Talking to Groups that Use Terror.pdf - United States Institute of Peace

Peacemaker’s Toolkitamong its own constituents—at ETA’s murder of a local politician. When ETAbroke the cease-fire in 2000, its leaders claimed it had been a tactical trick tocounter Spanish and French pressure. What ETA had wanted was not a peaceprocess but a chance to work with and radicalize constitutional Basquenationalists. When the nationalist front failed to win substantial electoralsupport among Basque citizens, ETA resumed its terrorist activities. 11Some organizations raise money or otherwise develop their institutionalcapacity during a lull. Gerry Adams, one of the leaders of Sinn Fein, thepolitical wing of the IRA, raised $1 million in a trip to the United States in1995, money that helped sustain the organization’s capacity for violence.* * * *Assessing the potential advantages and disadvantages of talking withterrorists is essential, but what does one do with the knowledge acquiredduring such an assessment? How, in other words, does one balancebenefits and risks? The answer is twofold. First, evaluate the risks andbenefits in relation to the specific characteristics of the terrorist movementone is confronting. Second, set the benefits and risks within the broadercontext of the conflict. The remainder of this chapter discusses what tolook for in terms of both specific features and the broader context.Assess the Willingness and Capability of the PAG toNegotiate a DealA thorough analysis of a movement’s goals, history, leadership, andconstituencies is essential to determining its willingness and capability toengage in dialogue. If it leads to a conclusion that talks are possible anddesirable, this assessment should also be used to build the foundation of astrategy for talking.Evaluate the Terrorists’ Goals and IdeologyCan the PAG’s aims (e.g., changes to a political system, territorialambitions) be achieved through negotiation or is the group fundamentallynihilistic or absolutist (e.g., it will settle for nothing less than thedestruction or total capitulation of its enemies)? An unambiguous answerto this question may by itself dictate the mediator’s or negotiator’s decisionto talk or not. After all, a group committed to the total eradication of apolitical system (e.g., al-Qaeda with its avowed goal of replacing nation-22