This is where you think the cycle of violence comes from?
You go on to suggest that terrorists are fighting for the very existence of their group in this paragraph…
So it comes down to a simple “it’s me or you,” right? If that’s the case, the terrorists are clearly on the losing end. The stronger entity in any struggle will inflict the harsher response. Fact is, they’re fighting for their very survival too.
Let’s assume a nation clearly has a superior army and resource base. Not to mention, they also have a stronger diplomatic presense since not every terrorist organization has a representative in the UN or an embassy in other countries. Do you really think the established nation is going to negotiate with what it perceives to be a terrorist organization? Why would they have to? If the terrorists will resort to “any means” they can to achieve their goals, why wouldn’t any technologically advanced nation do so? Who’s going to restrain them? So if it’s okay for you to kill my civilians, then it’s okay for me to kill yours. It’s just a real bummer I can kill a lot more of yours than you can of mine, huh? When it comes down to it, no nation or entity will stop at anything to protect its existence. They all will utilize any means necessary to do so. Some have gotten a bit more proficient at it.
So now who’s really perpetuating the cycle of violence?
So to answer the OP’s question, no negotiating. Why? 'Cause you don’t have to.
I’m a big fan of nonlinear dynamics but what exactly does that have to do with the quote about how you define “the very right to exist” excessively broadly?
The web of interrelatedness is exactly the point I have been making. Don’t look at the individual conflict in isolation, at the local gain alone, look to see how it will influence distant and future events.
So, you want to use the specific of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Okay, I didn’t want to get bogged into a digressive specific, but okay. Just remember, this is for illustration and this thread is not the place to debate the “justice” (you know my beliefs and I think that I’ve got a good sense of yours.)
Who is Arafat answering to? The man in the street? A little. No elections, no direct control. He cares but like Stalin cared. The even more militant and violent groups of Hamas, etc …? Sure. He doesn’t want to take them on. They’d likely kill him if he attempted a serious crackdown. His funding sources? Yup. Saudi pressure means a lot, among others.
What initiated terror campaigns? They began when Jews first started moving back into the Mid-East in any significant numbers, and escalated with Israel’s birth. Terror in this case (by our agreed upon definition) includes Arab military bombardment of civilian targets that had no military significance. It has continued in many forms since, but the stated goal of the terror campaign has changed to some. Arafat no longer states that the goal is the destruction of Israel but has changed his goal to a seperate Palestine on 100% of the land that was Jordan prior to 1967 but which has been controlled by Israel since 1967. Other Arabs still state that their goal is Israel’s destruction. (Note: some acts of Jew on Arab terror are also documented but in relatively tiny numbers … and I do not accept deaths that occur while trying to control riots as “terrrorism”)
Continued terror attacks prevent negotiations for a two state solution. Continued terror attacks make the Israeli side require more control in any future settlement as it gives their side less confidence in any promises of security made by the Arab side.
If Israel conceded on all of Arafat’s stated demands as a result of terror what wopuld be the result? Would this satisfy all of the militant terrorist groups? No. Those who want Israel’s total destruction would still engage but from a position in which Israel would have even less ability to defend against. And with the knowledge that Israel has a record of giving in to terror. Would they then be negotiated with directly as well? How about on the geopolitik? It would embolden other terrorist groups to redouble their efforts as likely to be eventually effective.
Practical. Pragmatic. Negotiating in the face of an active terror campaign makes no sense.
Because I don’t think I do. And my way of proving that is by demonstrating how a group (not an individual) can fight for its existence. When talking about terrorism, we’re no talking about Jimmy Jammy fighting for his right to live but the right of, say, the Church of Scientology to exist. And sorry all you scientologist out there. I’m trying to stay of the real mine fields (and I use your organization because, although I’m not one of you, I believe in your right to exist ).
Is that so? I will quote myself:
The argument you use is about as old as humanity itself. What you contend, Nietsche, is exactly what Thrasymachus declares to Socrates in the Republic:
Socrates goes on to later answer:
Now, the funny thing is that both sides in this thread seem to be using the same arguments to prove their point.
DSeid contends that negotiating with terrorist may solve problems in the immediate sense. But, ultimately, reinforcing terrorist behavior will mean its normalization, thereby causing severe damage to human society as such. I content that not negotiating (in certain situations) may drag out the conflict and spread it to such a degree that long term effects for humanity overall will be drastically worse.
Now, isn’t it true that human behavior is not merely a nurtured phenomenon, but an intrinsic characteristic of our being? And isn’t it true that one generation forgets the lessons learned by the previous? Then, isn’t it our nature in itself that causes us to resort to violence and terror century after century, millennium after millennium, and not how our forefathers behaved? So terrorism isn’t a contemporary flux in the fabric of humanity, but an ongoing thing we must expect will recur whatever we do today?
It makes little sense to think beyond the event horizon. What we need to be concerned about isn’t what will happen in a 100 years but what will happen in the next 10. Yet, even if we prevent terrorism in the next 10, it’s bound to be rediscovered in the next 100. And, when it recurs, hopefully we haven’t forgotten the tools to suppress it. The use of terror is an instinct. Yes, it can be controlled. But never eliminated. The best we can hope for is to build structures that help us cope. Zero-tolerance is a denial of the efficiency of attacking civilian targets: mass terror and individual anxiety. The reason people rediscover it isn’t because they’re inherently evil but because they realize what a powerful tool it is. It places a weaker opponent on par with a stronger one. So Nietsche’s argument (sounds weird to say that :)) of that the stronger never needs to negotiate can be overcome by realizing that terrorism bridges the disparity between David and Goliath. It’s, in fact, David’s sling shot. People around the world use guerilla and terrorist tactics because they work, not because they’re stupid.
I say this knowing how I have appalled many readers of this thread. What, you dare compare the IRA to David?! You dare compare Al Aksa to David?! You dare compare…and so on and so on. But I’m not for terrorism. Personally, I think it’s one of the ugliest aspects of the human condition. I’m simply acknowledging its power and the fact that it can never be “smoked out of its whole” for good. Sometimes government’s will be forced to negotiate given terrorism’s ability to damage local, regional and global economics.
I believe it’s preferable to not negotiate. But not by all means necessary, if such necessities imply:
Severely damaging the economy,
Destabilizing the entire region,
Inflicting excessive terror on other civilian groups
Massively restricting individual freedoms
Because then the long term effects will be even worse…
I’ll keep this brief because I think we’ve made our points and much more would be just rephrasing what we’ve already said.
Violence is part of human nature, granted, and each generation will have those who resort to it. Agreed. Tantrums to get their way are something all toddlers will attempt. If tantrums work that particular child will do it more and more. If his younger sib sees that it works then he’ll model it more as well. Do I, as a parent, just give in because each of my children will try to tantrum? Boy, it would make that particular moment go easier if I did … but I’d pay the price later. The point is that human behavior is not all nature and not all nurture. It isn’t entirely controllable but it is able to be influenced. We need to look beyond today’s tantrum. (As a parent one of my pat lines to tantrums has been exactly that, “I do not negotiate with terrorists.” ;))
Can we find some common ground? I think that we have. “Should” does not mean that there are never situations that are exceptional. It is a guiding principle not an absolute. I should stop at a red light, but there are very unusual situations where that is best to violate. I think that we have agreed that the fall-back (“preferable” as you say) position is not to negotiate with terrorists unless some extreme exceptional situation exists. The burden is to prove that a paticular situation qualifies as such. As you realize, I think that mostly we can’t afford the costs of negotiating with terrorists.
Keep in mind I was playing devil advocate a bit with my above comments.
Personally, I couldn’t agree with you more about how powerful of a tool it is. In fact, modern nations utilize it (covert ops quite frequently crossing the lines from “justifiable” into terrorism) in many instances where a traditional military operation would fail.
But given it’s effectiveness and relative ease with which it can be employed, it can become more popular among the discontented (which can lead to disasterous consequences). If a nation ever negotiates with one terrorist organization, they will forever have set a precedence. It will be virtually impossible to suddenly (or even over a period of time) change course.
The problem with negotiating with terrorists is that you doom your future potentially as bad as you describe by not negotiating with them. You can’t forsee what other terrorist organizations you’ll be faced with in the future, which will also want to negotiate. I recognize your point about not necessarily negotiating with every single one, but I’m afraid that’s an impossibility. All a terrorist group has to do to make a nation negotiate is step up operations. Make it painful enough for them to ignore you, and they’ll pay attention.
So then, it doesn’t sound to me like once negotiations have started that they can be used selectively.
Perhaps it’s because you left out the Z. It does sound weird like that.
DSeid, I think we are slowly forming somewhat of a consensus on this issue. We still, however, fall on different sides of the mid-line.
I think blanket pronouncements like “no government should negotiate with terrorists” are dangerous. Language is humanity’s most powerful tool. It’s what’s allowed us to build nuclear war heads, write The Republic and put space stations into orbit. The statement is part of a polemic creating the illusion that stringent rules can be applied to all human conflict. The Rule of Law was not written in stone on the day humanity began walking upright. It’s a complex body of language that must by necessity be continuously abrogated. This is one of the reasons I reject Sharia as a viable judicial system. And I believe I have a reason to object here because “we will not negotiate with terrorists” is being used by many politicians around the world to further their narrow-minded and short-sighted struggle for power. I see it as my personal obligation to point out the fallacy of their ways. If, as you agree, it’s not an absolute let’s not let anyone pretend it is. Not Bush, not Sharon, not Megawati, not Jiang, not Blair. Or anyone else for that matter.
Your example of how to treat toddler tantrums is not applicable to terrorists. I have a 2 and half year old son myself. First I thought, “yeah well, that’s true, I don’t negotiate with my son”. But children my son’s age, although extraordinary in their capacity to learn and adapt, are not yet intellectually mature. Our communication is even more difficult than that between a Frenchman and a Chinese who don’t share a common language. The adult French and Chinese persons can use the services of a translator, thereby pretty much bridging the language gap. Only some minor cultural nuances may be lost. I, however, when talking to my son can’t call on a Toddler Translation Service. Most of the time times he looks up at me with these big questioning eyes. Often I look back at him like a huge question mark. Negotiating is out of the question because I can’t say “I’ll get you that if you clean up your room”. The problem? My son doesn’t even now what cleaning up his room means! He’s slowly getting to understand though that if he deliberately spills, has to dry it up
Secondly, the disparity between my powers and his are so immense that I don’t really have to tolerate his tantrums. There isn’t much he can do to force me to except than try to scream even louder. Where upon I can just plug my ears and continue ignore him. For the record: my son is pretty tantrum free so far. My tolerance may have paid off ;). What I really fear is when he’s over 6 feet and weighs 150 pounds and has the intellect of a 14 year old. That’s when pappa’s experiential superiority will be matched with adolescent terror. Believe me, there wasn’t much my parents could stop me from doing just about anything. So I know what I’m talking about!
Finally, the analogy links up to a very complex issue: nurture vs. nature, which is more powerful? You can certainly condition you’re child to some limited extent. But a 14+ years old terrorist and the population that supports him or her? Certainly, you have heard the expression “you can’t teach an old dog to sit”. I contend that the argument of negotiations nurturing terrorism is flawed. At least in its simple form. As I said before, terrorism will continue to be rediscovered as a power tool for as long as humanity remains the species it is. The only way to change that is by morphing us into some other type of being. With other words, the Pavlovian argument that Nietzsche also holds, is moot. To emphasize my argument, let me quote from Steven Pinker’s book “How the Mind Works”:
What we need to do is strengthen the international Rule of Law in order to open up other venues for disenfranchised groups than violence against civilians. Until then, we are left with the uncomfortable necessity of negotiation with those terrorist who have enough popular support in their communities to pose a continued threat. In most of the places we’re talking about (no specifics mentioned :D), no brilliantly executed military master plan is going to solve the problem. Why? Because both sides are equipped with the most powerful tool of all that allows them to continue terrorizing one another, regardless of their technological and physical disparities: a human intellect.
My thoughts are there’s almost never an unequivocal way to deal with a category of issues which would be the best choice in every possible situation.
In other word, concerning this particular issue, there are certainly many situations where negociating with the terrorists would be a better option than not negociating (even assuming that you somewhat manage to clearly define “terrorists”)
But there are certainly general prinicples to elucidate and to assign relative values to. Real life consists of balancing conflicting sets of principles and deciding which has greater value at that time and why. There is a difference between a “should not” and a “must never” (I agree with ethicallynot that we must use language with precision, but even after discussion I think that my statement stands as a statement of guiding principle of high value, rather than as an absolute edict.)
Do you have a particular problem with the defintion proposed in this thread? Or did you not bother to read the thread before you posted?
).