13.07.2025 09:00
The disarmament process of the terrorist organization in Turkey serves as a model for other countries. The absence of mediators, the non-involvement of third countries, and the surrender of weapons at the very beginning of the process highlight the differences between Turkey's model and similar events in other countries.
With the call of MHP General Chairman Devlet Bahçeli, the critical threshold was crossed with the first PKK group burning their weapons in the process of a Terror-Free Turkey. The determination not to negotiate during the PKK terrorist organization's disarmament process, the absence of mediators, and the commitment to complete the process in months rather than years are seen as significant factors that distinguish the process in Turkey from global examples.
DISARMAMENT PROCESSES IN GLOBAL EXAMPLES TOOK YEARS
According to a report in Türkiye Newspaper, in nearly all global examples, the disarmament process of terrorist organizations took years. In many of these examples, disarmament was planned as the final stage, leading to negotiations that spanned years. Particularly, the termination and disarmament periods of organizations such as the IRA, ETA, and FARC were challenging, as the demands of these organizations drew public backlash, causing the completion of the processes to take years.
In many cases, mediators were also appointed, third countries intervened, and even priests acted as mediators in some processes. Initially, negotiations took place, resembling a barter process, and disarmament occurred as the final stage of peace processes.
NO ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION IN THE TURKEY MODEL
The process in Turkey went through significant stages that set it apart from global examples. According to analyses from security sources, there was absolutely no negotiation in this process, referred to as the 'Turkey Model'; no third parties, observers, or mediators were involved, and no political or legal issues were opened for discussion until the weapons were surrendered. These elements became the most important factors that distinguished it from other global examples. Additionally, a determination was shown to reach a conclusion in months rather than years to prevent any provocation and the potential infection of the process.