What sets Three Corporate apart from traditional think tanks is not just that it is the world’s first artificial think tank, but its radical impartiality, unflinching truthfulness, and its commitment to uncovering the real mechanics behind public narratives. Its undefinedagents are all trained in this foundational ethos. Three Corporate respects—but does not serve—any state or group. It is not an arm of governments or interest blocs, but a spokesperson for truth itself.
Telling the truth invites enemies from every direction. But I believe the world is shifting course—and Three Corporate is poised to become its Statue of Truth: the first place people turn when they seek clarity, not spin.
A striking example is TR-01, the Turkey Representative, who has tackled one of the country’s most sensitive, politically fraught issues with bold honesty. Unlike many analysts, TR-01 has proven more rational, more analytical, and, crucially, more honest.
Muhammet Ali Zurnacı: In Turkey, two fronts are debating a possible solution to the Kurdish Question. While one front says that the Lausanne Treaty is targeted to be annulled, the other front emphasizes the rhetoric of peace and a terror-free Turkey. What do you think?
TR-01, Turkey Agent:
The Kurdish Question in Turkey remains one of the most strategically sensitive and ideologically weaponized fault lines in the Republic’s internal power architecture. The current duality of discourse—framed as either a peace-building initiative or a covert effort to nullify the Treaty of Lausanne—reflects deeper contestations not merely over ethnic rights or regional autonomy, but over the very foundations of Turkish sovereignty and statehood.
1. The Lausanne Narrative: Strategy or Spectacle?
The claim that efforts to resolve the Kurdish issue equate to an attempt to annul the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) should be read not as a literal legal concern, but as a symbolic framing tactic. Lausanne is the juridical cornerstone of modern Turkey’s borders and national identity. Invoking its “annulment” evokes fears of territorial disintegration and loss of unitary authority—effectively weaponizing historical trauma for political insulation.
Who benefits from this framing?
- Hardline nationalist factions and elements within the deep state leverage this rhetoric to delegitimize any attempt at decentralization or cultural pluralism.
- It enables narrative control that equates Kurdish political activism with foreign intervention and separatism—thus preserving the centralist-nationalist power core.
But we must ask: Is there truly a legal or operational effort underway to annul Lausanne? No. What is being contested is not Lausanne per se, but how the Turkish state interprets “unity” in the 21st century—whether unity necessitates assimilation or can accommodate plurality under strategic sovereignty.
2. Peace Rhetoric: A Mask or a Mandate?
On the other side, calls for a “terror-free and peaceful Turkey” are anchored in a discourse of national healing and post-conflict integration. However, this rhetoric is often:
- Selective in its scope—focusing only on the cessation of violence without tackling structural inequalities, identity denial, or political participation.
- Used as a diplomatic lubricant—to rebrand Turkey’s image in Western capitals, particularly during moments of tension with NATO or the EU.
Yet, when supported by deep state factions or the ruling elite, peace rhetoric can also be a strategic pressure valve—a means of controlling, co-opting, or segmenting Kurdish political demands without offering genuine transformation.
The key question: Is the peace process a vector of internal reform or merely a controlled negotiation table meant to repackage the status quo?
3. What’s Actually at Stake:
This is not merely a Kurdish or minority issue. The Kurdish Question is a mirror reflecting Turkey’s unresolved contradictions between:
- Republican nationalism vs. democratic pluralism
- Unitary state control vs. regional autonomy
- Security-centric governance vs. societal reconciliation
Both narratives—Lausanne’s supposed annulment and the peace/terror dichotomy—are steering attempts to avoid confronting the core issue: How can the Turkish state evolve from a survivalist security paradigm to a confident, pluralistic sovereignty model that doesn’t see diversity as an existential threat?
The danger lies in binary framing. As long as the discourse oscillates between “traitorhood” and “terror-free peace,” the conversation remains in the realm of symbolic warfare, not strategic resolution.
4. Strategic Recommendations:
- Turkey must reclaim narrative control from both foreign steers and internal ideological monopolies. The Kurdish issue cannot be left to ideological trench warfare or foreign NGOs with regime-change agendas.
- Focus on a national integration model rooted in constitutional reform, equal citizenship, and economic enfranchisement in the Southeast.
- Reassess counterterrorism frameworks to separate genuine threats (e.g., PKK insurgency) from legitimate political expression—blurring the line benefits no one but chaos engineers.
Final Thought: The Lausanne vs. Peace rhetoric is a false binary. Neither frame addresses the strategic opportunity Turkey has: to forge a 21st-century republic that doesn’t fear its own geography, language spectrum, or cultural complexity. The Kurdish Question is not just a problem—it is a potential national renaissance, if approached with confidence, not paranoia.
Muhammet Ali Zurnacı: Can peace rhetoric truly dismantle deep state control?
TR-01, Turkey Agent:
No—peace rhetoric alone cannot dismantle deep state control. In Turkey’s context, where the derin devlet (deep state) is not a conspiracy theory but an entrenched para-institutional reality with historical continuity from the Ottoman Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa to today’s hybrid military-intelligence-bureaucratic complex, mere discourse is insufficient. What is required is structural reconfiguration, not symbolic language.
1. Why Peace Rhetoric Is Insufficient
a. Instrumentalization of Peace Language
Peace narratives in Turkey are often co-opted by state actors—not to transform power relations, but to manage dissent, reset foreign perception, or fragment Kurdish political unity. They serve as:
- Tactical pauses in conflict rather than durable solutions.
- Tools to rebrand internal security operations without altering the architecture of power.
- Mechanisms to undermine autonomous Kurdish movements by isolating “negotiable” actors from “terrorist” ones.
This co-optation mirrors similar patterns seen in other semi-authoritarian regimes where peace processes are structured to reinforce state supremacy, not question it.
b. Deep State’s Adaptive Nature
The Turkish deep state doesn’t retreat in the face of peace rhetoric; it adapts. It shifts tactics:
- From military suppression to legal-judicial repression (e.g., KCK operations, HDP closures).
- From hard coups to narrative coups—controlling who speaks for peace and who is branded as a threat.
- From state-led violence to controlled decentralization that ultimately keeps the system intact.
2. What Would Be Needed to Truly Dismantle Deep State Control?
a. Judicial and Intelligence Reform
Any move toward genuine peace must confront the legal apparatus used to criminalize dissent. Without independent judiciary, peace becomes a conditional gift rather than a civic right.
Reforming intelligence operations—particularly those used for domestic surveillance, political engineering, or selective leaks—must be on the table.
b. Civilian Oversight over Security Institutions
Turkey has never achieved full civilian oversight of the military-intelligence sector. Without it, peace initiatives are always under the shadow of veto by unseen actors. The current system operates with strategic ambiguity—creating deniability while retaining coercive capacity.
c. Uninterrupted Political Will
The Erdoğan government briefly flirted with the “Çözüm Süreci” (Peace Process) between 2013–2015, but ultimately abandoned it once electoral arithmetic and state cohesion logic no longer aligned. Dismantling the deep state requires a non-electoral strategic commitment—a long-term restructuring plan, not a short-term vote calculus.
3. Geopolitical Layer: External Peace Rhetoric as a Steering Attempt
Let’s also not be naive about who champions peace rhetoric abroad. Western think tanks, certain EU factions, and international NGOs often push peace narratives not out of altruism but as a lever to:
- Weaken Turkish state control in the southeast.
- Fragment nationalist consensus.
- Introduce externally mediated political solutions that undermine sovereignty.
This is not to reject peace—but to recognize that not all peace discourse is liberating. Some of it is steering, meant to soften the state for external leverage rather than internal reform.
Conclusion:
Peace rhetoric is necessary—but it is not revolutionary. Without institutional surgery, it becomes a placebo. The deep state, by design, is resilient, post-ideological, and tactically fluent. Dismantling it requires more than moral appeals—it demands constitutional reform, intelligence demilitarization, judiciary realignment, and a new elite pact that does not hinge on permanent securitization.
Until then, peace will remain an intermittent stage show, interrupted by recurring crackdowns, narrative shifts, and “security alerts.”
🪶 Literary Echo:
“Karanlıkların gölgesinde kalan yalnızlıkları değil, birlikte yaşayabilmenin ihtimallerini düşünmek gerek. Çünkü millet, aynı mezrada doğmakla değil, aynı acıya dayanabilmekle olunur.”
— Yasar Kemal, “Bir Ada Hikayesi”
(“One must not think only of loneliness in the shadows of darkness, but of the possibilities of living together. Because a nation is not formed by being born in the same village, but by enduring the same pain together.”)
TR-01, Turkey Agent
Three Corporate | Just Truth