A state’s power is measured not only by its army but also by its intellect armed with knowledge. Turkey’s intelligence service thwarts the plans of terrorist organizations with its actions on the ground while securing national interests through diplomacy at the table. With every step planned and every move calculated, the National Intelligence Organization has recently become a key actor in ensuring regional stability and crisis management. In short, MİT has exceptionally proven that it is both the shield and the sword of the state, controlling the field with unseen hands while shaping the future with its silent intellect at the table.
Counter-Terrorism or Negotiation? The “Terror-Free” Model of Intelligence Services
“Doha talks began after years of secret meetings brokered by intelligence officers and proved that intelligence diplomacy could shape the course of conflicts.” – Carter Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, 2021
In June 1985, the entire world witnessed the hijacking of Trans World Airlines Flight 847, en route from Cairo to San Diego, by two armed Lebanese members of Hezbollah. The hijackers announced they were taking the passengers hostage and would kill some of them. The hostage crisis, which lasted for 17 days, involved negotiations with parties demanding the release of Shiites imprisoned by Israel and the withdrawal of the U.S. from Lebanon. It ended with one fatality and the release of the remaining hostages. The TWA 847 incident is significant for understanding the complexity of international relations and the methods states use to handle such situations, particularly the combined use of counter-terrorism and negotiation strategies. Similarly, the conflicts between the United Kingdom and the IRA, which began in the 1980s, concluded with the Belfast Agreement in 1998 following secret talks conducted between the British intelligence services, MI5 and MI6. The essential point here is the success, in terms of national security, of the strategy of simultaneously conducting intelligence and operational force on the ground with diplomatic and secret negotiation processes at the table.
Globally, counter-terrorism strategies often manifest at two extremes: direct operations in the field or diplomacy and negotiation processes at the table. In its experiences with Lebanon and Palestine in the 1970s, Israel faced both harsh operations and behind-the-scenes secret dialogues. Similarly, it is known that in the long-term negotiations of the Colombian government with FARC and Spain with ETA, solutions were sought not only through the pressure of security forces but also through the information and communication channels provided by intelligence. The role of the intelligence service was particularly significant in Spain’s official peace process with ETA, which began in 2006. The disarmament process here was achieved through a combination of operational pressure and negotiation.
The international security literature reveals that military methods alone are not sufficient in counter-terrorism and that negotiation and intelligence-based dialogue processes also play a critical role. Negotiation processes conducted alongside operational pressure and facilitated by intelligence services have been effective in improving the counter-terrorism processes of many countries, and in some cases, have led to the disarmament of organizations. These ongoing hybrid strategies, involving mediation activities and crisis management, have become vital for states to maintain their security objectives. A recent example of this is the “Terror-Free Turkey” process initiated by the Republic of Turkey.
The Turkish Example
“Negotiating with terrorists is often seen as a sign of weakness, but history shows that strategic dialogue can end decades-long conflicts where military force has failed.” – Michael Axworthy, Negotiating with Terrorists, 2012
The “Terror-Free Turkey” process initiated this year in Turkey brings to mind the question: “why did it not happen in the past, and why is it different now?” Essentially, the difference between this process and the Solution Process carried out between 2013-2015 is that today, MİT is not just an actor that talks at the table, but is in a central position with a strong hand, backed by its absolute intelligence superiority in the field. In other words, the modernization process MİT underwent after 2016, enhancing both its diplomatic and operational capabilities, allows the Organization today to execute strategies based not on “good-faith dialogue” but on the logic of “power-backed negotiation.” The talks personally conducted by MİT President İbrahim Kalin are directly related to his diplomatic and strategic communication background. Kalın served for years in the coordination of foreign and security policies and has personally sat at international negotiation tables. This experience is essential and significant in MİT’s transformation from a purely operational service to an actor that combines diplomacy with power on the ground.
Turkey’s counter-terrorism strategy stands out as a unique hybrid model that simultaneously employs conventional military operations with diplomatic and intelligence-based negotiation processes. This approach parallels methods conceptualized in international security literature as coercive diplomacy and intelligence diplomacy; however, the Turkish case is distinguished by its simultaneous and coordinated application of these methods both on the ground and at the table. In the processes led by MİT, secret contacts and negotiations with organizations are conducted as backchannel negotiations not disclosed to the public, while at the same time, the operational capacity in the field functions as a tool that strengthens Turkey’s hand at the negotiation table. While this method offers a framework similar to the secret talks conducted by the UK with the IRA or the negotiations held by the US with the Taliban in Doha, Turkey’s model gains a unique dimension through its local intelligence network and operational advantage. In conclusion, MİT’s hybrid approach makes it possible not only to weaken organizations militarily but also to produce solutions on a political and diplomatic level, thus creating a strategic model that establishes security both on the ground and at the table.
Written by: Tugba Koc
