Should governments negotiate with terrorists?
Yes most definately
Side Score: 12
|
 |
No never
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
Any government’s primary responsibility is to save lives. History has shown that military solutions have little chance of succeeding: it is almost impossible to defeat an organisation composed of individual people with guns and bombs without unbearable restrictions on the freedom of the innocent. In the case of prolonged internal campaigns of terrorism, the promise of negotiations can be used as a bargaining tool to end violence, and will almost always lead to a ceasefire. This has been seen in almost every case where terrorist groups have been brought to the negotiating table. In the case of more isolated incidents, such as hostage-taking, it is worth making concessions in order to save the lives of civilians who the government has no right to sacrifice on a stubborn point of morality. Many terrorist conflicts are the result of political disagreements that run back many years; terrorism is often fuelled by a historic culture of hatred and distrust. In such situations, it is imperative that someone take the first step in trying to resolve the situation. In the interests of peace and of fairness, it is the government which must do so: it is inevitably the more powerful side in the conflict and is therefore in a position to make concessions. Only by taking a lead is it possible to end the killing. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Most terrorist organisations are not engaged in violence simply for the joy of it, nor for personal gain; instead, they stand for a particular political position, and often for a particular group of people. It is important to realise that there are two sides to every conflict. A good example for this is the ANC in South Africa. For many years they were regarded by the government – and by many foreign governments – as an illegal terrorist organisation. For the majority black population of the country, however, they were legitimately fighting for their freedom. History will record that they were on the side of right, and the apartheid government was in the wrong. Side: Yes most definately
1
point
I think we should if they'd give us a chance to do so but it doesn't seem they're hell bent on negotiating. Rather they are hell bent on taking on their mission and running with it. Those that approach us before the fact should be negotiated with but that does not mean giving in to their demands if they are too outlandish. Negotiating is just that. It doesn't mean you necessarily have to give in to their demands. Side: Yes most definately
1
point
|
Giving in to terrorists may save lives in the short term, but is harmful in the longer term. Many terrorist groups have been unable to achieve their goals through democratic means and hence resort to violence; by making concessions, the government is saying that groups who use guns and bombs can have more influence in society than those who use peaceful methods. This is a dangerous precedent to set, as it encourages others to use violence in the belief that it will further their cause. Instead, governments must demand that groups abandon violence and cease acts of terrorism before negotiations can even be considered. Side: no never
I'm sorry for being so blunt, but you are simply incorrect. A terrorist's path is already set either way, whether we negotiate or not. A terrorist, whether sanctions are made or not, is going use terror to influence those who are not them. Whether the methods of terror used by a terrorist group are successful or not has absolutely no bearing on whether they will try terrorist activity to gain their goal next time. They will always use terror. It's a mistake many people make with fringe groups, they assume that they think how we think. A normal person will try something one way, and if it does not work, try it a different way. This is not the case with these people though. You can't teach a rabid dog not to bite. It doesn't matter if you beat it, or feed it, it will still be rabid. Sometimes though, if you throw it a steak, it will drop whatever is in it's jaw at that moment. You need to kill a rabid dog, and make sure it does not infect the dogs around it with rabies, that is all you can do. With terrorists, if we cannot kill them, then we have to try to make sure they don't infect people around them with their ideology. One way to do this is by showing those who are not on the fringes that we are different then them. We assume that people know this about us. I assure you, your average middle eastern person does not know this about us at all. One problem with the last administration was, they chose to fight fire with fire. This of course only serves to make both fires bigger. It's a dumb saying, and anyone who uses it, carefully consider whether they really know what they are talking about. Anyway, from the perspective of your average middle eastern person, the two fires looked very similar. So, when you have a situation where this rabid dog has a couple poodles in it's maw, it is better to throw it a steak. This won't encourage or discourage future behavior in any way. What it will do at the least though is free the poodles while we figure out ways to make sure this dog doesn't infect more around it. Side: Yes most definately
2
points
2
points
Negotiations with terrorists legitimize the terrorists at the expense of the reformists and real freedom fighters.
• This is true, for example, in Iran, which supports terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas. Negotiating with their leaders undermines the reformists in Iran who see their leaders as having stolen the elections. • Another example was the international community allowing Hamas, which has vowed to destroy Israel, to participate in elections for the Palestinian Authority. They used that legitimacy as a platform to take over all of Gaza by force a year after they won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament.
Negotiations with terrorists give them an incentive to continue bad behavior so they can negotiate more concessions
Terrorists may be reprehensible, but they often act rationally. So they understand that if their opponents will exchange captured terrorists for soldiers or civilians, they will continue capturing soldiers and civilians. This has been especially true of Israel negotiating with Hamas and Hezbollah. Side: no never
1
point
|
