CIAO DATE: 07/2010
May 2010
United States Institute of Peace
The longer a terrorist group has been in existence, the more likely it is to engage in negotiations. Even so, only about 18 percent of terrorist groups engage in talks on strategic issues at all. When groups do enter talks, the most common pattern is for negotiations to drag on, with the conflict occupying a middle ground between a stable cease-fire and high levels of violence. Negotiations do not necessarily result in a cessation of the violence: about half of the groups that have entered negotiations in recent years have continued to be active in their violence as the talks unfolded, typically at a lower level of intensity or frequency. A wide range of variables can determine the efficacy of negotiations. A crucial element in the success or failure of such talks is the ability of policymakers to devise a plan in advance for what will happen when violence does again occur. Those policymakers who are able to unite with their nonstate negotiating partners in condemning violence are more likely to sustain talks and make progress. Talks with some global affiliates of al-Qaeda, as well as some smaller factions of the Taliban, may hold promise. Talks should not be seen as a “silver bullet” but rather as a way to manage and channel the violence over the long term, a process that often contributes to the decline of groups or their demise, along with other factors.
Resource link: When Should We Talk to Terrorists? [PDF] - 443K