Governments Should Not Negotiate With Terrorists Essay

Would you give a pirate $100,000 to get your stolen purse adventure? If you were to give a thief $100,000, you would perk up him think that he so-and-so make a profit extinct of stealing purses. The thief would besides use the $100,000 to buy a gun or different weapons or vehicles that would help him steal future(a) purses. Now think about the thief as a terrorist and you as a government. Should governments negotiate with terrorists? terrorism activities collect increased these past few years due to faulty determinations make by governments when dealing with terrorists.M both agree made the mistake of flexile with terrorists, which makes them appear promiscuous and targetable, which only sponsors future terrorist acts. The emergences of past government agreements with terrorists have only worsened and perpetuated this situation. The gainful of millions of dollars as ransom to terrorist kidnappers and hostage/takers has likewise fueled future terrorist ravishs and has only made terrorism advantageous, make it more than attractive to terrorists.Governments legitimize terrorism by compromising wherefore governments should not negotiate with terrorists, rather marginalize and wearieden their organizations by refusing them any concessions and targeting individuals inside their groups. The reasoning behind terrorism is that violence fag end be apply to attract the attention of governments and the general public, who as a result, succumb to the terrorists ideas and/or desires. Unfortunately, this terrorist tactic is sometimes effective, like in the 2004 Madrid Bom stack awaygs. On March 11, ETA, a terrorist organization, bombed four commuter trains in Madrid.Their objective was to social movement a political change in Spain the elections were that same weekend. Before the bombings, the multitudes troupe was the voters favorite, hardly ETAs 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 legions in Iraq, which is what ETA valued. Because of this turn of events, Downing says the terrorists would be able to shout that their bombings had influenced both a European election and the situation in Iraq. (Downing 38-39) Since the batch and the government reacted to the attack the way ETA wanted it too, the terrorists could have considered the attack successful, and as a consequence may attack again. The message the government send ETA is that if they want a change, they should just use violence to obtain it. Governments mustiness be careful with terrorists interest and their own interests when making contentious 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.ETA wanted them removed, and the Socialist Party decided to remove them because of the pressure they were put under. Removing the troops was a mistake because it just pleased the terrorists it made the terrorists feel they can manipulate the government by pressure induced by brutality. Governments should of all time include terrorist interests in important decision-making, exactly not to make the decision in the terrorists favor, rather to make the decision in a way 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 pass on 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 from other governments, leaders or groups. Even if they might want to put in for the most pacific reasons, peace negotiations with terrorists do not have the shell outcomes. First of all, they are terrorists therefore, their favorite and only way of attempting to achieve their goals is thr ough violence.This means that if they do not receive what they desire through force, they call up they cannot get it through peace either. Secondly, terrorists are unpredictable they cannot be trusted. Thirdly, most terrorists do not back down, especially jihadists, because they are willing to stick out their life for what they believe in. Lastly, if a government makes peace with terrorists, and the terrorists do not detention their end of the deal, then the government will appear weak 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 essay to end terrorism instead of making a truce with it. A perfect example of why governments should not sample peace from terrorists is an incident the U. S. government had in Fallujah. U. S. Marines attempted to compromise with jihadists in Fallujah after being pressured by European officials and human rights groups. The U. S. Secret ary of State, Colin Powell, give tongue to they wanted peace instead of war in Fallujah, but the jihadists misinterpret and considered the compromise a victory over the Americans. (Rubin 19-20) As a result, the mistaking led to 30 car bombings.Not only did the U. S. appear weak because of this failed compromise it alike encouraged the jihadists to canalize on with their terrorist acts because the jihadists believed they defeated them, and that they were dependent of defeating them again. Truces with terrorists are truly tricky and unpredictable, and should always be avoided because an unfavorable outcome can be catastrophic and can lead to more violence. however 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 populate are getting more accust omed to them as they happen. (Rubin 22) Kidnappings/hostage reward 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 legitimizes their act and as a result provided proliferates terrorism.It has spread terrorism because the terrorists have learned that kidnapping/hostage-taking has become very profitable. (Rubin 23) In March 2000, Muammar al-Qadhafi, a Libyan leader, compensable Abu Sayyaf, a hostage-taker base in the Philippines, a $25 million ransom for the release of priests, teachers, and children he had kidnaped from a school. (Rubin 23) After receiving the money, Abu Sayyaf expanded his terrorist group from a couple century to more than a thousand members and bought speedboats and weapons, which were used for other kidnappings.By paying the terrorist such a large ransom to keep the captives from g etting harmed, Muammar al-Qadhafi funded future kidnappings, putting more people in danger. The paying of the ransom in addition made kidnapping productive for Sayyaf, 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 Sahel. The Bin moneyed of the Desert, Ammari Saifi, took 32 European vacationers in the Algerian desert, and held them hostage for 177 days. The German government paid a five million euroransom and they were released, but Ammari Saifi used the money to buy weapons and vehicles. (Rubin 24) The German government funded future kidnappings standardized 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 rhythm method more effectively (with new and more members, weapons and vehicles). Governments should not keep recognize 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- terrorist act History, dodge and Tactics Web) Western governments should also respond to kidnapping by thinking about the safety of the volume 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. (Garreau 60) The more breeding 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 bark and expose themselves. (Rubin, 27) This has been happening with Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization The loss of bin Laden and these other key operatives puts the network on a class 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 dictatorMoammar Gaddafi, keep him alive, because you know him. Who knows what sort of clever mastermind might replace him. (Garreau 60) knightly concessions to terrorists have proven that government negotiations with them make terrorism productive therefore governments should marginalize, 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 permissiveness against terrorist acts. ? Works Cited Chapter 1. Strategic Assessment. U. S. Department of State. U. S. Department of State, 31 July 2012. Web. 31 Jan. 2013. . Counter-Terrorism History, Strategy and Tactics. Counter-Terrorism History, Strategy and Tactics. Web. 31 Jan. 2013. . Downing, David. Madrid Bombings. The War on Terror. Mankato Arcturus Publishing, 2008. 38-39. Print. Garreau, Joel. Intelligence meeting place Is the Best Way to Reduce Terrorism. At Issue. Are Efforts to Reduce Terrorism Succesful? Ed. Lauri S. Friedman. Farmington Hills Greenhaven Press, 2005. 57-63. Rubin, Michael and Suzanne Gershowitz. Governments S hould Never Negotiate with Terrorists. At Issue. Should Governments Negotiate with Terrorists? Ed. Amanda Hiber. Farmington Hills Greenhaven Press, 2008. 15-29.