Opinions about whether governments should enter talks with terrorist groups generate a lot of arguments and dialogue. A unanimous decision on this subject has however never been reached. This paper will outline the arguments both for and against the notion that negotiating with terrorist groups to achieve resolution in crises gives them legitimacy they do not deserve.
Why Governments Should NOT Negotiate with Terrorists
Many who argue against negotiating with terrorists maintain that terrorists are criminals. They murder, kidnap, torture, and terrorize just so they can make their point. By accepting violence as a political tool those who murder and terrorise innocent civilians in order to be heard must be treated as criminals. They feel that holding negotiations with terrorist groups would give them undeserved legitimacy.
Even though negotiating with terrorists may be a short term measure in saving lives, in the long run it sets a bad precedent by encouraging the use of violence and giving the impression that groups that use violence have more influence in society than
…show more content…
Negotiation will allow for separate peace processes to be conducted with different local groups in order to reduce the global reach of terrorist organisations
Entering into talks with terrorists helps to demystify the issues surrounding their activities and it exposes their often unreasonable demands to public scrutiny thus denying them the opportunity to present themselves as martyrs.
Refusal to negotiate prevents communication and may be seen as a rejection of the other side. This could worsen the problem and create serious barriers to problem resolution leading to more extremism and radicalism. The terrorist acts of the Boko Haram are an example of a situation which may have been averted if the Nigerian government had negotiated with