Negotiate with terrorists?

Great Debates
1

My assertion, stated in another thread:

No governement should negotiate with any group that is actively engaged in terror as a means to accomplish their goals.

The response from ethicallynot is

And I agree that all terrorist groups are not created equal. But I still disagree with the distinctions made. The nature of the goal of the organization seems, to me, arbitrary. Whether it is ideologic or for land, is not relevant. To me it is the fact that rewarding terror as a tactic is likely to only further encourage its use. This should be true whether or not the terrorist demands are ones that I think are just or unjust, reasonable goals or absurd.

Thoughts?

2

Palestinian terrorism has been pretty rank
So, they should get no more than the entire West Bank.

America should have dealt with Timothy McVeigh
By giving him a portion of suburban of LA.

Way out West, we could make things calmer
By giving Montana to the Unabomber.

Osama bin Laden isn’t so great.
So, let’s offer him just a very small state.

But, Hitler’s fierceness commanded admiration
He deserved to get Belgium or some even larger nation.

I just can’t imagine what they’re all fighting for;
When appeasement can lead to the end of all war.

3

Who is a terrorist and who isn’t? As the OP and ethicallynot hints at; this is a matter of perception. AP somewhat moronically upheld this neutral view in absurdum in the days after 9/11 when they maintained the strict corporate policy of not using the term in any of their releases. Even if that was pushing it they have a point.

I know I’m throwing in a hand grenade in the gasoline tank now… but hell this is a debate so I’ll just do it: Saying that the Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists is contentious at best. The mass murder and terror they impact on the Israeli people is despicable, condemnable, horrid, against various conventions of war and human rights, as well as downright disgusting, but terrorist… I don’t know. If you ask the Israeli, yes. If you ask the Palestinians they might say “well, what about the terrorists that just leveled my home with a bulldozer?”, not that this it is an excuse, but that would be a valid point.

What about the IRA? Again you’ll have different views from different sides. IIRC the Brits ended up negotiating with Sinn Fein and still do… was that wrong?

All those groups are fighting against what they perceive as direct affronts to the human rights of themselves and their peoples. According to the standards of war they have a certain amount of right to do so.

I think the accepted view of terrorist is a person or group that uses indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians in order to promote or forward an arbitrary cause of their own. That doesn’t mean that using terror makes you a terrorist, otherwise every single warring entity in history would be terrorists. Still it’s contentious. If we use the term murderer or mass murderer I think it’s easier to make the distinction.

Atta was a mass murderer. McVeigh is as well. ibn Laden is/was in his terror against the West, but he was not when he fought the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Arafat is not. Sharon is not.

I’d say the two last peoples need to be negotiated with and the first three (the ones still alive) need to be treated as the mass murderers and criminals they are. You don’t negotiate with criminals; you hunt them down and prosecute them.

OTOH both the Palestinians and the Israeli are under accusation of committing various crimes against conventions and what-not as stated earlier so although they need to be negotiated with there is also the possibility that the responsible individuals in those groups should be prosecuted as war criminals.

Sparc

4

Sparc’s example of Sinn Fein is an excellent example.

The OP states that rewarding terror as a tactic is only likely to further encourage its use. But, rephrasing Sparc pertinently question slightly: What is terrorism?

I think that everyone here will agree that war is an unfortunate part of the human condition. And war has always been filled with terror tactics, despite our ambiguous and somewhat shaky belief in what constitutes acceptable rules of engagement. The U.S. happily engages in psychological warfare to weaken its enemy. This is seen as a benign form of terror. The U.S. seeks to destroy vital infrastructures of its enemy to weaken its resistance. Again, this is seen as a benign tactic, despite the devastating effects it may have on civilian populations. Drawing the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable in military conduct is like drawing a line on a sandy beach a very windy day. I’m all for the Geneva Conventions as a yard stick for what goes and what doesn’t. But it would be foolish to think we can apply its moral content to the nth degree. War is war and it ain’t pretty.

The days of Waterloo are long gone. And frankly, I don’t think they ever existed. I suspect the idea of opponents facing each other in the battle field on equal terms is some dream created by foolish Victorian gentlemen who never served a single day in the British Army. Those that did new better. The enemy does what ever it can to defeat you. And the less they can do, the more they turn to alternative tactics. They begin to attack you where you’re most vulnerable: civilian targets. In the face of disparate military might, what else can they do? Go the way of Gandhi? That only works when you have the support of a population the size of India and the opponents is busy wrecking its head over how to govern you effectively.

In the case of the Palestine and Israel, we’re not talking about a war between India and Pakistan (and, the powers that be, I hope we never will!). We are talking about people armed with some machine guns, rocket launchers and mostly home cooked bombs against one of the worlds best equipped armies. They have attempted sabotaging military targets with some very limited success. Their ability is so restricted by the might of their opponent that the Israeli army has been shocked by their recent success in blowing up a few armored vehicles.

But civilian targets are not just used by the weaker opponent. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Dresden. In all these cases its explained away as a necessary evil. The truth is that the way Germany was bombed to oblivion was by no means a necessary military tactic. It may have forced a surrender a few moths earlier than would have otherwise been the case. Nonetheless, Dresden, a purely civilian target where 135,000 human beings lost their lives in a massive fire storm in the span of only a few days, remains one of the darkest spots in human history. The immediate casualty was far worse than in Japan. And yet, the British comfortably erected a statue of Sir Arthur Harris (chief of the Bomber Command), the man mostly responsible for Dresden only a few years ago.

If we refused to negotiate with people who attack civilian targets, we’re pretty much ruling out negotiation as a means for reconciliation for any conflict. It’s easy for a country with smart bombs, drones, AWACS, night goggles, Stealth bombers, Tridents, Central Command, etc etc, to take to the high moral ground…

5

I’m hoping to keep this discussion as a general principles one, and not get hijacked into debates about specifics. Specifics as illustrative, sure. We have other threads about specific situations.

I’ll offer to define terrorism-

The use of violence intentionally upon nonmilitary targets with the prime intent to instill fear in a general population of noncombatants as the means of attempting to achieve goals.

Bombing Iraqi miltary targets with civilian casulties is not terrorism. Bombing Afgani targets with civilian casulties is not terrorism. The intent was to hit targets of military value. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden were terrorism. Even though the causes may have been just.

Destroying infrastructure is not terrorism; the infrastructure is an integral part of mounting a war. The intent is not to achieve a general level of fear but to handicap the war effort.

ethicallynot sees terror as a just method of combat for causes without standing armies and proposes that negotiating with entities that engage in such activities is wise. He apparently does not believe that appeasing terrorists runs a risk of encouraging it as an effective tactic. I diagree and I feel that while war is Hell, terror is evil. Even for a just cause.

6

This is terrorism, and it should be negotiated with only as a tool to get close enough to put a bullet through the perpetrators’ heads.

7

The way I see it, if a foreign nation’s military or a few deranged individual “terrorists” attack the United States (or whatever country you belong to), the time for negotiation has ended. An enemy who wants to bully you with violence or destroy you needs to be destroyed. Would you negotiate with an armed intruder who breaks into your home? No. You call a cop or defend it yourself.

8

December’s catchy Appeasement Song needs another verse for the Abu Sayyaf hostage situation. Maybe someone can explain how this is a special case that needs to be treated differently ?

9

Dseid I might agree with your definition of terrorism on a moral and ethical level, but as my previous post indicates I tend to agree with ethicallynot on a practical level.

By your definition I am forced to say that we should, nay we have no choice but to negotiate with terrorists.

By your definition all nations that fought in any war up to the Gulf War were terrorist. This is not an invalid point. There have been arguments forwarded along those lines pointing to the Nuremberg trials as being unfair (speaking strictly of the portion of these trials dealing with war crimes unrelated to the Holocaust).

However, by your definition, and along the arguments of weaker nations/peoples that ethicallynot puts forth, this would yield that wars can only be fought fairly and ‘non-terrorist’ by nations that have the technical advance and command to target the essentials of the enemy infrastructure and fighting power. I agree that this would be ideal, but thus is not the world constructed. To fight such a war is not only a moral balance act it is also expensive, time consuming and management intense. By limiting the right of self defense to that level you immediately rob the less fortunate of their shield and they must either succumb to what I define as terrorism as arms or subjugate to the greater, more morally apt opponent. Hence your limitation on the right to self defense and refusal to negotiate has created a greater evil out of a lesser evil.

All that being said I have previously made the point that the tactics of for instance Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli snipers or bulldozer drivers should warrant prosecution under breach of the conventions of war. Yet we do need to negotiate with these powers of evil means, if we want peace.

I believe that you paint the world in black and white and that your definitions do not consider the practical side of conflict. I wish I could agree with you, but I just do not see how your theory should fly.

Sparc

PS pldennison; per definition that awful atrocious and horrid act would qualify as political murder not terrorism, not that this makes it any more excusable. DS

10

Yes, it is.

Reread the definition proferred. Have all wars attempted to secure victory by the means of instilling fear in the general populus by targetting them specifically with that end in mind? No. That it has occurred is without debate, but it is not the general modus operandii of warfare. Most of the time civilian casulties are not the intent. How much effort a military power should take to avoid them is a seperate issue of human rights and “rules of war”.

I find the rest of your argument extremely troubling, not just invalid. It seems to be saying that any small group has a right to force its view upon established powers by terror attacks … that it is only fair because they are underdogs. Tim McVeigh? What other means does he have to fight his war? He can’t afford an army to take on the US. You would rob him of his shield? Or is it only wrong when it is a cause that you find more objectionable.

As to your specific: If the IDF was targetting the civilian population as the goal of the mission with the end being compliance by terror of the general populus, then it would have been terrorism. If civilian casulties were a consequence of going after a military target, then it is not terrorism. (Plenty of threads debate which is more likely the case, and, again, no need to get bogged into a specific situation. See those multiple threads for the evidence that civilians were not targeted and discuss there whether the IDF should have done more to avoid noncombatant deaths and at what cost.)

Black and white? No. But the definition is colorblind. The possible justness of the cause, the strength of the side, doesn’t matter to whether or not the method is terrorism. And if terror works as a means for those who percieve themselves to be wronged and otherwise powerless (whether or not either is true) then more marginalized groups and individuals will utilize it as the most effective means to make their case.

Do we in fact see more terror as a result of the fact that it has worked in the past?

Short term gain for a region, long term loss for the world.

11

Ahh! This thread is getting very interesting, DSeif. Your definition of terrorism is good and provides us with common ground.

Granted. Destroying infrastructures is part of any war and can not across the board be classified as terror acts.

Essentially, you have a Pavlovian kind of view. Your claim is that positive reinforcement will render the behavior (terrorism) more common. And, to some limited extent, I must agree. Certainly if you reward a behavior it’s bound to recur at some point. However, this negative aspect of negotiating with groups using terror tactics against civilian targets is out of context. Viewed from a broader perspective, such negative effects must be weighed against the alternatives. Let’s for a moment assume we follow your suggestion of zero-tolerance. How long will it be before the opponent gives up? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? And secondly, during that time frame, will the civilian attacks intensify, level out or abate? Thirdly, during the time of terrorist activity, how high will the civilian casualties be?

I hope that the deadly scenario I’m portraying is becoming apparent. As far as I can tell, no negotiation policies lead to intensified terror campaigns that draw out over years unless you can fully eliminate the opponent. And herein lays the error of our ways: the belief we can root out the enemy. To root out the enemy, we must also destroy its support from the civilian side. Which isn’t as easy as knocking up a few schools and re-educating the local population. Especially when you have to think of your own constituencies protesting budget cuts required to sustain such social programs. And who ever suggests forced relocation of entire peoples, in my opinion are about as daft as an I don’t know what. You’re just pushing the problem into someone else’s backyard.

We need to make a distinction here. People have been throwing around examples like McVeigh in this thread, grouping every conceivable terrorist into one single group. Groups like Timothy McVeigh’s have literally no constituencies beyond themselves (or at best a very small and fragmented one). Their opponents (in this case The U.S. Federal Government) can pretty much contain the problem without massive cost and hemorrhaging of the national economy. This is not the case for conflicts like Northern Ireland or Palestine. Groups active in these regions have substantial local support. The cost for containing the problem is horrendous because it drags on year after year after year, generation after generation. And the longer it goes on, the worse off the whole region is and the more support these groups receive. Because in trying to contain the situation, even a highly sophisticated military aggressor like Israel can’t avoid causing civilian casualties, thereby becoming the scapegoat for every ill. What we get is a vicious circle of violence.

Human society isn’t a conditioned dog in Dr.Pavlov’s lab. It’s a complex system where negotiation with any form of terrorist what-so-ever won’t by necessity lead to a viral propagation of violence that will ultimately destroy the organism as such. It will, however prove what you, DSeid, fear to admit: terrorism is a viable option for a sizable but not well armed population to achieve its goals. This is the bottom line. When people believe they are struggling for their very right to exist and have no means left to fight back, they will try anything. And you won’t be able to stop them. This is way depressed down-an-out young Palestinian are willing to sacrifice their lives for what they consider a just struggle against an oppressor seeking to relocate them. It doesn’t matter if they are right in believing this. You won’t be able to stop them using any viable military and economic means. They will die tomorrow, the day after, and in ten years from now, if you adopt a zero-tolerance plan. I have unfortunately taken the example of Palestine (which is like stepping into a mine field in this forum). But the same applies to Northern Ireland. The IRA would have continued their campaign to same extent as before unless the British were willing to negotiate with Sinn Fein. And this idea of super fences is a just fiction. Again, you need to look at cost. What good is it to resolve a situation if the resolution is going to ruin you economically? We’re talking bilions and billions of dollars here. Technology is nice, but let’s not get too sciefied away.

The decision on whether to not negotiate boils down to one simple formula: can we afford it?

Most of the time the answer is no…

12

It all depends on your assessment of the terrorists’ aims.

For example, if you believe that the PLO only want a Palestinian state, then negotiation is possible. But if you believe that the PLO wants to destroy Israel, and a Palestinian state is just a step towards this, then negotiation makes no sense.

13

Consider the Irish war of independence. Let’s assume that some of the tactics employed by British forces in this conflict were terrorist. (You can argue that some of the tactics employed by the Irish forces were also terrorist, of course, but for the purposes of this discussion that is irrelevant.)

There was no prospect whatsoever that the Irish forces could achieve any measure of independence for Ireland without forcing the British to negotiation, and then negotiating with them. A total military defeat of Britain was never even a remote possibility.

So if we make it an absolute rule that there must never be negotiation with terrorists, we are putting the Irish side in a position where they could not succeed in this conflict.

Whether this was in fact the case in Ireland is beside the point. The point is that, if we make it an absolute rule never to negotiate with terrorists, we say that someone confronted by a mokre powerful enemy who is willing to resort to terrorism can, basically, do nothing about it.

Yes, there is a risk that by negotiating with terrorists you effectively “reward” terrorism and so encourage more terrorism. That is a consideration which militates against negotiation. But it cannot be elevated into an absolute principle. It is equally true that, by refusing to negiatiate with terrorists, you may leave them no avenue of advancing their cause except further resort to terrorism. Does this justify an absolute principle that we must always negotiate with terrorists? Plainly not.

The truth is that, while a desire not to encourage further terrorism is understandable, it is not always the case that negotiating with terrorists will lead to more terrorism, or that refusing will lead to less. Nor is the desire not to encourage further terrorism an absolute moral imperative which overrides all other considerations. We dislike terrorism because innocent people suffer, but innocent people suffer in other ways as well. If we prolong a vicious war by refusing to negotiate, will not innocent people suffer?

We must also bear in mind that “terrorist” refers to the means we pursue to achieve our ends, and not to the ends themselves. Whether we negotiate with somebody and what we agree with them must in the end depend more on the ends which they are trying to achieve, rather than on the means they use.

I entirely agree that a refusal to negotiate is right in circumstances where it seems likely to reduce recourse to terrorism. But that is not at all the same thing as making it a principle never to negotiate.

14

First issue - the aims. nicky believes that the aims matter. If the demand is reasonable or doable then negotiate. ethicallynot also assumes that terrorism is viable when people are “struggling for their very right to exist.” Neither point makes too much sense to me. Of course the side being attacked by terror does not feel that the demands are justified and the side engaged in terror does. Rarely is the very right to exist at risk ie terrorism is not usually a response to attempted genocide. The right for a particular form of government to exist is often in question.

15

Next issue (sorry for the split post, but I had to take care of some things) is to accept, for the purposes of discussion, that sometimes you can’t beat terrorism. (I wouldn’t dismiss the “Big Wall” as a way to significantly impede terrorism BTW, but that is also another discussion.)

This assumes that all possible defensive security measures have been taken, that every possible effort to destroy any terrorist infrastructure and to capture or kill all central planners and coordinaters have been made, even if some acceptable level of civilian casulties result. (“Some” are unavoidable. How much is “acceptable”? Again, a seperate discussion.)

This is the circumstance where terror has won in the past. Governments allow terror to work rather than to continue suffer from its consequences. And the logic is that offered up by UDS. It may reduce terror locally and in the near term.

Okay. But first it must be made clear that negotiations would proceed faster without terror and all possible countermeasures must be attempted first.

16

Dseid - were the British government right to negotiate with the IRA?

Yes or No?

17

Damn it- I can’t come up with a catchy rhyme for Orlando Bosch… JDM

18

This is a very subjective statement. When have all possible countermeasures been exhausted? And the claim that negotiations proceed faster is dubious. Why should I change if nothing forces me to? Out of some God-given benevolence? Sure, most people think “a poor souls, we should help them”. But when it comes down to it, people are more caught up in their own problems than what’s happening on the other side of the fence. Londonites have no obviously compelling reason to spend lots of money on or attention to Northern Ireland except making sure the trouble doesn’t reek havoc in their immediate backyard. This is the very mechanism by which terror acts operate! It forces people around Trafalgar Square to get involved!

My point wasn’t very well formulated. “Struggling for the very right to exist” didn’t mean simply “individuals struggling for the right to live”. I’m talking about the right for social and cultural groups to exist. One fundamental requirement for any social entity is to have a viable economic system that can sustain them. Let’s say we have group A and B and C. Group A lives on land where there’s an abundance of resources. But group A is not large enough to utilize these resources optimally. So they decide to get help from workers in groups B and C. But after some interaction, A judges C not as threatening but as representing an undesirable spin on human culture. For example, C may eat dogs and hold cats to be blessed spirits. A, on the other hand, keeps dogs as companions but think cats are incarnations of evil. So A becomes less and less reluctant to hire workers from C, turning more and more to B. Unfortunately, group C has by the powers that be been allotted extremely unfertile soil and depend on A for their sustenance. Conflict begins to brew. The more the conflict escalates, the more A shuts off the flow of resources to C. Eventually, the very existence of C as a homogenous group becomes threatened. They demonstrate and raise their voices. A says “well, you’re going to have to stop this dog eating business if you want us to cooperate here”. B, knowing that they can get more work without competition from C, pipe in in agreement. They do this even if they have been known to on rare occasion savor the pleasures of dog meat. But C, having built elaborate rituals around the dog eating, of course adamantly refuse. After years of conflict, everyone has forgotten why the whole thing started. Dog eating may even have fallen out of favor in group C. Still, the two groups have become so inherently suspicious of one another over the years that they seem incapable of agreeing on just about anything.

This is what threatening the very existence of a group means: cutting off their resources. Of course, any distinct individual in C could shed his or her cultural identity and become a fully integrated member of A. If everyone was willing to do this to resolve a conflict, we would have a global society with few variations on cultural identity. I’m not willing to convert to Islam. Are you? Nor do I want to deny my Swedish heritage because it’s such a darned awfully God-less spin on human society. Or deny myself my French identity I acquired by growing up there because the French are so pointlessly argumentative. And I’m sure you feel the same about your cultural identity. But herein lies another problem: people who share cultural identities are more willing the help each other.

Now that I have clarified the meaning of “threatening the very existence”, let me turn back to the main issue of terrorism. When I say its a viable option, I’m simply saying that it works. I’m not imposing a moral judgment. Our infamous group C, by now seeing no other way out, has turned to terrorizing civilians in group A. Group A, in its turn, has to make a very hard decision: shall we negotiate or not? This is the one trillion dollar question. A say one trillion dollar question because, again that’s what it boils down to. Can we afford it? Group a has to weigh the implication of zero-tolerance. If C has through cultural changes and migration turned into such a small population that they form only a minor threat, A can afford to say no. If this isn’t the case, A will have to weight the option of a massive military operation. This includes the repercussions it will have for them on an international level. A’s additional resources will be of little use if no one outside the group is willing to trade them.
In the end, what I’m proposing is a pragmatic approach to negotiating with terrorists. If zero-tolerance has little effect on A, hell, why should they? But if the repercussions are so great that it may threaten the stability in the whole region, they definitely should. As a matter of fact, then they have an international obligation to do so. Because not doing it may threaten my security, your security, everyone’s security. The world is a very interconnected place these days…

19

There are other ways to argue your point and faciltate change than blowing up uninvolved civilians. If a movement represents large numbers then these other methods are very likely to be effective for just causes. The fact of the matter is that terrorism is often the tool that a minority uses to try to impose its will upon a majority.

Often (not always) terror accomplishes the exact opposite of its intended effect. For example, Osama’s attack has resulted in a greater American involvement in the Mid-East. Pakistan has now “embraced” the secular world and Afganistan is no longer a strict Islamic government. Every Palestinian terrorist attack slows down progress to a Palestinian state. And so on.

I honestly don’t know enough about the specifics of the situation in Ireland to comment with a “yes/no”. I would say that the balance to be decided is the potential local gain vs the global and/or long-term harm. Did they talk while bombings were ongoing or did the terrorism stop as a prerequisite to negotiations?

That “struggling for the very right to exist” becomes a very broad basket, the way you use it, ethicallynot. Kashmiri independence? Indian secular government is threatenening the right for an Islamic state to occur in that region. American involvement in world affairs threatens the right for a new Islmamic Caliphate to arise in the Mid-East. Heck, group A loses an election in the US, now group A’s right to have their version of US politics exist is threatened, they’ve been cut off from the resources they need to implement it. There is no reason that the victorious party is going to do things group A’s way out of the goodness of their hearts. Time for suicide bombers. Force the government to do it our way. And the government should, of course, negotiate. And while bombings are actively going on.

The long-term good of the world is served by governments refusing to negotiate with any group actively engaged in terror tactics. The use of terror cannot be justified by your opinion about the rightness of the cause, and the issues of the conflict can be addressed only after terror stops. That must be a prerequisite for conversation. If the short-term local gain is so great as to justifiy compromise of this principle, then so be it, but those must be the exceptional situations, not the rule. And it borrows the local gain against the global harm.

20

And why do you think there’s a problem in Kashmir?

Society is not merely the sum of individual behaviors. It’s a system in its own right that influences the very individuals of which it’s made up. Or, to use the Gestalt term: the whole is greater than its parts. When we deal with geopolitics we are not only dealing with a bunch of individuals. Therefore, we must clearly understand the dynamics of the group and how it may existentially feel threatened as a whole.

We don’t just talk about how, say, Arafat will react, but how the Arabic Street will think of it. And Arafat’s existence as a political figure is in fact dependent on the Street. As a matter of fact the Arabic Street is what we’re ultimately dealing with, not Arafat per say! Or rather the system that Arafat and the Street together constitute: the Palestinian People. It’s pointlessly reductionistic to deal only with the particulars of the atomic parts. As a matter of fact, it would create a weak and impractical, nay incomplete model of societies, cultures and geopolitics.

Simply illustrated: Joe reacts differently when he’s confronted alone than when he’s confronted in company of his friends Peter, Paul and Mary…