Engaging with armed groups - Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Engaging with armed groups• That no form of engagement will have an impact upon thebehaviour of a group that is bent on violence and determinedto maintain positions of implacable hostility to its enemies. Thisis a proposition that requires serious consideration. However,engagement need not constitute appeasement. There is noneed to agree with an armed group and there are other benefitsto be gained from exploratory contacts.• That any form of engagement with those who use violenceto challenge state power risks strengthening them andwill enhance their legitimacy with their own constituentsand on the international stage. This line of thinking receivedreinforcement in a June 2010 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Courtwhich upheld the constitutionality of a federal law that makesit a crime to provide “material support” – defined to include“expert advice or assistance”, “training” and “services” andembracing the advocacy for human rights or peace – to thoseidentified as foreign terrorist groups. 7• Conversely, that democratic governments may face heatedopposition to their engagement with armed groups,whether through proxies or directly. It is difficult for governmentsto justify talks with those who are killing their citizens.It is also embarrassing, or worse, if the existence of talksemerges after a government has denied them. A governmentwill not want to be perceived to be rewarding an armed groupfor its past violence, or give it perverse incentives for carryingon killing.• That war is a better solution. A number of governmentshave drawn encouragement from what has been termed the“Sri Lanka option” : a tough military response, the refusal tocountenance a political solution, and instead a consciousdecision to wage war to destroy an armed group. As theInternational Crisis Group has argued, the model sets adangerous precedent, not only for its violation of the mostbasic laws of war, but also for its failure to address most11