Should we negotiate with terrorists?

Terrorism is a worldwide line that has devastating effects. It deprives people of the freedom to travel and enjoy themselves for fear of terrorist attacks. It subjects cle atomic number 18d people to assaults, kidnappings and murders as they are use as pawns in poisonous semipolitical games.The question of whether a government should negotiate with terrorists has been widely debated. whatsoever think it is beneficial. Others think it does more than harm than good. This paper willing explore some arguments both for supporting and against negotiation with terrorists.Arguments supporting negotiation with terrorists salve livesThe most obvious and immediate advantage of negotiating with terrorists is the saving of lives. If terrorists hold numerous innocent people hostage in exchange for the fulfilment of their demands, therefore negotiating with them would most likely moderate in the expeditious saving of those people. This hear supports the idea that everything should be done to save a life.Enables communication, learning and apprehensiveness of terrorists.Negotiating enables communication with the terrorists and can therefore lead to a greater apprehension of them, as well as a greater capacity to baffle them, which may help resolve the conflicts between the terrorists and the government and may regular(a) 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 hurl argued that Jihad is a defensive 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 military figurehead in Islamic countries, political and military aid to Israel, and aid to other Middle Eastern countries (Zalman 2007).Ayman Al Zawahiri, Al Qaedas de vomity sheriff leader, has said words that suggest a willingness to negotiate. He s tated in December 2006 that the United States will be negotiating and failing in Iraq, until it is labored to return to negotiate with the real powers (Zalman 2007).All solutions must be attempt before terrorist groups obtain nuclear weaponsAn argument for negotiation is that it can put a halt to terrorists before they obtain nuclear weapons. There are 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 threat of nuclear war which of course would result in an enormous amount of innocent deaths.Arguments against negotiation with terrorists.More lives are saved in the long-runThe biggest reason to non negotiate with terrorists is that it serves as an incentive for terrorists to keep reservation demands, in this way encouraging more terrorist activity. In the long run, if terrorists know that governments will not negotiate with them, they are unlikely to k eep 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 acquire died if Russia had negotiated with the terrorists and had given them what they wanted. However, in the long run, Russia disencouraged terrorists from holding schools ransom or trying similar stunts by showing them that such attempts to negotiate are unsuccessful. duologue is ineffective and a sign of weaknessTerrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are considered to be radical Islamic extremists who seek the oddment 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 clean political systemsBy negotiating with terrorists, a government can be argued to be rewarding t errorists for their violent behaviour, something 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 equipment casualty 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 effective. BibliographyZalman, A. (2007). why Not Negotiate with Terrorists- -Pros and Cons of Talking to Al Qaeda. (Online) Retrieved April 2 2007. http//terrorism.about.com/od/globalwaronterror/i/NegotiateQaeda.