Engaging with armed groups - Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Mediation Practice Series“You can talk to terrorists,but you don’t have to agreewith them.”Jonathan Powell, former Chief of Staffto UK Prime Minister Tony Blairan issue such as a kidnapping, with discretion. If maintainedby a third party rather than a government it also offers thepossibility of deniability. Over time such a channel might beactivated for the pre-negotiation of terms for meetings betweenthe parties.• A means to acquire greater understanding of the armedgroup and its motives and capacities for engagement. Greaterunderstanding will provide the basis for analysis of thechallenges and risks specific to engagement with eachparticular group. It may also allow the mediator to identify thegroup’s interests – as opposed to its public platforms – and thusthe issues on which the group and government might findcommon ground.• The opportunity to build trust with the armed group. Themediator may be able to encourage the group to reflect onentrenched positions and/or prevent its immersion in a logicthat is a consequence of its isolation and pursuit of armedstruggle. Such trust may allow themediator to build an armed group’scapacity for negotiation, both inadvance of, and in parallel to, peacetalks – something that even governmentswill admit can contribute to thequality of any resulting agreement.Yet engagement is not easy. There may be “no such thing as abad conversation”, as was observed within a 2009 workshop heldat the U.S. Institute of Peace on the subject of mediation withproscribed groups. 5 However, any conversation with an armedgroup is laden with implications. Reasons not to engage thereforecannot be dismissed lightly. 6 Different potential mediators willhave different legal and political red lines, but the most commonarguments against engagement revolve around the following :10