| Forgiving Terrorism: Trading Justice for Peace, or Imperiling the Peace? (2008) | |||||||||||||||
Abstract | |||||||||||||||
| Chapter 10 of "Fresh Perspectives on the ‘War on Terror’". Despite the unflinching public policy of some states never to negotiate with terrorists, realpolitik sometimes forces states to adopt a less strenuous path. Negotiating with terrorists is sometimes thought necessary to peacefully or humanely end particular terrorist incidents. One example is the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking in 1986, where Egypt and Italy attempted to negotiate an end to the crisis (and save the lives of the hostages), while the United States (US) used military force and declared itself ‘completely averse to … any form of negotiation’. In contrast, in 1986, US President Reagan secretly agreed to sell arms to Iran in return for promises to seek the release of US hostages. It is a perennial humanitarian dilemma of governments whether to pay ransom to save hostages, in light of fears that negotiation may encourage others to resort to political violence to secure a seat at the bargaining table. Since 11 September 2001 (9/11), there have been frequent abductions of journalists, humanitarian workers, employees of international reconstruction efforts, and military personnel by terrorist organisations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine, often accompanied by political demands on the hostages’ national governments — for example, to withdraw from occupied territories or Muslim lands. | |||||||||||||||
Publication details | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||