President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other state officials have expressed in different statements that the “weapon surrender” phase in the dismantling of the PKK terrorist organization is “continuing in a controlled manner” through the cooperation of the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) and other institutions. In the context of informing the public, they also mention where potential issues may arise as this process moves forward. From the content of these statements, it is also evident that the public’s sensitivity on this matter is being closely monitored.
Given how long terrorism has persisted and the experiences of previous resolution processes, it is only natural that various segments of society would have opinions about the current process. This does not mean they oppose the goal of a terror-free Türkiye. Although it has been repeatedly stated from the beginning that there is no negotiation involving give-and-take or bargaining, and the rationale for this has been explained, after each phase proceeds calmly, certain circles insist on bringing these debates back to the agenda.
The leader of the organization, Abdullah Öcalan, made a call for the PKK’s dissolution in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretation. Likewise, the terrorist organization responded by announcing a congress to declare its aim to lay down arms. Yet, some have used this momentum as a basis for counter dialogue, claiming, “If it’s going so smoothly, there must be a deal.” This sentiment still resonates with certain segments of society.
Assuming similar debates will continue until the end of the process, it is essential to recall the breaking point. Before the decision to dissolve and disarm, the terrorist organization had reached the point of exhaustion in terms of manpower and offensive capacity within the country. Amid Ankara's effective counterterrorism efforts, the group’s influence across the border had significantly weakened and because its logistical lines were brought under control, even its access to food had been minimized. As a result of operations targeting the upper ranks of the organization, its leaders had been rendered immobile.
Through Türkiye’s cross-border operations and its strengthened relationships with regional countries, as well as its growing global influence, those who used the terrorist group as a proxy were facing serious costs. In clearer terms, its utility no longer justified its cost. Consequently, it no longer received the external support it once relied on. Furthermore, with the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) democratization, development-investment policy and social policy implementations, the areas of exploitation used by the PKK and its supporters were largely eliminated. In short, the conditions for ending terrorism had already been established.
When discussing the goal of a terror-free Türkiye, whether regarding what has been done so far or what lies ahead, it is crucial to remember and remind others of these points. When these points are overlooked, what the PKK says in an attempt to save face is turned into a tool by certain circles.
Some might wonder if the PKK is already in such a state, then why start this process at all? It is worth recalling another critical aspect of the matter: If a cancer cell is not fully eradicated and thoroughly treated in all its aspects, it will regenerate once it finds suitable conditions. The state has reactivated these methods to eliminate the terrorist organization entirely and in all its dimensions by creating the right conditions. When the process succeeds, a strategic threshold will have been crossed in the "Century of Türkiye." If any elements within the terrorist organization, or structures operating under different names, attempt to continue terrorist activities, the state will, without compromise, continue its fight against terrorism.
