Become a Supporter

Copeland: Should a state ever consider negotiating with terrorist organizations? And if so, under what circumstances?

By: /
6 June, 2014

Negotiation is a hallmark of diplomacy and in a globalizing world in which development has become the basis for security, diplomacy holds more promise than defence as an international policy instrument.

Put another way, recourse to persuasion, influence and compromise should as a point of principle almost always be preferred to the use of coercion, compulsion and violence. The effective management of international relations in the 21st century requires no less.

How so?

The potential benefits of negotiation easily trump the excessive costs associated with construction of the national security state and pursuit of the Global War on Terror. Even if the post-9/11 counter-terrorism strategy was delivering as advertised, the circumscription of civil and human rights, erosion of democracy, cyber-surveillance, invasion of privacy and the militarization of society that have ensued surely represent too high a price.

When an opportunity to engage in meaningful international political communication arises, why retreat into boilerplate assertions such as “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”? I would instead suggest a different point of departure. The questions should be put: why not privilege talking over fighting? Why shouldn’t we attempt to negotiate?

Clearly, because the term “terrorist” is so utterly fraught, ambiguously applied and highly contested, any decision to commence of negotiations would have to be taken on a case by case basis and assessed carefully.

That said, genuine dialogue and effective exchange enjoy a significant comparative advantage over competing international policy instruments, particularly in conditions of asymmetry. The application of armed force in the face of anger, resentment and alienation tends mainly to exacerbate such feelings. Negotiation alone can result in the identification of shared interests and the modification of behaviour on both sides of a political conversation.

This is the stuff not only of enlarged understanding, but, ultimately, of problem-solving, reconciliation and progress. Just ask the IRA, PLO, ANC, or any of the many other now mainstream groups once considered terrorists.

In short, the downside attached to an increased reliance upon negotiation is limited, while the scope for improving results is enormous.

The time to hit the reset button is long overdue.​

Before you click away, we’d like to ask you for a favour … 

Journalism in Canada has suffered a devastating decline over the last two decades. Dozens of newspapers and outlets have shuttered. Remaining newsrooms are smaller. Nowhere is this erosion more acute than in the coverage of foreign policy and international news. It’s expensive, and Canadians, oceans away from most international upheavals, pay the outside world comparatively little attention.

At Open Canada, we believe this must change. If anything, the pandemic has taught us we can’t afford to ignore the changing world. What’s more, we believe, most Canadians don’t want to. Many of us, after all, come from somewhere else and have connections that reach around the world.

Our mission is to build a conversation that involves everyone — not just politicians, academics and policy makers. We need your help to do so. Your support helps us find stories and pay writers to tell them. It helps us grow that conversation. It helps us encourage more Canadians to play an active role in shaping our country’s place in the world.

Become a Supporter