Why does the us not negotiate with terrorists

Is it morally acceptable to let conflicts run their course and therefore accept more casualties? Duvesteyn responded by arguing that although a conflict ended by military victory seems to be less prone to erupt, it does not mean that this is therefore more desirable. In the latter case, opponents are simply unable to take up the arms again.

The seminar concluded with a debate on the nature of terrorist organisations and stressed the need for more research on the long-term effect of negotiations with armed groups and terrorist organisations. Negotiating with Terrorists. In , countries such as France and Spain paid millions of euros in ransom to bring home journalists and aid workers captured by the Islamic State in Syria.

In response to the same dilemma, the governments of the UK and US refused to make concessions, arguably leading to a number of high-profile hostage killings.

The panellists assess whether governments should negotiate with terror groups, non-state actors, transnational criminal networks or even state sponsors of terrorism in hostage crises. What are the ethical, strategic and political implications of negotiating with these groups? Does negotiating with terrorist groups legitimise them? How can policymakers engage with multifaceted, horizontal organisations such as Al-Qaeda?

This article from Security Dialogue argues that legitimacy and complexity can contribute to non-violent resolution of conflicts involving terrorist violence.

Many scholars and policymakers state that negotiating with terrorist groups legitimises them, their goals and their methods. They assert that such negotiations incite violence, weaken democratic states, and weaken the norm of non-violence. However, the legitimation of terrorist groups through negotiations can transform a conflict away from violence, if groups have to renounce violence to engage in talks.

Negotiations also enable groups to voice their grievances, and strengthen factions interested in non-violent solutions. In contrast, naming groups as terrorist with the intention of delegitimising them can radicalise such groups and curtail attempts to resolve conflicts non-violently.