We will not negotiate with terrorists

[Kaiser of Arabia]

A nuddist colony and it makes it hard to smuggle bombs... also it would be extremely hard to vote for these old hardline politicians... The Democrats in Australia would probably do a lot better in the polls :



Vs Labour



Vs John Howard Prime Minister:

...yeah...

I still vote nukes.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's only you, me and our neighbours that can react to terrorism activity.

So your ready to join Bush in the war on terror then?

[Sigurd]

In 1993 I attended a seminar in Scotland, the speaker a Scottish SAS officer with the surname Sharkey spoke about terrorism. His experience came from Israel where he received his counter terrorist training in the 70-80's. He said; "This is how we respond to terrorists; we do not deal with terrorists, the only thing we can promise is that you will all die". He said further that any other reaction will increase the amount of terror many times over.
This was true back in the 90's...
I wish I could have asked the question back then; "What do you do with a terrorist that wants to die?"

[Samurai Waki]

Give him an adorable puppy

Terrorist: "Hey can I blow myself up when I the cute little puppy keeps licking my face?"

[econ21]

Well, the "We will not negotiate with terrorists" mantra tends to be used in two different contexts.

A) One is with a specific instance where the terrorists threaten to do something bad to you unless you give them something they want. Al Zarqawi's people seizing a US hostage in Iraq and demanding the release of all female prisoners might be a good example of this kind of situation.

B) The other is more general, where there is the possibility of sitting down more generally with terrorists and negotiating a political settlement to a conflict. An example of this might be the UK in the 1980s refusing to talk to the IRA or maybe today Israel and Hamas.

The latest Bin Laden video is interesting because it seems to straddle both (or neither) types of situation - he makes vague threats and also talks vaguely of a "truce".

Personally, I am very hard-line on negotiation in situation (A) and dove-ish on situation (B).

With regards to A, it just seems insane to give terrorists money, personnel, recognition, political concessions whatever in return for saving a few lives. Not only will what you give them directly fuel more hostage-taking etc, but it will also encourage other groups to pick on you. Can you imagine the prestige Bin Laden would get if he could say "Well, I talked to President Bush and in response to our campaign, he is now withdrawing his troops from Iraq and Afghanistan"? It seems far better to tough it out.

With regards to B, one only has to look at history to see that it is littered with instances of political negotiations between governments and "terrorists". The IRA in Northern Ireland is one such case. Others may be Nicaragua in the 1980s, Palestine in the 1940s, South Africa during apartheid etc. But with this case, you have to be dealing with a "terrorist" group that genuinely represents a large segment of a people and is really interested in a political settlement. I think Bin Laden fails both tests. He is no representative of any Iraqis or Afghans, nor does his "truce" sound very inviting. By contrast, sitting down and quietly talking with specific local Iraqi insurgents (definitely not the Al Zarqawi type Bin Laden clones though) might be sensible, but the problem seems to be that they have no discernible political wing that wants to talk - they seem more interested in blood on the streets than political goals.

[Samurai Waki]

Bin Laden's only political goal is to remove the infidels from the "holy land" and then take the fight directly to them thereafter. He will do whatever it takes to achieve those goals as well, and also has monetary, and some albeit a little support from Muslim Clergy, especially the Wahabists to make great gains in the political field if he were to force the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I think he is beginning to realize that the US is doubting it's presence in Iraq, and wants to make some concessions so that if the allied forces are to leave that there will be no backlash for the time being.

The US and Allies have to realize that for the good of Iraq and Afghanistan we must stay, and as Simon pointed out, we should talk to the rabble and riff-raff 'terrorists' as they would be more easily deterred from commiting suicide/ Terrorist bombings, then say Al Zarqawi who has a clear and single minded agenda. Not only that, if we were to strike an accord with the rebels (who most certainly do not like Al Qaeda) they may give some clue as to where the man is. The Rebels hate Al Zarqawi but they rely on him for intelligence and munition support, if we were to leave, The Baathist Rebels would certainly turn on Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Saying "we will not negotiate" I agree is foolish. If the terrorists have valid claims which would hurt nobody to allow them to carry out, there's no reason why negotiation should be refused. Then it's state terrorism to deny it to them. Especially nowadays when the word "terrorist" is abused and given to anyone appropriate during a short moment, to use as a political tool much like the witch accusations during the period of witchhunt in Europe, it's important to make sure that not all methods of dealing with real terrorists without thinking it through are extend to include these new people who are incorporated in the terrorist concept.

However if the terrorists say "we'll blow up this plane unless you give us, personally, 10 million dollars" not negotiating can be a very good principle. Or if they say "you must all have a communist leadership in your country or we'll blow you all up", then not negotiating is also appropriate.

In all cases where the alleged terrorists don't openly state what their entire list of demands and political program and ultimate goals are, asking them to state them can only be a good thing. If it turns out their claims are impossible to meet, negotations can always be ended. But if you refuse to even negotiate as far as to finding out what they want, then you're only foolish IMO. If they answer they won't tell you what their demands and goals are, then they've made negotiations impossible. If you answer them you won't tell them what your demands and goals are, then you've made negotiations impossible. If only one of the sides refuse negotiations that side clearly puts the ethics and moral in the hands of the opponent.

The "refuse to negotiate" principle is most likely a derivate of the old historical prestige-vs-rebels principle employed by monarchs all over the world before the democratic systems started being incorporated in western countries. However emplying a total refusal of negotiation in these modern cases would be a clear misunderstanding of how that principle works. It's essential to never make rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists feel that their violence achieved an improvement for them. This means it's usually not appropriate to just after an act of terror negotiate, but the principle also encourages negotiation with people who are on the verge of becoming terrorists and haven't yet used violence or threatened with it. The things needed to minimize terrorism, rebellions or similar are:
1. make sure a for the people better life isn't given shortly after they used violence to protest against their life situations. This is to not encourage more rebellions because previous ones were successful
2. remove the incentive to rebellion by giving the violent people what they want, if the claims are fair and possible to meet. 3. still be prepared to fight defensively in the cases where the claims of the opponent aren't fair or possible to meet.
3. establish open and safe channels for the rebels, terrorists and freedom fighters so they can anonymously communicate their discontent peacefully. Encourage the usage of this medium over the use of violent protests as a means of expressing your opinion. This is to allow the leaders to in any way find out about discontent before it goes as far as to violence.
4. make sure treatment of terrorists, rebels and freedom fighters is just and fair, and not handled as a genocide terror killing spree, so that ordinary people don't feel they might be target to gestapo style raids.
5. make sure the leaders really listen to the communication channel carefully and try to adapt their politics, and don't abuse the communication channel for gestapo style actions. In cases when it seems impossible to meet the demands over the communication channel, the leaders should list what was impossible to carry out in practise and why, and ask the people to find a better solution to the problem. If they can't find a better solution one can avoid violence by making it clear that there are no better solutions to the problem, and that who holds the leadership therefore doesn't matter.

[Tachikaze]

Saying "we will not negotiate" I agree is foolish. If the terrorists have valid claims which would hurt nobody to allow them to carry out, there's no reason why negotiation should be refused. Then it's state terrorism to deny it to them. Especially nowadays when the word "terrorist" is abused and given to anyone appropriate during a short moment, to use as a political tool much like the witch accusations during the period of witchhunt in Europe, it's important to make sure that not all methods of dealing with real terrorists without thinking it through are extend to include these new people who are incorporated in the terrorist concept.

However if the terrorists say "we'll blow up this plane unless you give us, personally, 10 million dollars" not negotiating can be a very good principle. Or if they say "you must all have a communist leadership in your country or we'll blow you all up", then not negotiating is also appropriate.

In all cases where the alleged terrorists don't openly state what their entire list of demands and political program and ultimate goals are, asking them to state them can only be a good thing. If it turns out their claims are impossible to meet, negotations can always be ended. But if you refuse to even negotiate as far as to finding out what they want, then you're only foolish IMO. If they answer they won't tell you what their demands and goals are, then they've made negotiations impossible. If you answer them you won't tell them what your demands and goals are, then you've made negotiations impossible. If only one of the sides refuse negotiations that side clearly puts the ethics and moral in the hands of the opponent.

The "refuse to negotiate" principle is most likely a derivate of the old historical prestige-vs-rebels principle employed by monarchs all over the world before the democratic systems started being incorporated in western countries. However emplying a total refusal of negotiation in these modern cases would be a clear misunderstanding of how that principle works. It's essential to never make rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists feel that their violence achieved an improvement for them. This means it's usually not appropriate to just after an act of terror negotiate, but the principle also encourages negotiation with people who are on the verge of becoming terrorists and haven't yet used violence or threatened with it. The things needed to minimize terrorism, rebellions or similar are:
1. make sure a for the people better life isn't given shortly after they used violence to protest against their life situations. This is to not encourage more rebellions because previous ones were successful
2. remove the incentive to rebellion by giving the violent people what they want, if the claims are fair and possible to meet. 3. still be prepared to fight defensively in the cases where the claims of the opponent aren't fair or possible to meet.
3. establish open and safe channels for the rebels, terrorists and freedom fighters so they can anonymously communicate their discontent peacefully. Encourage the usage of this medium over the use of violent protests as a means of expressing your opinion. This is to allow the leaders to in any way find out about discontent before it goes as far as to violence.
4. make sure treatment of terrorists, rebels and freedom fighters is just and fair, and not handled as a genocide terror killing spree, so that ordinary people don't feel they might be target to gestapo style raids.
5. make sure the leaders really listen to the communication channel carefully and try to adapt their politics, and don't abuse the communication channel for gestapo style actions. In cases when it seems impossible to meet the demands over the communication channel, the leaders should list what was impossible to carry out in practise and why, and ask the people to find a better solution to the problem. If they can't find a better solution one can avoid violence by making it clear that there are no better solutions to the problem, and that who holds the leadership therefore doesn't matter.

I like this. It saves me from writing a similar post.

On my own part, I have to say I'm tired of Bush's absolutes and ultimatums ("You're either with us or against us", etc.). What a child.

[Divinus Arma]

There is one simple reason why we do not negotiate with terrorists:

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

That's pretty much the end of the discussion.

[Ser Clegane]

There is one simple reason why we do not negotiate with terrorists:

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

That's pretty much the end of the discussion.

This is the one and main argument that is always brought forward in this context.

Mind you, I do not believe that AQ currently is a partner for negotiations - but is there actually any empirical evidence that supports the point that negotiations lead to more terrorism compared to refusing to negotiate?

I highly doubt that this is the case and think that broad statements like this have any merit - I think decisions whether to start negotiations with terrorist groups or not should be made on an individual case basis and should not be approached dogmatically.

[Tachikaze]

There is one simple reason why we do not negotiate with terrorists:

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

That's pretty much the end of the discussion.

No, it isn't the end of the discussion. You could say the same about war. So, I guess negotiations are out in all cases.

[Soulforged]

If you accede to their demands at all, then it will encourage more terrorism.

I don't think so Divinus. Terrorism is occasioned by an original cause, that still exists (like for example looking for independence) and as long as this root exists you'll have terrorism. If you accede to their demands it will not exactly encourage terrorism it will only sustain the status quo. As I see it the only occasion in wich that logic might work out is when the terrorists in question only do terrorism for money, a la mercenary, or when they do it for simple pleasure wich is rather improbable.
I think that negotiation is unavoidable, both, before the terroist group is destroyed, and after (if destroyed). The expression "we will not negotiate with terrorists" might sound brave and attract the public attention, but it really is foolish and futile.

[Idaho]

[COLOR=black]In 1993 I attended a seminar in Scotland, the speaker a Scottish SAS officer with the surname Sharkey spoke about terrorism. His experience came from Israel where he received his counter terrorist training in the 70-80's. He said; "This is how we respond to terrorists; we do not deal with terrorists, the only thing we can promise is that you will all die".

At his level of operation this is probably true. However it's not the job of elite assault/special ops troops to ponder the merits or tactics of negotiation. It's like asking a hand grenade to go and make sandwiches.