Somalia: Creating Space for Fresh Approaches to Peacebuilding

addressing terrorism: a theory of change approach
• establish key relationships especially among second tier leadership necessary
to explore and prepare early processes that shift from violent engagement
toward dialogue and improving the potential to reduce violence and encourage
nonviolent democratic processes;
• increase understanding of existing internal differences in the leadership;
• provide opportunity to elicit alternative views of outside and foreign interests
and concerns increasing accuracy of information. Increased accuracy of communication
means greater potential for considering alternative and nonviolent
processes.
Isolation
Increased isolation of terrorist groups and leadership will
• reduce their economic and military capacity and thereby diminish their ability
to engage violently;
• increase the capacity to identify, locate and capture, or eliminate, key leaders
and operatives, thus reducing the effective leadership of the wider movement;
• reduce the appeal and vibrancy of their relationship within their primary and
secondary constituencies, a relationship they need and must sustain in order
to survive. In essence isolation strangulates their political capital and reduces
their social capital, driving a wedge between leadership and wider constituency,
thereby reducing the likelihood and effectiveness of violence;
• reduce their capacity to recruit new members;
• increase their desire and need to be accepted back into the international community
and political mainstream, and will thereby increase their willingness to
end the strategy of violence.
Proponents of isolation often suggest key concerns about the pitfalls and unintended
consequences of engagement. First and foremost many express the concern
that engagement represents a form of negotiating with terrorists that is politically
unpalatable. Going a step deeper, the apprehension suggests that contact
and engagement increases the legitimacy of these groups internationally, within
their countries and key constituencies, and within their own self-view, providing
them undue recognition. This serves to promote their standing and support,
ultimately justifying the violence they employ against innocent civilians. As such,
contact and dialogue with these leaders contributes to impunity and instability.
This concern is coupled with a deep suspicion that contact and dialogue will be
used tactically by violent groups and thus supports their strategic goal of harsher
and renewed violence. Finally, in the eyes of many, including the Supreme Court,
response to terrorism as a national security concern, represents an area of legal
responsibility that falls under the exclusive purview of governments. Engagement
at other levels by nongovernmental actors reduces the effectiveness of official
policy and may impede its success.
13