Adnan Boynukara
As the process concernin ” g the PKK’s disarmament progresses as planned, efforts aimed at disrupting and infecting the process also began to be exposed. On the one hand, there is a discussion about “what did the state give that made the organization lay down its arms?”, on the other hand, “predictions” are being made to create the perception that “there is a problem” between the President Erdoğan and Bahçeli, who are the parties to the process. Such attempts have no chance of being decisive in the outcome. However, they can produce results that will distort social perception. Such ‘activities’ are ineffective for the staff who managed the new initiative and served between 2009 and 2015. However, it is important to remember that these kinds of efforts may trigger manufactured fears.
Looking at the country’s recent history, both the disruptive activities mentioned and the search for solutions by those in power are not new. The search for a solution has been a fundamental issue for the past 40 years. During the terms of prime ministers such as Özal, Demirel, Yılmaz, Çiller, Erbakan, and Ecevit, the topic of finding a resolution was always on the agenda. Similarly, fears were provoked and disruptive activities were carried out during those times. The period when this was most intense was between 2009 and 2015. Because concrete steps were taken in the context of the Oslo Talks, the Solution and the Peace Process, and those who opposed disarmament tried to prevent political and governmental action by manufacturing various fears. These efforts, both domestic and international, caused the process to stall. Examples include the PKK’s attempt to bring violence to urban areas, FETÖ’s desire to seize power using the situation, and certain countries in our region, Europe, and a faction within the United States. In the face of such obstruction and sabotage attempts, the most effective countermeasure is to clearly lay out the path ahead.
Why Secrecy?
Most efforts involving the disarmament of terror organizations follow similar processes. It’s clear there’s a big difference between learning from other experiences or simply copying them. Still, a common feature in these examples is that the process is carried out secretly until a certain point, mainly through intelligence agencies. This is because the core task at this stage is to discuss, negotiate, and manage the disarmament process. One of the best definitions of this came from former Irish Prime Minister Patrick Bartholomew Ahern (Bertie Ahern). Regarding the secrecy of the talks, Ahern said, “We conducted the talks secretly for years, otherwise I would not have been able to sit in that chair for a day.” Similarly, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos Calderón noted, “Our talks were conducted in three forms: ‘secret meetings’, ‘confidential meetings’, and ‘parliamentary discussions.’” He defined secret meetings as contacts that lasted for years and for which there were no records. The secrecy here is not a requirement to hide something from society, but to establish the basic dynamics of the process. Nothing is being given or taken, and the entire process continues with the knowledge, consent, and control of the political authority.
Stages of the Process
In terms of what has been done and what will be done, it is possible to consider the process in three basic stages. The first stage is for the intelligence and relevant actors to take a position on the process. This can be called secret negotiations and intelligence diplomacy. In Türkiye, this process came to the public agenda with Devlet Bahçeli’s statement. However, due to the state’s functioning, the intelligence took the necessary steps and started the negotiations with the instructions and permission of the government, that is, the President. The main activity at this stage is to conduct the necessary negotiations for the lay down groundwork of disarmament and to manage the disarmament process. This is what is being done now. The second stage involves the period after the organization has laid down arms. This can be described as “implementing the legal process following disarmament.” In other words, it involves applying existing laws to former members of the armed organization. The current legal framework is sufficient to meet many needs in this regard. However, if necessary, the parliament may and should be activated to make new regulations.
Parliament’s Responsibility
The third stage involves drafting and discussing any necessary legal regulations in parliament. This can be defined as legal preparation within the framework of societal legitimacy. Considering the current parliamentary structure, it can be seen that there is a very high level of social legitimacy of representation. Despite issues like the electoral threshold and the alliance system, the broad representative capacity of the current parliament is valuable. This is important for the society to understand and accept the legal regulations to be made on the subject. In reality, there already exists a wide legal framework regarding disarmament and terrorist organizations. The first step in this process is to apply the existing legislation. New regulations may be introduced to resolve issues that arise during the implementing decided pratices and are not currently addressed by existing laws. Since it is the duty of the parliament to make legal arrangements to solve the problems, it is not right to evaluate the issue in terms of “what was given” or “what was taken”. Because the true goal is to establish societal peace and ensure the permanence of the republic.
The Goal: Empowered Citizens
Let me state from the beginning, there is nothing given or taken. The main goal of the work done is to solve the most important problem of the country, especially to conclude an issue that directly concerns the safety of life and property of citizens. The fundamental responsibility of those who govern the state is to establish a political climate in which everyone who is tied to the country by citizenship enjoys equal rights. Creating the political climate is not enough, it is also necessary to ensure that the citizens feel this way. Because some practices that emerged after the liberation of this country from enemy occupation and in different periods are interpreted as an indication of discrimination among citizens. It is the responsibility of the government to take the necessary steps regarding these perceptions.
The assessments brought up regarding the PKK laying down its arms, such as “what was given” or “what will be given”, are essentially reflections of manufactured fears, and are an expression of not wanting and being unable to accept everyone having equal rights. More accurately, it is a fear of losing a hegemonic position. To put it clearly, what is being said can be summarized as “we are actually the owners and founders of this country, now they will make them partners and equals.” The anxiety caused by avoiding the struggle for life under equal conditions and foreseeing the possible outcome of this struggle. In other words, we are talking about a ‘fear’ that is based on losing a privileged position and losing ‘superiority.’ It is also important to remember that the state-centered security paradigm is effective in the formation of these fears.
Let me state this clearly: the republican administration is not a regime in which anyone gives anything or distributes favors to anyone else. And in this process also, no one is giving anything to anyone. The government wants to abandon the abnormal management perspective that stems from the instrumentalization of weapons and violence and create an atmosphere in which the use of weapons and violence as tools is ended. With illegal elements removed from the picture, the goal is to create a political climate and a space for political competition where everyone has equal rights. This is what happens. In other words, disarmament is not an end in itself, but a means to establish a democratic regime, to transform the state democratically, and to fully implement the principle of equal citizenship. It is the first step towards a transition from a state-centered security paradigm to one that prioritizes people and their security.
Meanwhile, the futuristic approaches and self-proclaimed mind-reading of those whose past projections about political processes have proven incorrect, and whose positions during critical developments and difficult times have never led to anything good, cannot be taken seriously regarding the current situation. What we are experiencing is the taking of serious and honest steps that will be instrumental in a vital issue for which every single person of our nation who regards Türkiye as their homeland has paid a price directly or indirectly. There is nothing complicated about it. After 40 years that brought nothing to our country, our people, or our region, a deep wound is finally being healed. And never forget, as this wound is healing, it becomes immediately apparent who stands on the side of good, and who stands on the side of harm.
Source: https://www.perspektif.online/silah-birakmak-icin-ne-veriliyor/