We will not negotiate with terrorists

[Divinus Arma]

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?

Sure. Hostage taking in 3rd World countries and in Iraq. It's a regular business and people regularly pay up. So they continue to take hostages to get ransom.

Article 1 (CNN) (Hostage taking in Iraq)


Department of State: Policy

US Government Responsibilities When Private US Citizens Are Taken Hostage
On the basis of past experience, the US Government concluded that making concessions that benefit hostage takers in exchange for the release of hostages increased the danger that others will be taken hostage. US Government policy is, therefore, to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession. At the same time, the US Government will make every effort—including contact with representatives of the captors—to obtain the release of hostages without making concessions to the hostage takers.

The Heritage Foundation Discussion on Phillipnes decision to give in to terrorist demands.

Edit: BTW, this has been American Policy ever since the retarded Carter Administartion: Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton, and Bush #2 all agree.

[Ser Clegane]

Regarding the taking of hostages, I think that Iraq shows pretty clearly that it does not make any difference whether individual countries negotiate the release of their citizens or not.

In addition I think you have to differentiate between terrorists and "simple" criminals.

Also, I believe the issue of this topic is not the negotiation about the release of individual hostages - but negotiations on a much higher level, i.e., negotiating a complete end of hostilities.

The Heritage article is no "evidence", BTW - it's an opinion.

[Divinus Arma]

More:

Australia Defence Association. Discussion on negotiations.

UK: Black September. PLFP - the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine succeeds in getting the UK to negotiate and give in. Leila Khaled was a member of the PLFP. These are the results:

Speaking to UK Confidential, Leila Khaled, now a middle-aged housewife, admitted that the PFLP was encouraged by the UK's capitulation to its demands.

"It was a good step for us that we saw governments could be negotiated with. We could impose our demands.

"The success in the tactics of the hijacking and imposing our demands and succeeding in having our demands implemented gave us the courage and the confidence to go ahead with our struggle."

Background By John Deutch, former director of the CIA)


It is irrational to think that negotiating with terrorists will somehow not lead to more terrorism.

edit: I said the Heritage Foundation Article was a discussion, not evidence.

[Xiahou]

It is irrational to think that negotiating with terrorists will somehow not lead to more terrorism.

Indeed. I can't believe this isn't common sense to most people. Someone commits an act of terrorism against you.... you negotiate and make concessions to terrorists. What's the message this sends? Terrorism is a viable means to an end.

[Scurvy]

If you dont negotiate for the release of hostages then the hostages die, so it leaves very little choice....

[Sheep]

What possible negotiating position do we even have?

Osama: "We're going to destroy you all"

Us: "No, we're going to destroy YOU all."

Where do you go from there? Talk him down to only destroying a few major cities?

What's a transparent society, and what does it look like?

Nothing. It's transparent.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If you dont negotiate for the release of hostages then the hostages die, so it leaves very little choice....

True.

However, the larger question actually centers on who makes policy. Do you want your duly elected leaders to do so for your country, or would you prefer that their actions be dictated by the designs of some terrorist group.

A state must be willing to write off the individuals in question rather than alter its policies in response to the threat -- however horrible that may be on an individual level. At its logical extreme, the state would be better served by locating the hostages and then wiping out the entire area (with minimum collateral damage), thus demonstrating that the lives of the individuals involved will never alter the state's policies.

This is a bit harsh, so I'm willing to support the "we'll talk, but there will be no concessions" approach.

As to the larger theme in this thread, I am all for negotiations -- right up to the [oint where I'm being treated with violence. At that point, we will negotiate only when my opponent has quit, preferably because they can no longer stand. People make the mistake of thinking that this concept is inappropriate because it's too simplistic for the socio-political context of the real world. Poppycock. Bullys cannot be negotiated with until they're down and bleeding. Once you have their attention by such means, then and only then will the discussion prove worthwhile. Otherwise, you're simply negotiating about how often you'd like to be kicked in the cojones, abused, and just how much of your own lunch money you get to keep.