Negotiating with terrorists encourages more terrorism
By
Photo: Sherif Omar
Negotiating with terrorists encourages even more terrorism” is a claim always heard by the political arena. But should we believe politicians who try make us believe that the use of military power is the only answer to violence is more violence? ,Harmonie Toros from the University of Kent published a paper about engaging with terrorism. According to her, a “key objection raised by terrorism scholars and policymakers against engaging in negotiations with terrorists is that it legitimizes terrorist groups, their goals and their means. Talking to them would serve only to incite more violence and weaken the fabric of democratic states, they argue.” In fact, many politicians advocate a policy of not negotiating with terrorists. This often has its roots in the belief that terrorists are not actually willing to accept compromise, a notion that undeniably applies to numerous terrorist groups, namely the ones with maximalist demands, e.g. ideological demands over beliefs or values.{1}
In 2002, US President George W. Bush explained his position that “No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.” While this exposes a rather one-dimensional understanding of terrorism,
One argument against the claim that negotiating with terrorists encourages more terrorism is that, in fact, many governments do (secretly) negotiate with organizations they label “terrorist”. This holds even for governments that publicly pronounce against such actions. According to Peter R. Neumann from London’s King’s College, “[when it comes to negotiating with terrorists, there is a clear disconnect between what governments profess and what they actually do.”{2} For him it is not the question if, but how to engage in negotiations with terrorists “in a way that minimizes the risk of setting dangerous precedents and destabilizing its political system.” If governments find the right strategy to engage in negotiations with terrorists, they have a chance to end terrorism or at least reduce violence; the British government’s negotiations with the IRA are a successful example.
Even governments with rather strict policies towards terrorists agree at least sometimes to negotiate terms for a release of hostages to safe the lives of their citizens. For ex: The prisoner exchange between Israel and the Hamas that freed Gilad Shalit is a famous example. It was widely and controversially discussed in the Israeli public. Some complained that the price was too high, others argued that terrorists should not be released at all and yet others were worried that negotiating with terrorists about hostage-release and the exchange of prisoners might incentivize further terrorist attacks. This claim would implicate that we should consider the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and possible similar future events as acts of terrorism. This is problematic in many ways. Firstly, the status of the Hamas as a terrorist organization is internationally disputed. Furthermore, it is, after all, a democratically elected government. A discussion of the issue of state-terrorism would lead too far from our topic though. Hamas demanded a ransom. Means kidnapping-for-ransom does not consider a terror act, particularly in cases in which the hostages are released. As a consequence, negotiations with terrorist groups about hostage release do not encourage more terrorism. The question if or if not they encourage kidnapping is a different one. At least in the case of Israel and the Hamas there haven’t been any further incidences. But I am sure it would happened again in my opinion due to many main players in the field of jihadi inside Gaza . Ex : Islamic jihad , has different opinion with Hamas ,
Other example: The notion that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists is a long-held principle. The enthusiasm over the release of kidnapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl angered some people because Bergdahl’s freedom involved the conditional release of five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay. {3 }{ US TODAY }Republican leaders in the House and Senate took turns hammering President Obama on Sunday for violating the law by not informing Congress of the deal beforehand. They claimed the move weakened America’s stance in the world and put U.S. troops at risk by showing terrorist organizations they can win concessions by kidnapping Americans
Negotiating with terrorists might have negative consequences, but I strongly believe that there are cases in which the benefits outweigh the costs. It is always important to ask if an engagement can be fruitful, especially when dealing with groups holding maximalist demands. On the one hand it is easy to see how negotiations with for example a terrorist group promoting international jihad would be absolutely futile. This is because many groups holding maximalist demands do not even seek negotiations as they do not believe that a government would accept their conditions. Moreover, their objectives are completely opposed to the values of many societies and, therefore, disqualified as a basis of negotiations. On the other hand there are cases in which negotiations might be a very helpful way to end political violence. Terrorist groups with limited demands like for example over territory are more likely to enter into negotiations and to actually agree to a compromise.
The assumption that negotiating with terrorists encourages even more terrorism is not completely wrong but also only partly true, depending on the type of group, e.g. if it holds limited or maximalist objectives, and the way the government is approaching negotiations. Negotiations with terrorist groups should, therefore, always be regarded as a tool of policymakers
Conclusion: IN my opinion ,I believe that negotiations are done case by case, there are negotiations with terrorist groups but in a different way like using a small state OR a trusted partner for both sides for ex: Qatar has a great role in that area , Representing the Europeans and America to release hostages in Lebanon, Iraq & Syria.{ 4,5,6} Also chief of German intelligence has a big role with Hezbollah in Lebanon.{7}
References :
{1{ Harmonie Toros from the University of Kent published a paper about engaging with terrorism
{2} According to Peter R. Neumann from London’s King’s College
{4} http://www.france24.com/en/20170422-qatar-iraq-hostages-ransom-syria-deal
{7} http://www.dw.com/en/german-spy-chief-denies-negotiations-behind-trip-to-beirut/a-2153054
About author: Sherif Omar – Director
CT& Intelligence Analysis Specialist /HECPO LEVEL4/PMC/CPO/FPOS-I
Hostile Environment Security Consulting LLC
http://www.hesc-security-consulting.com
hesc-1@hesc-security-consulting.com
Tel:+8562054240005
Share this:
Discover more from #News247WorldPress
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You must be logged in to post a comment.