Government Should Not Negotiate with Terrorist
Many countries have policies which pledge to not negotiate terrorists yet negotiating are still occurs behind the scene. Negotiating is to reach to an agreement through discussing formally with others but terrorists by definition is someone you disagree with. So negotiating with them to make an agreement is nonviable. In 2003, President George W. Bush proclaimed that “You have got to be strong, not weak. The only way to deal with these people [terrorists] is to bring them to justice. You cannot talk to them. You cannot negotiate with them.” There are some cases that would be worth negotiating with the terrorists but every circumstance has its own consequences. As the threat of terrorism grows, some may argue that negotiating is crucial step but it’s actually validating and rewarding their tactics, encouraging more terrorism and providing more resources to the terrorists.
If governments were to negotiate with terrorists, it basically means that they are acknowledging terrorist’s tactics and rewarding them for their wicked behaviours. As soon as the negotiating occurs, terrorists will instantly know that there is weakness present in the opposition side. According to the United States history, in the year of 1985, the event called Iran –Contra Affair was the most controversial event to argue about it because it highlighted how the government validated the terrorist’s strategy and granted them their demands. The demand was to exchange the American hostages held in Lebanon for weapons. Some may proclaim that the government’s prime responsibility is to save lives and negotiation with terrorists is a must. Yes, the government is in charge of its own civilians bu...
... middle of paper ...
...sed the money to expand their members and also improved their equipment for future usage (Rubin & Gershowitz).
In conclusion, Governments should realize that engaging with terrorist is the same as acknowledging them, giving them confidence for the future terrors and supporting them with any resources of their demands. So engaging with terrorists is not an option. If countries wish to be free from terrorism, its government should never have contact with terrorists in the first place. Countries that are still negotiating with terrorists behind their own policy of not negotiating will need to deeply analyse why terrorism is still occurring repeatedly. Letting negotiation to take place can send the message that the governments is inviting more terrorism. In order to prevent everything, governments should never plant a seed of terrorism in the first place.
... as an attempt to be transparent about who is funding the organization and how the money is being spent.
Terrorism is a leading issue in American society and stated by Peter Gasser “Terrorist attacks have brought suffering and distress to individual victims” (Gasser). Terrorists could care less who they kill or how many because “terrorists strike indiscriminately.” (Gasser). Because of this we Americans must secure our borders tighter. Terrorists want to push their purpose onward but as Peter Gasser says “The purpose of terrorists attacks is to create fear to further their cause” (Gasser). Terrorists strive to maintain a political goal which is why “Terrorist attacks are often perpetuated against persons who have no direct influence” (Gasser) just so they can prove a point.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN-13: 9780073530369
...our NFP can leverage the recently acquired $150,000 and turn it into $1,000,000, in capital funds, $144,100 in In-kind donations from partnerships, and nearly $710,000 in Per Diem that supports our annual operations for Veterans programs, which will enable them to win the “war at home” and achieve their full potential in all areas of their life. As a result, accomplishing this mission proves to provide a maximum ROI from both a financial and personal standpoint.
Negotiation is a fundamental process used in resolving conflicts, making business deals, and in managing working relationships with others. Negotiations occur for two reasons: (1) to resolve a problem or dispute between parties, or (2) to create something new that neither party could do on its own.
Terrorism can be specifically classified as asymmetric conflict, or a ”war between political actors of equal strength, in which the weaker party tries to neutralize its opponent’s strength by exploiting the opponent’s weaknesses” (A16, Glossary, Mingst.) Terrorist groups pose a great security threat, on an international scale (278, Mingst.) As terrorist groups increase in size and influence, the threat on security grows as well. The question then arises as to how to eli...
There are many tactics that both sides can and do use to try and get the other side to yield first, when negotiations are under way. Uni...
A terrorist is someone who uses deliberate violent tactics to attack those who they see to be their enemy, mainly official government like organizations. Terrorists all share many characteristics which include, committing violent attacks, creating an atmosphere of fear, wanting publicity and not wanted to conquer, just harm their enemy (Taylor [Page 11]). Two of the most renowned terroristic organizations are the Taliban and al Qaeda. When a terrorist is captured there are two different routes they can take. The first being, taken into civilian courts and being tried in the United States court systems. But leaves them in a “legal limbo” for some time bet...
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
The definition of political violence is ‘violence [that is] outside of state control that is political motivated’ (O’Neil 2011, par. 1). One way to study political violence is to interpret the way a group participates in collective action to solve political dilemmas, and why groups choose violence as a means to achieve their political goals. As P. Schmid Alex wrote, “conflict itself is not illegitimate but part of the human existence and can be a positive mechanism of social and political change” (Schmid 2004, 199). Another aspect of violence that is commonly debated and discussed within the political arena is terrorism. Specifically, how state actors and policy-makers distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence.
...xamples was at Dupont’s fibers division, which employed approximately 20,000 people (Masternak). The plan’s designers intended to develop a “program to reward employee contributions, in the belief that sharing the rewards as well as the risks of the division’s financial performance would help the business succeed in the market place”(Masternak).
...w to apply these tactics into practice. Understanding the meaning of each tactics is just the first stage, flexibility in the use of appropriate tactics in future issues is more important. Besides, I need to make a detailed plan before the negotiation. Firstly, analyzing the interests, perspectives and weak points of the opposite side and selecting suitable tactics. Secondly, preparing several response strategies will help me to control the situations. Thirdly, setting the minimum level what I can agree on the issue is also essential part of negotiation.
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.
Negotiations always occur between parties who believe that some benefit may come of purposeful discussion. The parties to a negotiation usually share an intention to reach an agreement. This is the touchstone to which any thinking of negotiations must refer. While there may be some reason to view negotiations as attempts by each party to get the better of the other, this particular type of adversarial negotiation is really just one of the options available. Among the beginning principles of a negotiation must be an acknowledgment that the parties to a negotiation have both individual and group interests that are partially shared and partially in conflict, though the parameters and proportions of these agreements and disagreements will never be thoroughly known; this acknowledgment identifies both the reason and the essential subject matter for reflection on a wide range of issues relevant to a negotiation. (Gregory Tropea, November 1996)
Negotiation approaches are generally described as either distributive or integrative. At the heart of each strategy is a measurement of conflict between each party’s desired outcomes. Consider the following situation. Chris, an entrepreneur, is starting a new business that will occupy most of his free time for the near future. Living in a fancy new development, Chris is concerned that his new business will prevent him from taking care of his lawn, which has strict requirements under neighborhood rules. Not wanted to upset his neighbors, Chris decides to hire Matt to cut his grass.