DEM Party's Çandar calls on Erdoğan regarding Hakan Fidan: 'Keep him in check'

DEM Party's Cengiz Çandar, while the 2026 Central Government Budget Law Proposal negotiations were ongoing, demanded that President Erdoğan "keep" Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan "in check" at the General Assembly of the Parliament.

Recalling Minister Fidan's "operation" remarks, the DEM Party's Çandar stated that the words "The SDF must understand that the patience of the relevant actors is running out" constituted "threatening language" and said the following:

'KEEP YOUR FOREIGN MINISTER IN CHECK!'

"So, when did he say these words, Mr. President? On December 13, meaning not even a week ago. Not even a week has passed, look at how Anadolu Agency reported it yesterday. I am reading a part of the news:

‘Regarding the situation of the terrorist organization PKK/YPG, which uses the name SDF in Syria, and the integration process into Syria, Fidan noted the following: We do not want to resort to military means again, but the SDF must understand that the patience of the relevant actors is running out.’

Now, is this language the same language used by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on this same subject? This is threatening language; this is language that will poison the process in Turkey! Is this the language with which you will successfully manage the process in Turkey and consolidate the thousand-year-old Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood you speak of?

I am calling on the President: Keep your Foreign Minister in check! The language used by the Foreign Minister, the implications he makes, and the veiled threats are breaking the hearts of millions of Kurds in Turkey, in Syria, and everywhere, and are making it impossible to write the ‘epic’ that President Erdoğan says ‘we will start writing together.’"

'THE SDF HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED AS A TERRORIST ENTITY'

Çandar argued that the SDF was not the interlocutor of the March 10 agreement; that the Damascus regime did not implement the articles of the agreement, and that Turkey was only interested in the integration article, and continued with the following expressions:

"The SDF is not the interlocutor of the March 10 Agreement. It is a signatory. There are two signatures under the March 10 Agreement: One says Ahmed al-Shara, the other Mazloum Abdi. One's title is Acting President of Syria, the other is Commander-in-Chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces.

When Mazloum Abdi signed the March 10 Agreement, the SDF was not defined as ‘terrorist’ either before or after it. It is not now either. But now, hold on tight; Ahmed al-Shara's organization, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which holds power in Damascus, is still on the terrorism list in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 1267, 1989, and 2253. We have reached the end of 2025, and HTS, which has ties to ISIS and al-Qaeda, has not yet been removed from the UN Security Council's terrorism list. Ahmed al-Shara himself only ceased to be a ‘terrorist’ a month and a half ago, on November 6.

'THE MARCH 10 AGREEMENT IS NOT A DIVINE TEXT'

All of Turkey's institutions have been dealing with this structure for months, and it is calling on the SDF to comply with the March 10 Agreement it signed itself. Who is saying what to whom?! Interestingly, the SDF is also calling on the HTS regime in Damascus to comply with the March 10 Agreement.

The March 10 Agreement is not a divine text. It is an eight-article document. Moreover, the Damascus regime has not fulfilled articles 1, 2, and 5 of this agreement to date.

Ankara is only concerned with the 4th article of these eight articles. The 4th article, which is the subject of the constant calls from Turkey to comply with the March 10 Agreement, says:

‘Integration of all civil and military institutions in northeastern Syria, including border crossings, airports, and oil and gas fields, into the Syrian state.’

'THERE WAS NO SYRIA WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED'

When this agreement was signed, there was no Syrian State or anything like that, let me say that too. Yes, this has not been achieved yet, but there is a dialogue between the parties on this issue, even if it is interrupted from time to time. Instead of using threatening language, Turkey should help this dialogue, even lead it, and should not push any Syrian party toward Israel.

The conclusion of this dialogue and negotiation with a compromise between the Syrian parties will also help the Process in Turkey to be reinforced and crowned with Kurdish-Turkish brotherhood. I have emphasized this from this podium before: You cannot separate the Kurds of Turkey from the Kurds of Syria.'