One hypothesis about terrorism is that a country should not negotiate with terrorists because such action will incite increased violence and inspire further extremism. This essay analyzes the claim by providing the origin of the assertion, testing of the assumption, and giving scholarly evidence. The author concludes by giving his take on the supposition that deliberating with terrorists would encourage more violence.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- Origin of the Claim
- Why It is Important to Test the Assumption
- The Evidence against the Assumption
- Conclusion
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This document examines the claim that negotiating with terrorists encourages further violence, exploring the origin, importance, and evidence related to this assertion.
- The history and prevalence of the “no negotiation” policy among Western governments
- The distinction between negotiating with individual terrorists for release and negotiating with terrorist groups for political concessions
- The potential for negotiation to weaken a country's democratic standing
- The challenges of engaging with terrorist groups with decentralized leadership structures
- The potential for negotiation to address underlying grievances and encourage a peaceful resolution
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
- Introduction: The text introduces the debate surrounding negotiation with terrorists, citing examples of prominent figures who have opposed such strategies. It highlights the importance of analyzing the claim's origins, testing its validity, and examining relevant scholarly evidence.
- Origin of the Claim: This chapter explores the historical development of the non-negotiation policy, noting its prevalence among European governments and international organizations like the G8. The chapter emphasizes the enduring nature of this policy, citing examples of official travel advisories and international agreements.
- Why It is Important to Test the Assumption: This chapter highlights the significance of examining whether engaging with terrorists rewards extremism or helps to reduce violence. It distinguishes between negotiating for the release of individuals and engaging in broader political negotiations with terrorist groups, stressing the need for effective resource allocation in countering terrorism.
- The Evidence against the Assumption: This chapter presents arguments against negotiating with terrorists, highlighting concerns about legitimizing extremist activities and the complex nature of engaging with groups with decentralized structures. It cites the example of al-Qaeda, noting its increasing activity and global impact despite military actions against it.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This document explores the complex relationship between negotiation and terrorism, focusing on concepts such as non-negotiation policy, democratic governance, terrorist groups, political concessions, grievance resolution, and the impact of negotiation on terrorism.
- Quote paper
- Funsho Oladele Ibrahim (Author), 2019, Negotiating with Terrorists Encourages more Terrorism, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/505862
