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

Peacemaker’s Toolkit➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤the PAG has demonstrated that it does not regard negotiations as anopportunity to rearm and regroup; but instead, it believes sincerely thatnegotiations may help it achieve what its use of violence cannot or hasnot accomplished;a degree of mutual trust and confidence has developed on the basis ofboth sides honoring commitments—albeit perhaps only minor ones—made to the other side;the level of public and/or political opposition to direct talks has beenshown to be manageable—or, at least, has not been shown to be surelyfatal to the mediator’s or negotiator’s political effectiveness; andthe PAG has demonstrated that it is sufficiently cohesive internally andexercises sufficient authority over its supporters as to “deliver” theiracceptance of the terms of an agreement that the negotiation might yield.Select an Approach Appropriate to the ContextThe choice of approach should be highly context-driven. The level ofongoing violence, the degree to which the parties have reached a mutuallyhurting stalemate, the history of past contacts with the PAG, the degree ofpublic and political support for or opposition to engaging the PAG: allsuch aspects of the conflict should be factored into the calculation of howbest to open channels.Not surprisingly, the character of the parties to the conflict is amongthe most influential of contextual factors to be taken into account. Thenature and structure of the terrorist group (e.g., the extent to which itsgoals are negotiable, whether its internal discipline is tight, and whetherits leaders or representatives are accessible) will rule out some forms ofengagement while recommending others.The nature of the entity that the mediator or negotiator represents willalso profoundly shape the form of engagement chosen. NGOs typicallyhave far greater latitude than governments when it comes to talking to aPAG. An independently financed conflict resolution or human rightsNGO with its own self-defined mission, agenda, and rules has relativelylittle need to fear the loss of support or funding if it engages an PAG; tothe contrary, its supporters are likely to cheer on its efforts to build bridgesand seek peace in very challenging circumstances.52