Should we negotiate with terrorists?

Terrorism is a worldwide problem that has devastating effects. It deprives pile of the freedom to travel and enjoy themselves for fear of terrorist attacks. It subjects innocent people to assaults, kidnappings and murders as they argon use as pawns in deadly political games.The question of whether a governance should hash out with terrorists has been widely debated. Some think it is beneficial. Others think it does more harm than good. This paper will explore some origins both for supporting and against negotiation with terrorists.Arguments supporting negotiation with terroristsSaving livesThe most obvious and speedy advantage of negotiating with terrorists is the saving of lives. If terrorists hold many innocent people hostage in ex transfer for the finis of their demands, then negotiating with them would most likely result in the expeditious saving of those people. This view supports the idea that everything should be done to save a life.Enables communication, learning and u nderstanding of terrorists.Negotiating enables communication with the terrorists and tail assembly therefore lead to a greater understanding of them, as well as a greater capacity to influence them, which whitethorn help resolve the conflicts between the terrorists and the government and may even open the way for peace. Communication with terrorists can also aid in acquiring valuable intelligence that can be later used against them.Al Qaeda appears to be open to negotiationSome experts have argued that Jihad is a antiaircraft doctrine, and the attacks against the West should be understood as retaliatory, provoked attacks which would cease if the West gives in to their demands of reduced host presence in Islamic countries, political and military aid to Israel, and aid to other Middle eastern countries (Zalman 2007).Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaedas deputy leader, has said words that suggest a willingness to negotiate. He stated in December 2006 that the United States will be negotiat ing and failing in Iraq, until it is forced to income tax return to negotiate with the real powers (Zalman 2007).All solutions must be tried before terrorist groups obtain nuclear weaponsAn argument for negotiation is that it can put a halt to terrorists before they obtain nuclear weapons. There atomic number 18 constant indications that Osama Bin Laden is searching for nuclear materials (Zalman 2007), and it can be argued that everything should be done, including negotiating, to stop the brat of nuclear war which of course would result in an enormous amount of innocent deaths.Arguments against negotiation with terrorists. much lives are saved in the long-runThe biggest reason to non negotiate with terrorists is that it serves as an incentive for terrorists to honor making demands, in this way encouraging more terrorist activity. In the long run, if terrorists know that governments will non negotiate with them, they are unlikely to keep making demands. For example, during the terrorist school siege in Beslan, Russia did not negotiate with the terrorists. It can be argued that the people who died in Beslan would not have died if Russia had negotiated with the terrorists and had given them what they wanted. However, in the long run, Russia disencouraged terrorists from keeping schools ransom or trying similar stunts by showing them that such attempts to negotiate are unsuccessful. dialogue is ineffective and a sign of weaknessTerrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are considered to be radical Islamic extremists who seek the destruction of all negotiations with the United States and its allies (Zalman 2007). Therefore, negotiating with them would be ineffective. Moreover, it will be seen as a sign of weakness and would encourage them to exploit it.Negotiating with terrorists rewards terrorist activity and destabilizes honest political systemsBy negotiating with terrorists, a government can be argued to be rewarding terrorists for their violent behaviour, someth ing which should never be done. If terrorists are given what they want, they will come back and ask for more. Furthermore, negotiating with terrorists erodes and weakens the value of non -violent and pacifist means of achieving political change (Zalman 2007). Negotiation with terrorists destabilizes political systems by encouraging terrorists to keep making demands, and establishes a dangerous precedent (Zalman 2007).Terrorists may not honor the terms of their demandsTerrorists cannot be trusted to comply with the terms of a negotiation. Truces with terrorist groups dont always hold, as has been the case with Israel and Hamas, and with Spain and ETA (Zalman 2007). Furthermore, even a truce with a terrorist leader, for example Osama Bin Laden, does not guarantee that the entire worldwide Al Qaeda terrorist group will honor the terms of the truce. This makes negotiating harder and less(prenominal) effective. BibliographyZalman, A. (2007). Why Not Negotiate with Terrorists- -Pros and C ons of Talking to Al Qaeda. (Online) Retrieved April 2 2007. http//terrorism.about.com/od/globalwaronterror/i/NegotiateQaeda.