Negotiating with terrorists?

[shadowdude]

You are assuming way too much.
First of all; the question was about "Negotiating with terrorists?" not Muslim terrorists in particular.

In your post, you mentioned that the it is mostly the US that says "No, don't negotiate with terrorists". Since the US is currently dealing with muslim terrorist groups, I thought it fair to see if you could name a country that has successfully negotiated with such a threat before dismissing the strategy of non-negotiation and agreeing with the strategy of the "experts".

Secondly the question is about whether governments should negotiate with terrorists or not - not about "only use negotiations when dealing with terrorists".

In the Japanese Embassy hostage crisis in Peru in 1997 negotiations were used to gain time to build a tunnel in case the negotiations itself didn't succeed.

From the Wiki article I got the impression that the negotiations were almost strictly used to gain time for a rescue operation, as though a peaceful resolution through negotation was never intended by Peru's government. If that was the case it would seem that it wasn't really much of an example of a wholeheared effort at hammering out a solution.

 

[machia]

Only to point the ETA case that it's being used as example.
This is NOT a negotiation. The Spanish govt. has never succesfully negotiated with ETA. Now they are surrending, what is being negotiated are the terms of this surrender. In the 1980's there were some "conversations" (that's the term the govt. used) but they leaded nowhere. I voted NO.

 

[Sidhe]

All Americans don't think like anything in particular. We span the entire religious and political spectrums and frequently argue amongst ourselves about every conceivable topic.

I suspect you could also substitute the word 'Europeans' for 'Americans' in the above statement and it would still be equally true.

I agree of course, it's like when some Iranian says they would nuke Israel given half the chance or ship them to Alaska or drive them into the sea to die, whatever BS you want to name, it is the view of a single person, A country is more diverse than an idiot with an opinion.

Basically it's a device to make that point, not an inference of the stupidity of a race or a single person.

 

[betazed]

To all those who have taken the hard-line stance of "never negotiating with terrorists" I have a question.

Let's say a that a terrorist group claims to have hidden three nukes in three cities of your respective country and threaten to set them off unless you meet their demands. Lets also say that you have reason to believe that they are NOT bluffing.

Would you still not negotiate?

 

[Xanikk999]

That says it all really. Do Americans all think like you or are you a minority I truly hope so?

Can you honestly be that stupid to actually have that question.

Is there any nation where all the people think alike? NO

Dont ask stupid questions.

 

[Sidhe]

Thanks for missing the point,come again

really do you think I make pointless posts for effect, no. So think don't react, what am I really asking here, what is my point?

I'll give you a clue you just did it. It involves knees and people we think of as w***ers.

EDIT: Anyway I'm trying to hook the original fish, so I may have to wait a while. You just took the bait, and now I have to toss you back into the sea.

 

[MobBoss]

To all those who have taken the hard-line stance of "never negotiating with terrorists" I have a question.

Let's say a that a terrorist group claims to have hidden three nukes in three cities of your respective country and threaten to set them off unless you meet their demands. Lets also say that you have reason to believe that they are NOT bluffing.

Would you still not negotiate?

Whats to say we did negotiate and release prisoners or whatever they want. Where is the guarantee they wont fire the nukes anyway?

Bottom line...how can you trust terrorists to keep their word?

 

[kingjoshi]

Just because one thinks we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists doesn't mean the government shouldn't do something about the roots of the problems and concerns that cause some to support terrorists.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Never ever negoiate with terrorists under any circumstances. Once you decide it is okay in certain cases, you get into that amibgious territory were you are in a weakened state and the terrorists can walk all over you. Negotiations are only possible when there are two or more rational parties involved, terrorists by their very nature are very irrational and have nothing to lose if they go back on their word.

 

[Ayatollah So]

kingjoshi got the most important point. The second most important is not to take the demands of terrorist groups as anything more than psychological diagnostic tools. It says something about their motivations, but it doesn't say all. The real motives probably have more to do with their relationships with their fathers, quite frankly. But it's harder to openly admit hating your father than hating some country halfway around the world. Especially if that country has disrespected yours. These guys are full of rage, and the terrorist cause provides a convenient rationalization to express it.

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..)From the Wiki article I got the impression that the negotiations were almost strictly used to gain time for a rescue operation, as though a peaceful resolution through negotation was never intended by Peru's government. If that was the case it would seem that it wasn't really much of an example of a wholeheared effort at hammering out a solution.

The question is: negotiate or not ??? Negotiations - even if the goal of those is not to "wn" on the negotiation table, but simply buy time qualifies as a reason for "yes - always try to negotiate". And in the rare cases negotiations do succeed, that's a bonus.

Whats to say we did negotiate and release prisoners or whatever they want. Where is the guarantee they wont fire the nukes anyway?

What is there to lose if you start negotiations (and do them properly)? By negotiating you'll never lose, you can only gain.

Never ever negoiate with terrorists under any circumstances. Once you decide it is okay in certain cases, you get into that amibgious territory were you are in a weakened state and the terrorists can walk all over you.

Sorry, you've lost me. Please explain in detail why negotiating weakens you. And please explain the "terrorists can walk all over you" part. Or are you repeating a mantra ?

 

[JollyRoger]

The IRA's goal was only to secure independence for Northern Ireland, not to impose their fanatic religious views on the UK. The difference is that the IRA can be negotiated with, not like these freaks were fighting in the Middle East.

What to most of the freaks in the Middle East want? Independence from western intervention - not to focefully impose their religious views on the west.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Negotiating with terrorists means we are acknowledging that they have succeeded over us. When dealing with terrorists, you should use brute force.

 

[Dame Edna]

What to most of the freaks in the Middle East want? Independence from western intervention - not to focefully impose their religious views on the west.

Your question is right but your answer is wrong, I'll try to explain. In order to negotiate with terrorists there are some basic requirements:

1. the terrorists must have clearly defined goals that can be practically realised and implemented (eg. independence for a defined people and/or territory, recognition of certain rights), otherwise why bother to negotiate with them

2. there must be a coherent command/ruling group with whom negotiations can be conducted and agreed outcomes enforced

3. the terrorists must be willing to negotiate in a rational sense (even if their methods have been barbaric), this will usually be possible if conditions 1 & 2 are met (eg. IRA)

4. there must be the possibility for both sides of gaining at least the same, if not more through negotiation than they would through armed conflict

These are admittedly general principles but I think they provide a reasonable guide to determing whether there is any point negotiating with certain terrorist groups.

Which brings me to your answer to your question. I don't believe it is possible to negotiate with groups like Al Qaeda or some of it's affiliates because what they are asking for is either a movable feast or realistically not possible to agree too (eg. establishment of a new Islamic Caliphate covering either the Middle East or South East Asia).

However groups like Hamas and some of the Sunni tribal/Baathist resistance groups in Iraq probably would fit the criteria because (however unpalatable their methods) they have goals around which negotiations could take place. Of course the Israelis and the Americans would have to see some benefit in opening negotiations with these groups - time will tell.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Negotiations with terrorists are no different than with an agressive nation. I mean if we can negotiate with the Hitlers and the Stalins I see no reason why there should be a barrier with the Bin Landens. If we do not negotitate then we have only one option left and that is confrontation. This has been tried by the US in areas such as Afgan and Iraq. Is the world any safer through these invasions? No. The invasions only acted as another reason for people to hate the US and terrorists to get recruits. Terrorists do not fly planes into buildings for fun they have a cause - in many cases a legit one. The only reason they resort to violence is because diplomacy has been blocked by so-called democratic nations. Isn't negotiation one of the hallmarks of civilized society and democracy? Terrorists groups cannot as much as get their message heard not to mention contemplated by governments so they fly a plane into something. Suddenly they have their face on every news channel. If negotiation encourages them think of what media hysteria does to their egos.

The idea that forcibly implanting democracy into foreign countries will prevent violence (Wilsonism) is wrong. It didn't work after WW1 and it is not working in the war on terror.

 

[Shaihulud]

It seems to me an outsider, the reason that the Isralis do not negotiate with Terrorists is because they are more afraid of the results that will come from peace; the partition of their homeland. The negotiations with the IRA has neutralized the more dangerous part of that orgainsation, there may be many people who still wishes harm on Britain, but as long as they stay neutralized they would not carry out their actions.

Have we asked ourselves what the Islamic terrorists want? I hear some comments that it is the destruction of the Western world, I hope that they are not taking at face value what some big headed muslim cleric says. People in power to use bombastic statement and jingoism all the time.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

I agree, because government and terrorist need each other to exist.

 

[kingjoshi]

Have we asked ourselves what the Islamic terrorists want?

There is no one group called "Islamic terrorists". Many Islamic Palestinian terrorists want Israel wiped off the map. That's no just some random person saying it. It's in their charter as an organization. There are many terrorist groups in Palestine. It's the mission of Hamas, who was recently elected government by a majority of the Palestinian people.

How much do you sacrifice in negotiations for the other party to agree for your right to exist? Shouldn't that be part of the basis before the rest of the compromises?

This issue is separate from the rest of the other Islamic terrorist groups. Because here, there is definitely some blur between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter". Many other Islamic terrorist groups do that even have that.

And if you really don't think some Islamic fundamentalists actually want a cultural/religious war, you're fooling yourself. For some, that's their goal.

 

[Red Stranger]

Appeasement never works.

 

[Shaihulud]

There is no one group called "Islamic terrorists". Many Islamic Palestinian terrorists want Israel wiped off the map. That's no just some random person saying it. It's in their charter as an organization. There are many terrorist groups in Palestine. It's the mission of Hamas, who was recently elected government by a majority of the Palestinian people.

Mere rhetorics, the destruction of Israel was in the charter of Fatah as well, and they were able to deal with the Israelis. Negotiations should always be an option even if it is doomed to failure for now, the other side of negotiation is total destruction of the other side, very difficult to achieve given that most islamic terrorists have a very large base of support.

It is always better to negotiate from a position of strength(any legitimate government)the stronger your position the better the compromise. Its the 21th century World we are living in, compromise should be the key word to live by. Being absolute and uncompromising about any position is hard to maintain, and that rule applies to the terrorists aswell.