Government should try to serve the people, not itself. Devolution might be eventually required in this case, unless there is a certainty of violence.

Hi Muhammad,

Negotiation with terrorist groups has both cultural and political impacts.

For instance Hessam Vaez-Zadeh in an article evaluated European approaches towards conflict settlement with terrorist groups. He indicated violence, negotiation, and peace accordingly.

However, in the Middle East, terrorism is indicated with a "total war". 

As part of a project for The Center for International Scientific Studies and Collaboration I am evaluating the "Political culture of finding resolution with terrorist acts: A comparative study of EU and ME".

Hence, I can say that Pakistani government negotiation with terrorists in Pakistan, without understanding its cultural and political paradigm, is useless.

I think Governments must avoid negotiations, with the exception of negotiate the finish of the terrorist activity

depends what would be defined as negotiation. the Israeli-hamas experience indicates that both parties negotiated indirectly. the negotiation facilitated by the Egyptians brought to informal agreement regarding rules of engagement. negotiation could be understood as informal understandings as well as different types of signals be it militarily or others. as far as I can recall there are no examples for good consequences following direct negotiations between governments and terror organizations. I all cases I remember the situation after negotiating with terror organizations became worst unless the negotiation was about dismantling these organizations and transforming them to legitimate political players like in Columbia and north Ireland. 

It is an apathy that the democratic countries are facing high handedness of extremism at a very higher price. It is an epidemic that easily spoil the free living of people. The reasons of their origin may be well reasonable but for common good, acts and omissions that are unconstitutional need not be followed at any cost. It only requires the determination of government armed forces to neutralize the threat and eradicate such existence. Peace is not bought and Rights are to be established.

It depends whether you are seeking short term or long term peace. Short term counter terrorism does require first isolating the militants from their larger support base in Pakistan ( this includes dealing with the problem at a deeper ideological level and alienating the militants from the religion of the masses i.e convincing the masses that what militants stand for is totally unIslamic) and then seeking to weaken them from military or whatever means...for long term peace negotiation from a position of strength is the only way out..  and eventually terrorism can be rooted out through education, promoting good understanding of religion rather than another 'war on terror'.

With the militants seeking a strict sharia state and with the ruling elite opposing it, achieving a common ground for a negotiated settlement is not feasible. At some level, to satisfy a significant segment of the public, in the short-term, a façade of peace talks may have to go on, while the govt. still wielding the stick. 

Ultimately, it is important to realize that clerics and sharia have transformed Pakistan.

Accordingly, a long-term approach may involve "strategies that work to reduce the prestige and significance that the Muslim public attaches to sharia is one important way of weakening the radical platform and for communities to govern themselves and develop their societies by embracing modernity."

Details in the attached publication.

I will begin with a principle that drives my respose: context matters. Finding examples where such negotiation worked is no help because in another situation the differences will undermine any lessons. So here too, Pakistan is not Ireland and Ireland is not Iraq etc. Terrorists indeed have grievances but they too are different from case to case and some of the grievances have to do precisely with democracy, which they might not relish.

Perhaps one a way to think about this is to ask in a specific situation: is there anything the terrorists really want that we are willing to concede, and anything we really want that  the terrorists would concede (part and parcel of negotiation  )? And is an agreement with terrorists enforceable? The answers are difficult  but necessary. 

• I don't think the government should necessarily avoid negotiations with terrorist groups. What really matter is the terms of negotiations and whether the terms are dictated by government or nonstate actors. For example, some Islamic terrorist groups want to negotiate on purely religious terms even in a secular society. I think the terms of negotiations and who dictate these terms matter a lot. 

What you are saying is that governments have their (people's) interests, and the terrorists have theirs - and sometimes they are incompatible (it is not possible to satisfy both parties with an agreement - as when one party's chief interest is destroying the other). Back to context, in some situations there are also some joint interests, which helps craft an agreement, while in others there do not appear to be such joint (shared) interests. I would propose that  in such situations parties may need to act unilaterally, much as we don't like the thought, and then there is a winner and a loser (no perceived joint gains from negotiations). I stress "perceived" because the parties may be wrong but they don't see it. That does not mean an outsider can see what the parties don't see. And outsiders (interveners, whether states,  diplomats or peace professionals) can be wrong too. So the fact that we can, from the side, see a way out does not mean that way exists for the parties; often it just means we care about other things than the parties themselves and don't get it.  A tell-tale sign of this is when we call the parties themselves irrational (when they just happen to have a different rationality than ours) or extremist...

Among my publications you can find a short article on the question of whether or not to negotiate with terrorists. I think the basic arguments remain valid today.

Frank, it would be helpful for the discussion to summarize these arguments here, especially since you believe they   remain valid.

In Pakistan's case Sun Tzu's wise words must be considered , War is an Art , negotiations is a major part of it... In order to win one must 'know thyself' and 'know thy enemy' . Pakistan is not quite certain about both. No use of negotiations in such frame of mind. So before any negotiation , which I still believe to be the ultimate way out.. ( after dealing with the most militant  elements ) ..we must  identify what our enemy stands for and what we the ordinary Pakistani stand for. I do not see any point in letting more bloodshed in Pakistan just because we do not want to discuss sharia ...and here comes the role of 'knowing thyself'... there is plenty of liberal discourse within Islamic tradition, ...there is plenty of evidence that militant stance is not based in religion...so at some point we must bring the ideologues on table and discuss  sharia and how it may be implemented in modern times...by clearing our own thoughts , we atleast would be able to alienate militants ideology if not win it over.

Just sharing some thoughts worth considering;

http://www.masterpeace.org/blogs/post/to_you_who_killed

Academic advice needs to be specific.

Sharia is the point of contention between extremists and the ruling elite in Pakistan.

First and foremost, sharia is an opinion typically of a cleric or a religious scholar. It is they who self-servingly portray it as all-encompassing "divine law." This sharia characterization helps maintain prestige and influence of these people, but compromises everyone else. In fact, the study of Pakistan I have published suggests that this sharia narrative had gradually pushed out modernity and took Pakistan backward in time.

Since sharia is not even written down, it is legitimate to say that it is not a law. For Pakistan to have a future (and for the global problem of Islamic radicalism to be addressed effectively), time has come to say it out loud that sharia is not a law, but just a self-serving opinion of a cleric with a very limited educational background.

Lets be specific here; I hope you would take it in good spirit as this is strictly an academic argument;

What you are saying is your 'opinion' , based on very limited and selective evidence e.g your article quotes Hussain Haqqani (p 354) terming war in Kashmir a jihad to gain control of the territory , I think Alaistair Lamb would be more authentic source on Kashmir issue , Arundhati Roy may be another valid source. Pakistan has always demanded right of self determination for Kashmir which has been denied to them.

As for Jinnah's views (mis) quoted on p 355,  kindly consult Akber S. Ahmed who is an authentic source on Jinnah . Jinnah's ideas about sharia principles are quite well known and to see how he interpreted these principles , see his 11th August 1947 speech which insists that in Pakistan people of all faith Hindu , Muslims , Christians shall have equal citizenship rights ( exactly in line with Prophet Muhammad's  pbuh Madina Pact ) .

For better understanding of Islamic sharia , kindly consult better sources ( local clerics have limited knowledge of it) . I would recommend; Abdullahi Ahmed An Naim's 'Islam and the Secular State' , From South Asia ; Iqbal's Reconstruction of Religious Thought, From Turkey  Fetullah Gulen's work , From Pakistan Fazl ur Rahman Malik's 'Islam and Modernity' , Maulana Shibli's work may also be explored. Also note that Muslim madrasas started producing clerics of current kind only after Western colonial experience . Before this for many centuries they have been producing Avicennas, Rumis, Ibn Arabi, Averroës , Al Kindi s and people who formed the basis of modern Science.  The limited Islamist ideology leading to current militancy is a 20th century construction , the reactionary ideology is the legacy of colonial subjugation and cold war politics. 

Ok now here comes a neophyte with regard to Middle Eastern cultures so try not to kick me when I am down :)  I thought the premise of this conversation was "negotiating with terrorists"  I emphasize the latter because I think it is an oxymoron to anticipate negotiation with ISIL and even when you refer to the Taliban, it matters who you are talking to or about.  I don't doubt Fatima that there are Pashtun who do feel disenfranchised but how does it help, what possible explanation or good could come from talking with people who send armed fighters into a school to murder babies and children.  There was a willingness on the part of the invaders to murder all 1,000 children.  Thank the Lord that didn't happen but 145 or so is enough to get my attention.  

And in this, the 21st century, I personally believe that to keep young women out of school, perform surgeries to make intercourse painful or impossible to ensure that there is no infidelity on her part (the men who cares?), stone women who don't go along with not knowing how to read or who do who knows what that somehow "shames" the family so they deserve to die.  These are not just simple differences in belief.  These are a matter of human dignity and human rights and if you want to go there, it also is pretty ignorant because it keeps 50% of the population in abject poverty with virtually no way out.  

And how do you "talk" to a member of ISIL.  I haven't seen any interest in their part on negotiation.  What's to negotiate?  They aren't interested in integrating into a multi cultural whole.  They want (and it is them not me whose talking) to kill the rest of us who don't want to live in an ignorant 13th century system.  I dont' think it is religious, I think it is ignorance and by that I mean ignorant of basic knowledge.  And it is about power.  And truthfully, I think it is about psychologically damaged people with values that do not revere human life of any kind, not even their own.  We have seen the ilk of this many many times in the past.  Where some Mogul or Dictator who is essential sociopathic but appeals to the poverty and ignorance and (thinking of converts coming from Western nations) children who have been raised in emotionally deprived and sociopathic families who would turn to any segment of the population to get back at someone for how unhappy or empty they are inside.  

There are millions of these.  In the days leading up to finally taking a stand, there was talk in the highest circles of "negotiating with Hitler" and whole countries did that.  And guess what, two months, two weeks maybe even days later, Hitler ignored all those negotiations and pushed his Panzers into the forests and when ready, called upon his air force, his tank battalions, his storm troopers to roll over whole cities in a matter of hours or days and in the aftermath to convince neighbors and even family members to turn in their friends, their parents, even their own children for a little more food, or a little more time.  But in the end 6,000,000 people (let's leave the religion out of it) or more were murdered in the most heinous ways.  

So in my opinion, and it is just my opinion although based on research into history and past experience, you can negotiate with those with whom you share a common set of core values and moral beliefs.  We don't have to agree with each others religion but we have to have some core human values in common.  There is no negotiation with Terrorists.  All you are doing, even if they will negotiate is kidding yourself into thinking you are buying time.  

I am not for war but Terrorism isn't something that organized.  I don't think we have to be for war.  It will come to us if we fail to defend human rights.

Dear Alexandra , I do agree with you , this conflict is not about religion , it is about ignorance ...so how do we fight ignorance ? Certainly not by guns. We have to reach out and communicate..and when we do that we might discover how blissfully ignorant we ourselves might be when we conveniently stereotype 'them' as 'psychologically damaged people with values that do not revere human life of any kind'  and 'us' as those 'who don't want to live in an ignorant 13th century system'. For 21st century's sake we must come out of this 'us vs. them' , 'clash of civilizations' ( aptly termed as 'clash of ignorance' by Edward Said) frame of mind and try to address the structural injustice within our system.

Having said this , I do understand that despite our wish that good sense prevails and things settle down without a war, I know it would be impractical  to deal with the most militant minds  in this manner and use of force may be required at times. But as Ian pointed out such conflicts in the long term cannot be settled through use of force. It only escalates violence.The '21st century '  War on Terror experience should be an eye opener. Terrorism continues to grow in Pakistan despite more than a decade of drone war . And may I ask what would you call the illegal drone  strikes which has killed many innocent ( this time termed as collateral damage , not inhuman massacre) who remain the 'unidentified' , faceless, nameless victims not worthy enough to be shown on TV screens , news reports.etc. There have been strikes killing scores of children in madrasas but this does not qualify as terrorism in our dictionaries.

The world is more complicated than what we wish to make of it in order to make it easier to "take in." Moreover, our mental models of the world stand in the way of our understanding and communicating. Alexandra is right, in my view, about objecting to various practices that mistreat 50% of a population. However, ignorance is a comfortable explanation that is unlikely (remember that Nazis were quite educated and modern in their time).and does not point to solutions either. Fatima brings up some serious grievances that do not really address Alexandra's broader concerns but suggest a kind of "qui pro quo that may not exist and in any case does not solve the problems. Besides, the fact that some (many) respinses to problems are quite bad does not mean these are not problems or that some practices (such as the treatment of women or killing of children) are OK because others do it too or do something else that is terrible. It just means the responses were bad too. 

Historically, states have been responsible for for most terrorist activities.  The state and its ideological apparatuses and their accomplices call  those who resist state domination, "terrorists." States and those who resist their domination at times use terrorist tactics. I suggest a thoughtful reconsideration of Che Guevara's essays on the subject. See Brian Loveman & Thomas M/ Davies (eds.), Che Guevara: Guerilla Warfare 3rd ed. Wilmington DE: Scholarly Resources. Also see Trotsky's thoughts on terrorism.

Oh Ian, I love your answer. Since I am originally from Great Britain (Scotland actually) I should have thought about this because I think that other than the Serbian Conflict which rears its ugly head every few years, it is the most like what we have in Pakistan.  And  perhaps I do need to do a little of my own separation of peoples and realize that the Taliban may not be the same as ISIL which really is much more amorphous and less related to an ethnicity.  Gosh, I was back to Scotland and Ireland only 8 or 9 years ago and was absolutely shocked to see auto dealerships in Belfast surrounded by coils of electrified barbed wire and police not driving in autos but in tanks.  And I remember the bombings in London and Ireland as well.  I think what makes this hard for me at least (I am willing to admit my own shallowness) is that this seems different because the only real differences were political power and religion. It really was, no matter how stupid, about religion.  I don't really understand the Middle Eastern cultures.  I know they are not nearly as  homogenous as we in the west like to think.  Don't hate me but it seems so foreign to me and on a very very fundamental basis, I just don't get it.  But as in Kosovo and Ireland at least one similarity is the fact that hatred is being transmitted generationally.  The Serbian conflict goes back maybe even a thousand years.  It is long past the time that Goriana's great great great grandfather killed Michela's grandfather in a battle of Honor.  And I remember so vividly saying to Michela that at some point, if we are ever to live in peace and work globally to advance all societies, we are going to have to just forgive the past and put aside our anger and frustration and attempt to understand each other. 

I think that is why I like this site.  I have worked with American Psychologists all over the place and some British ones, but if I really want to get a new perspective on development, I need to test my own hypotheses and learn how other cultures change and how individuals change in both similar and different ways.  So thanks a lot.  I knew this was a difficult subject that was not so much theoretical at least in an academic way, but am willing to be disagreed with and to try to listen even when I don't like what I hear.  Maybe we can be the start of a new beginning.

Dear Muhammad,

Your question implies all acts of violence perpetrated against a state are acts of terrorism by terrorists. I am not so inclined to leap to that conclusion. To me terrorism is designed to create fear in a given general population. I ask is this not also done in an attempt to liberate a country from the grips of an oppressive state? What is the deference between a freedom fighter and a terrorists? More to the point what defines an act of terrorism the ideology of the group?

I car bomb explodes in a crowded city street of an state which mandates all women must under go a forced clitoridectomy without being sedated. The group claiming responsibility is a group who's fighting for women being grated the right to refuse such mutilation, is this terrorism?  A group fighting for the right to vote blows up a power plant supplying power to the capital city is this an act of terrorism? How do we tell what is and is not a terrorist act? Is it based solely on the intended result? What the use of atomic weapons in WWII or poison gases in WWI were these acts of terrorism? How about states using these tactics on its own citizens?

I argue all negations are of merit when attempting to stop violent acts on innocent civilians. The argument about appearing week has already been smashed by the act itself. Therefore, what is to be feared in sitting around a table and discussing peace? I maintain that even if the outcome is mute the effort is noble and just and must be done. To refuse is an act of governmental survival at the expense of innocent people lives.

Douglas 

The attached is not really an answer to the question I am afraid. Its an attempt to look at how we as complex biological systems end up in this appalling mess! 

With respect to terrorism it's more like dealing with 'a situation' - its actually non-political as their demands come for an irrational basis. It more akin to talking someone down from a suicide attempt on a tall building? It's a mind set that's gone horribly wrong due to some cause that they just can't comprehend or deal with. The terrorist is totally lost. Their reality becomes atypical.

So negotiations are about making them feel relaxed enough to stop them behaving abnormally. The issue being that a good deal of them get-off-on their behaviour and the power and attention it affords them. They would not get that had they not adopted the behaviour. Negotiations can just reenforce that. So no right answer I guess.

Whatever else applies,  it is a mistake to consider "irrational" people whose motives we do not understand. We needn't agree with their motives but from their perspective their actions make sense (=are rational), in that  that they obtain something they value.  As John points out, some get attention and a measure of power; some obtain results they could not get otherwise. We could deem them irrational only if their actions predictably hurt them and their purposes every time. 

Sounds like a charter for bullying?

To answer the question you asked, the best evidence seems to indicate that sometimes negotiations are useful and sometimes counterproductive.  Audrey Kurth Cronin How Terrorism Ends is a good balanced source.

John,  I did not say " well they are rational so fine, let them do what seems apropriate to them." I simply said people are rational even if their rationality (including aims,  values and MOs, etc. )  is not ours. We got to do what we got to do,  but how we account for their behavior matters to how we go about defending ourselves and preventing tragic outcomes. This is about whether and how you negotiate with terrorists.  I think that explaining them away as irrational is not helpful. 

"I think that explaining them away as irrational is not helpful."

Is that an irrational statement?

For everyone interested in issues related to Islamic sharia , human rights and peace. Here; https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/aannaim

Requesting comment /critique : https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/aannaim/2015/03/03/585/

Sanda, you are defenetily right regarding the idea of rationality. rationality is the idea of maximaizing prospect with regard to your aims based on calculations of cost and benefit. goals and calculations are always based on values reflect ideology and therefore, people with different ideologies and set of values wil define different goals and do different calculations. one of the major problems we the Western world face dealing with terrorists and mainky Jihadi ones is the ethno-centric approach leads to perceptual biases and misunderstandings.

Negotiations with the non-state actors will not help in counter-terrorism

I agree with Krishnan. People are cynically playing very serious political games with whole populations through the manipulation of faith structures and the people that belong to them. There is little point in engaging on a political basis with either. The politicians need to address how to ensure that faith structures can't be targeted and misused in this way and the mass of faithful used, often without any humanity. The faithful need to be 'encouraged' to identify with secular politics on political matters (and where possible democratic politics) over faith systems that are so open to abuse and unable to redress. In other words we (individuals) need to think for ourselves and not emotionally embed ourselves in these flawed systems. This has nothing to do with 'values or ideologies'. I think it's a case of biological/neurological function?The slime mould response in us needs to be understood and controlled? Defused? The failure of so many state structures over recent years as they fail to deliver for their people is a disaster. A disaster in which the West has been a player in that the world is to some extent 'a system' but the West is not the cause of the problem? That is a deliberate deflection of responsibility on behalf of those unable to reform their own societies in a meaningful manner in the service of their people?

The negotiations is a good deal. But negotiations with the terrorists need to carry only maintain a position of strength. An example of the success of these negotiations may be actions of Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria. First, the successful operation of the armed forces and only then negotiations about who wants to give up and stop anti-state actions.

These two articles may be useful:

Bier, V. and Hausken, K. (2011), “Endogenizing the Sticks and Carrots: Modeling Possible Perverse Effects of Counterterrorism Measures,” Annals of Operations Research 186, 1, 39-59.

Hausken, K. (1997), “Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory,” Group Decision and Negotiation 6, 6, 509-527.

Article Endogenizing the sticks and carrots: Modeling possible perve...

Article Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory