TerrorismGovernments more likely to negotiate with terrorists as violence increases: study
For decades, the hard line approach to national terrorism cases has called for governments not to negotiate with terrorists. This approach also asserted that terrorism is ineffective. A new study is proposing, however, that in certain cases the opposite may be true.“Instead of asking whether terrorism is effective, we should be concentrating on when and for what purpose is terrorism effective, especially since the empirical record shows that terrorism has both hurt and helped the causes of violent organizations that have employed the tactic,” the author writes.
As attacks increase in intensity, so does government willingness to negotiate // Source: presstv.ir
For decades, the hard line approach to national terrorism cases has called for governments not to negotiate with terrorists. This approach also asserted that terrorism is ineffective. A new study is proposing, however, that in certain cases the opposite may be true.
The American Journal of Political Science has just published an article titled “Rewarding Bad Behavior: How Governments Respond to Terrorism in Civil War,” in which author Jankana Thomas, an associate professor at Michigan State University, attempts to find the reality in the long-standing debate over the effectiveness of terrorism.
In a Washington Post feature, Thomas writes that “Instead of asking whether terrorism is effective, we should be concentrating on when and for what purpose is terrorism effective, especially since the empirical record shows that terrorism has both hurt and helped the causes of violent organizations that have employed the tactic. Very little extant research, however, helps us understand this variation.”
Thomas’s own exploration has found that governments involved in civil war in Africa from 1989 to 2010 were exponentially more likely to negotiate with terror groups as the acts of violence perpetrated by those groups increased. She also cites recent examples such as the extreme and effectual violence of Boko Haram in Nigeria.
She also points out the shifting understanding of what terrorism can accomplish, saying that “one of the limitations of current research is that it relies on concessions as the sole measure by which the success of acts of terrorism can be evaluated. That is, studies consider groups successful when they are able to extract a great deal of concessions from their targets, and unsuccessful when they are not…Researchers argue that groups have also used terrorism to disrupt peace deals (spoiling) and to divert support from other organizations (outbidding).”
She goes on to explain that further increased violence eventually will force a government to submit. “Why would terrorism increase the odds of rebels participating in talks?” Thomas asks. “In short, it is because it hurts. Recurrent acts of terrorism undermine the state’s credibility,” she answers, adding “When both terrorism and counterterrorism inflict massive costs on civilians, the population is left with a choice of two bad options…For these reasons, governments should be expected to pursue negotiated settlements to stop the pain caused by terrorism and to strike deals.”
