health and financial standing. Tubbs then founded Mayors for Guaranteed Income (MGI), a network of committed cities that have sponsored pilot programs in cities including Madison, Wis.; Pittsburgh, Pa; New Orleans, La.; and Santa Fe, here in New Mexico. In 2021, with an MGI grant, Santa Fe Mayor Alan Webber launched a pilot program that provided $400-per-month stipends to 100 young, low-income Santa Fe Community College students with child-caretaking responsibilities. A 2025 independent study again concluded that rather than fulfilling easy cliches — meaning the assumption the young grantees would waste the funds on alcohol or video games — participants experienced meaningful improvements in key takeaway areas 'This successful program directly addresses the fundamental problem that is holding New Mexico back: poverty.' said Mayor Webber, after the report was released. Today, more than 100 cities have sponsored direct cash payment programs that lasted one year (or preferably two years). In every case, most participants experienced admirable gains in food and housing security. In Santa Fe, participants experienced a 19 percentage point rise in full employment. But why should these results be surprising when 37% of Americans say they fear an unexpected $400 expense? A consistent extra few hundred (in lieu of having an empty bank account) can make a difference, a larger-than-expected step forward. For proponents, an important assurance is that guaranteed income programs come with 'no strings attached.' A family that needs money to pay for school supplies can choose this option; a recipient who knows that buying a car would be a valuable investment can save for that. Guaranteed income programs have been praised for having an 'entrepreneurial' spirit. But I believe the better word for them is 'self-empowering' in that they encourage the underprivileged to value themselves and invest in their own futures. These humble sums of cash directed without stipulations at crisis communities, including immigrant families, students or homeless youth, provide a measurable boost. Related programs stipulate the money is spent toward specific goals, like preventing homelessness. Funding for renters facing eviction is one of the most important ways cities, including Santa Fe, can potentially use targeted funds in a time when homelessness is at its highest level since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development began keeping statistics in 2007. Here is the rub. These programs abet and enhance the social safety net. They cannot replace it. These programs are a tool: a necessary weapon. Times may become desperate. Cities must fight back.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Calif. Dem rep's bid to force release of Epstein files falls flat in House
California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna's bid to force the release of the Justice Department's files on notorious sex predator Jeffrey Epstein fell flat in the House on Monday. Khanna sought to capitalize on the raging MAGA revolt over Epstein by tacking on an amendment to pending legislation on cryptocurrency and national defense that would have required the files to be disclosed to the public. The rep vowed to keep fighting after his defeat. 3 Dem California Rep. Ro Khanna vows to keep fighting for the release of the Epstein files. AP 'We won't stop until the files are released. This may have been our first attempt, but the public will not be gas-lit. We will keep fighting for transparency,' Khanna said. On Monday evening, the House Rules Committee, which is a critical gatekeeper for how most legislation makes its way to the floor for a vote, rejected Khanna's amendment in a 7–5 vote. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) was the sole Republican on the rules panel who voted in favor of Khanna's bid to force the release of the Epstein files. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), whose district was slammed with flooding, was not present. 3 Jeffrey Epstein's death in 2019 has long been subject to controversy and public concerns that there was more to the story. DOJ All Democrats joined in with Khanna. Democrats have seemingly been eager to exploit the growing MAGA rift over Epstein. Key stars within the MAGA movement such as Steve Bannon, Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson have fumed that the administration hasn't been more transparent on Epstein — who allegedly helped arrange sex trysts for the rich and powerful before being busted for sex trafficking and killing himself in his Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial. Last week, the DOJ released a memo concluding that the evidence indicates Epstein killed himself and that he didn't have a client list. President Trump has since bristled at the uproar and urged his followers to 'not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.' But Khanna declared after the rules panel vote, 'People are fed up. They are fed up. 'Need to put the American people before party!' The California Democrat meanwhile said he would expect the DOJ to protect the identities of Epstein's victims if it releases the files. 3 Attorney General Pam Bondi has faced a firestorm from MAGA world over the government's report on the Epstein files. AFP via Getty Images Other key Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, have also pressed the Trump administration to release the files. 'If there are literally other people on this list who are somehow implicated in these actions, it is dangerous to public health and safety not to release the names publicly,' Raskin told MSNBC's 'Deadline: White House.'
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Here's why Trump's inconsistent support for Ukraine is so dangerous
President Trump just took a partial step back from historic ignominy when it comes to the controversial issue of Ukraine. This Monday he announced with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte a two-step transaction by which the U.S. will build and sell to NATO Patriot anti-missile systems and other weapons that NATO will then provide to Ukraine for its defense against Russia's expanding invasion. Had Trump rejected NATO's compromise deal, avoiding further U.S. costs to defend Ukraine, and reverted to his openly pro-Putin posture, he would have forever tarnished his legacy — the same way Joe Biden's Afghanistan debacle destroyed his already dubious foreign policy reputation. The Trump administration last week said that the U.S. would 'pause' military weapons shipments for Ukraine's defense against Russian aggression, the second such interruption of aid that has taken place without the president's explicit consent. Now at least temporarily reversed, this action likely would have fatally weakened Ukraine's ability to fend off Russia's assault and guaranteed the continuation of Russian President Vladimir Putin's wanton cruelty. Trump called Russia's recent bombing onslaught on civilians 'unnecessary' and untimely, given his own plans for Ukraine, which remain undefined except that he wants the war ended on almost any terms. With the Biden-to-Trump transition, Ukraine and the world saw U.S. policy shift away from a contradictory approach of strong rhetorical support coupled with erratic military aid and constrained intelligence sharing. Biden's forever-stalemate strategy took a dramatic turn for the worse under Trump, thanks to his outright admiration for 'genius' Putin's aggressive agenda. Until now, Trump has acquiesced to Putin's mockery of his 'peace process,' and brazenly done what no other president has even considered in 250 years of U.S. history: He has openly sided with one of America's leading enemies in its victimization of a democratic friend. Even now, questions remain as to whether Ukraine will receive as many weapons as it needs and at the delivery rate needed. The new 50-day delay in threatened primary and secondary sanctions casts doubt on whether Trump's heart is really into getting tough with Putin, whom he has belatedly accused of sounding 'nice' but throwing a lot of 'bulls—.' The reprieve, as more Ukrainians die and cities are destroyed, allows Putin yet more time to deliver a death blow to Ukraine. The world may be witnessing a cynical Trump-Putin kabuki dance intended to be fatal for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Communist China and North Korea have been learning the true meaning of Trump's slogans about reviving American greatness. The laudable and long-overdue strike on Iran's nuclear weapons program did not erase what threatens to become, under Trump, the hollowing-out of Reagan's policy of resisting Russian expansionism. Counterintuitively, it is perfectly plausible for Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un to conclude that Trump's Iran operation makes him far less, not more, likely to consider using U.S. force to defend Taiwan, the Philippines or South Korea. Trump's reasoning might well be that the Iran strike has already proved his credentials as a commander in chief willing to use U.S. power in the national interest. Although the premise is sound, the perseverance of America's adversaries and the contrary message of weakness conveyed by his seeming Ukraine surrender up to now send a different message. Given his decidedly mixed record, Trump cannot afford to stand by if Beijing and Pyongyang choose to test his national security staying power. Trump has not yet endorsed the overthrow of Iran's terrorist regime. In fact, Trump has said he does 'not favor regime change in Iran' because of the 'chaos' it would cause. But he has twice cut off at the knees Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, while openly supporting Putin. In that strategic context, Xi and Kim will surely be tempted to advance their own aggressive regional plans. The interrelationship of the remaining Russia-China-North Korea entente manifests itself in various ways. Kim sent tens of thousands of North Korean soldiers to help push back Ukraine's surprise advance into Russia's Kursk region. This was undoubtedly done with Beijing's explicit encouragement, reminiscent of China's massive infusion of 'volunteers' into South Korea to thwart the allied counteroffensive during the Korean War. North Korean forces, while pushing the Ukrainians back from Kursk and gaining much-needed battlefield experience, suffered major losses and demonstrated both their strategic and tactical shortcomings — as well as the willingness of totalitarian rulers to use human lives as cannon fodder. Having entered into a 'no limits' strategic partnership with Putin j ust before his 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Xi arrogantly announced earlier this month that China 'can't accept' Russia's defeat. The statement, delivered by Foreign Minister Wang Yi, coincided ominously with Trump's announced second cut-off of support for Ukraine. Considering this latest unequivocal commitment to the success of Russia, Xi may well be signaling an intention to send Chinese forces to replenish Russia's depleted army. It was also striking that Beijing chose to make the outcome in Ukraine a matter of Chinese national interest. It will undoubtedly expect the same level of unlimited Russian support if it decides to move in the South China Sea. To discourage that kind of rash action, Trump needs to send a clear, Reaganesque message of deterrence to Putin and Xi that the U.S. will do whatever is necessary to protect the security of Ukraine, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and America's other friends, allies and security partners. It's worth noting the commitments of China and North Korea to Russia' warmongering in Ukraine have overtones of the escalating domino effect that triggered World War I, with one major difference: Trump has made clear that, up to now at least, this U.S. president was on the side of the aligned aggressors. If Trump adheres to that wrong-headed posture, history will not treat him kindly, and the free world will pay a grievous price. Ukraine is already paying it now. Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute and member of the advisory board of The Vandenberg Coalition.
