Would you give a thief $100,000 to get your stolen purse back? If you were to give a thief $100,000, you would make him think that he can make a profit out of stealing purses. The thief would also use the $100,000 to buy a gun or other weapons or vehicles that would help him steal future purses. Now think about the thief as a terrorist and you as a government. Should governments negotiate with terrorists? Terrorism activities have increased these past few years due to faulty decisions made by governments when dealing with terrorists.
Many have made the mistake of compromising with terrorists, which makes them appear weak and treatable, which only sponsors future terrorist acts. The outcomes of past government agreements with terrorists have only worsened and perpetuated this situation. The paying of millions of dollars as ransom to terrorist kidnappers and hostage/takers has also fueled future terrorist attacks and has only made terrorism profitable, making It more attractive to terrorists.
Governments legitimate terrorism by compromising; therefore governments should not negotiate with terrorists, rather marginality and weaken heir organizations by refusing them any concessions and targeting individuals within their groups. The reasoning behind terrorism is that violence can be used to attract the attention of governments and the general public, who as a result, succumb to the terrorist’s ideas and/or desires. Unfortunately, this terrorist tactic is sometimes effective, Like in the 2004 Madrid Bombings. On March 11, EAT, a terrorist organization, bombed four commuter trains In Madrid.
Their objective was to cause a political change in Spain; the elections were that same weekend. Before the mobbing, the People’s Party was the voter’s favorite, but TEAT’S terrorist attack caused a drastic change In the ballot and the Socialist Party won. After winning the election, the Socialist Party decided to remove the Spanish troops In Iraq, which Is what EAT wanted. Because of this turn of events, Downing says: “… The terrorists would be able to claim that their bombings had influenced both a European election and the situation in Iraq. (Downing 38-39) Since the people and the government reacted to the attack the way EAT wanted It too, the terrorists could have considered the attack successful, and as a consequence may attack again. The message the government sent EAT is that if they want a change, they should just use violence to obtain it. Governments must be careful with terrorist’s interest and their own interests when making controversial decisions, especially those made shortly after terrorist attacks, Like the bombings in Madrid. In that case, the decision was whether or not to remove Spanish troops from Iraq.
EAT wanted them removed, and the Socialist Party decided to remove them because of the pressure they were put under. Removing the roofs was a mistake because It Just pleased the terrorists; It made the terrorists feel they can manipulate the government through pressure Induced by brutality. Governments should always include terrorist interests in important decision-making, 1 OFF Nay that terrorists are not satisfied by it and cannot take any credit from it. Governments must show that they are strong, and that they are not and will not be influenced by terrorism. Downing 38-39) Governments make themselves appear weak by succumbing to pressure, and sometimes the pressure does not even come from the terrorists in the situation, but room other governments, leaders or groups. Even if they might want to interfere for the most pacific reasons, peace negotiations with terrorists do not have the best outcomes. First of all, they are terrorists; therefore, their favorite and only way of attempting to achieve their goals is through violence. This means that if they do not receive what they desire through force, they believe they cannot get it through peace either.
Secondly, terrorists are unpredictable; they cannot be trusted. Thirdly, most terrorists do not back down, especially Shadiest, because they are willing to lose their life for what they believe in. Lastly, if a government makes peace with terrorists, and the terrorists do not keep their end of the deal, then the government will appear Neck and defeated, while the terrorist will appear victorious. These are the reasons for which governments should not attempt to make peace with terrorists. They should try to end terrorism instead of making a truce with it.
A perfect example of NH governments should not seek peace from terrorists is an incident the U. S. Government had in Fallfish. U. S. Marines attempted to compromise with Shadiest in Fallfish after being pressured by European officials and human rights groups. The U. S. Secretary of State, Colic Powell, said they wanted peace instead of war in Fallfish, but the Shadiest misunderstood and considered the compromise a victory over the Americans. (Rubin 19-20) As a result, the misunderstanding led to 30 car bombings. Not only did the U.
S. Appear weak because of this failed compromise; it also encouraged the Shadiest to carry on with their terrorist acts because the shadiest believed they defeated them, and that they were capable of defeating them again. Truces with terrorists are very tricky and unpredictable, and should always be voided because an unfavorable outcome can be catastrophic and can lead to more idiolect. Just as truces with terrorists can be very tricky, negotiating with terrorist kidnappers and hostage-takers can be very tricky as well.
Recently terrorists use these tactics to create an audience full of suspense. These tactics now create more attention than massacres and bombings because people are getting more accustomed to them as they happen. (Rubin 22) Kidnappings/hostage takings are becoming more and more popular and sadly, governments have been making it even more popular by making it profitable. They make it profitable by negotiating and paying ransoms to terrorists because negotiating with kidnappers legitimates their act and as a result further proliferates terrorism.
It has spread terrorism because the terrorists have learned that kidnapping/hostage-taking has become very profitable. Bun 23) In March 2000, Miramar al-Jihad, a Libyan leader, paid ABA Safely, a hostage-taker based in the Philippines, a $25 million ransom for the release of priests, teachers, and children he had kidnapped from a school. (Rubin 23) After receiving the money, ABA Safely expanded his terrorist group from a couple hundred o more than a thousand members and bought speedboats and weapons, which the captives from getting harmed, Miramar al-Jihad funded future kidnappings, putting more people in danger.
The paying of the ransom also made kidnapping productive for Safely, because they technically rewarded him for terrorism, encouraging him to carry out more terrorist acts because he will get money or other concession out of them. The same case occurred in Sale. The “Bin Laden of the Desert”, Mari Safari, took 32 European vacationers in the Algerian desert, and held them hostage for 177 days. The German government paid a five million Euro ransom and they were released, but Mari Spill used the money to buy weapons and deciles. Rubin 24) The German government funded future kidnappings similar to how the Libyan leader did. It is a pattern: terrorists kidnap citizens; they ask for reward in return for the hostages; and then they use the ransom they get paid to repeat this cycle more effectively (with new and more members, weapons and deciles). Governments should not keep rewarding terrorists with million dollar ransoms because all they have been doing is perpetuating the cycle instead of ending it.
Governments should use force to recover captives and avoid rewarding terrorists with ransoms. It is an actual U. S. Government policy “to deny hostage takers the benefit of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession. ” (“Counter-Terrorism: History, Strategy and Tactics” Web) Western governments should also respond to kidnapping by thinking about the safety of the majority of their citizens instead of an individual. Even though it could end in injury or death of the captive, in the long term it prevents further kidnappings. (Rubin, 24)
So governments should try their best to recover captives, but without the use of ransoms because in the long run, a short tragedy is better than the endangerment a larger amount of citizens. Governments should not appease with terrorists, they should use intelligence to take them down instead. “In a war between networks, the side with superior intelligence wins. ” (Garret 60) The more information and technology is obtained, the better the chances of defeating the terrorists are because more effective strategies can be put into action. Governments should use this knowledge to find the leader and how to target them.
The leader of the group is key because the disruption or terrorist leaderships weaken terrorist organization and causes them to struggle and expose themselves. (Rubin, 27) This has been happening Ninth Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization: “The loss of bin Laden and these other key operatives puts the network on a path of decline that will be difficult to reverse. ” (“Country Reports on Terrorism 2011” Web) Be careful with this strategy: ‘Better the devil you know. Like [Libyan dictator][Mortar] Gadding, keep him alive, because you know him.
Who knows what sort of clever mastermind might replace him. ” (Garret 60) Past concessions to terrorists have proven that government negotiations with them make terrorism productive; therefore governments should marginality, isolate or eliminate the threat. Doing so would make terrorist acts unprofitable for those who carry them out. In order to avoid the further proliferation of terrorism, governments must take a firm stand against these foes and send a message of zero tolerance against terrorist acts.
Cite this Governments Should Not Negotiate With Terrorists
Governments Should Not Negotiate With Terrorists. (2018, Jan 11). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/governments-should-not-negotiate-with-terrorists/