Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Terrorists, negotiation with
Section C. International relations

Unlike the ’justifiability of terrorism debate’, this debate does become more definitional. That is because there are some terrorist groups with whom negotiation seems almost inevitable (Hamas, for instance, is also the elected Palestinian government), but others with whom it seems absurd (Al-Qaeda does not have a set of well-defined aims that lend themselves to a sensible compromise, but demands a restoration of Islamic law stretching from Spain to China).This debate, therefore, rests on the ability of both sides to move away from reductive examples and focus on the general principles of the debate, rather than simply trading case studies.

Pros

[1] Negotiation may lead to lives being saved, and this must be any government’s first priority. Hostages tend to be civilians, who are not the property of the government to be sacrificed for other matters. If the price to pay for their safety is the release of ’political’ prisoners, it is cheap. For instance, Israel’s trading of Gilad Shalit for 1,100 Palestinian prisoners (in 2011) was ultimately worth it, because it saved a life.

[2] Negotiation in its simplest form means ’talking to’. We must keep an open dialogue with terrorist groups, to understand them and encourage them to take part in the political process without arms. Negotiation does not automatically require concessions, but can simply offer a basis on which to air grievances, which may lead to greater understanding.

[3] In many cases, terrorists are simply an unavoidable part of the political reality of engaging with a particular group which may have legitimate grievances.Where are the Palestinian leaders who have had no involvement with terrorism? Or the Tamil ones? It must be possible to make peace with these broad ethnic groups, and that requires engaging with their terrorist leaders.

[4] Negotiating with terrorists helps to improve their conduct after a peace deal, and make them into more viable political forces for power sharing. If a terrorist organisation needs to negotiate, it must also form a political wing, and start thinking about its policy priorities, rather than mere violence. Thus, when peace comes, it is a more effective partner and representative of a certain set of interests.

Cons

[1] ’Political prisoners’ tend to be imprisoned terrorists who will kill again on their release, so any hostages saved in the present must be weighed against probable future casualties. Second, there is no guarantee that hostages will not be killed anyway once the terrorists’ demands are met.The Gilad Shalit swap will ultimately lead to loss of life; Israel had been highly successful in removing Palestinian terrorists’ bomb-makers, many of whom have now been sent back to start their work again.

[2] Keeping an open dialogue with terrorist groups gives them political legitimacy that they do not deserve. It is better to have no relationship whatsoever with them until they renounce violence, in order to show that they are voluntarily excluding themselves from democracy.

[3] By negotiating with terrorists, we reduce the political power of leaders on the other side who do renounce violence. One of the reasons that it often feels like the only leaders of a particular cause are terrorists is that a policy of negotiating with them means they are the ones who get results. When that is stopped, nonviolent actors become more powerful, because they too can get concessions.

[4] Terrorist groups never focus their efforts on politics; they always remain primarily about violence, because that is ultimately what they think they require to win concessions. Their engagement with politics is superficial. It is far better to require them to give up arms altogether first, so that they may then genuinely transfer energies towards coherent policy formation.

Possible motions

This House would negotiate with terrorists.

This House would require all terrorist groups to renounce violence before negotiation.

Related topics

Civil disobedience

Terrorism, justifiability of

Terrorist suspects, torture of