Should we negotiate with terrorists?

Negotiation with terrorists can be seen as a practical way to react. However, some may also view it as the wrong was to resolve the situation. Two key areas of talk in this debate that have to be defined are ‘terrorists’ and ‘negotiation’. Terrorists are those who use violent action, against civilians, in which to achieve their political aims. One would perhaps negotiate to the extent of being prepared to comprise and listen to relieve the hostage situation.

To begin with, we must address the question over what is the purpose of negotiation? One would negotiate in order to “get what they want”. On this instance of a hostage situation a case of practicalities arises. The state would negotiate in order to save lives and prevent the escalation of problems. By negotiating with terrorists we are able to achieve the state’s priority in these situations – saving lives. One may pay at ransom or even release political prisoners to save civilians who have done nothing wrong.

To negotiate with terrorists is merely giving them legitimacy, which they do not deserve. We should not have any relationship with terrorists but we should virtually expel them from society at their own will. Therefore they may even forsake violence and look at other peaceful means of putting forward their views in our democracy. If we negotiate with terrorists there is still no guarantee that they will release the hostages. When we give in to their demands they may still merely refuse to cooperate. Moreover, most of these political terrorists are not looking for money but the release of political prisoners. The problem aroused from this is that the prisoners released may even go and kill again. This completely defeats the point of negotiation. Although hostages may be saved now, this may result in more hostages being killed later.

However, nowadays we can learn many things from history. If we look at history we can see that it is proven that negotiation works. Negotiations can often lead to ceasefires, and consequently saving lives. For example, during John Major’s premiership he managed to achieve a ceasefire with the IRA – and only through means of negotiation. Also, to rebut what the opposition stated about giving them legitimacy is completely flawed as they still have no place in our society – but we have to admit that they are the ones in control in these situations, and negotiation is the only way to deal with it.

In conclusion, today’s debate has surfaced several valid arguments – ranging from the issue of practicalities to what history has shown us. In my outlook to this controversial question, I think that negotiating with terrorists will lead to an escalation of hostage situations. This is because political groups will start to think that the state will give into their demands and they can achieve their political aims, when they hold hostages – therefore I would beg to oppose this motion.