IIASA Policy Brief #06

IIASA Policy Briefs

Negotiating with Terrorists:
A Mediator’s Guide

With funding from

and

Smith
Richardson
Foundation

#06 March 2009 > Processes of International Negotiation Program

The official line is that public authorities do not negotiate with terrorists. However, governments frequently do end up negotiating with hostage takers and kidnappers and with political groups classified as terrorists. Clearly there are negotiations and negotiations, just as there are terrorists and terrorists. While this briefing does not necessarily advocate negotiating with terrorists, it outlines the practicalities of such negotiations, providing a guide to deciding how, when, and with whom to negotiate.

Summary

The main objection to negotiation with terrorists is that it encourages them to repeat their tactics. But it is not negotiation per se that encourages terrorism, rather the degree to which terrorists are able to achieve their demands by negotiation.
There are different types of terrorists, according to their reasons and goals for using terrorism. Contingent terrorists, such as kidnappers and hostage takers, do seek negotiations. Absolute terrorists, such as suicide bombers, view any negotiation as a betrayal of their very raison d’être.
Some absolute terrorists may become open to discussion and eventually moderation of their means and ultimately even of their ends. The challenge of negotiation is to move total absolutes into conditionals, and to work on contingent terrorists to either reduce or change their terms.
Effective negotiations can begin when the parties perceive themselves to be in a mutually hurting stalemate and see a way out. Negotiators must maintain pressure (stalemate) while offering a way out, thereby showing terrorists there is something to gain from negotiation.
Negotiators do not negotiate belief systems. They should help terrorists develop alternative means: changing terrorist ends can be tackled only over the much longer term.
Negotiation with contingent terrorists is a short-term tactic; negotiation with absolute terrorists is a long-term strategy. Patience and persistence will prove key to dealing with both contingent and absolute terrorists.
The negotiator needs to offer the conditional absolute terrorist concessions to his demands as the payment for abandoning his violent terrorism, not concessions to the pressure of terrorism itself. If the negotiator makes concessions to the terrorist part of the negotiation process, so too must the terrorist. Even the absolute terrorist organizer does have something to offer as payment — his choice of terrorist tactics.

Introduction

Governments routinely declare that they will not negotiate with terrorists, and regularly (if not routinely) do so nonetheless. This IIASA Policy Brief highlights recent research that offers a step-by-step guide to the questions that governments must ask in deciding whether or not to negotiate and with whom, how the negotiation process should proceed, and with what goal in mind.

Know your terrorist

There are different types of terrorists, according to their goals and purposes for using terrorism. On the one hand some terrorists, often hijackers and kidnappers, do want to negotiate away their captured “goods.” On the other hand, some terrorists view any negotiation as a betrayal of their very raison d’être. Such terrorists believe their fulfillment comes with death; hence they view their own death as a prized goal and the death of others as unimportant.

Is it wrong to negotiate with terrorists?

The main objection to negotiation with terrorists is that it encourages them to repeat their tactics. But it is not negotiation per se that encourages terrorism but rather the degree to which they are able to achieve their demands by negotiation.

If negotiation leads to a purely symbolic result — such as a radio broadcast — the terrorists are more likely to decide that the result is not worth the effort.

However, if negotiation leads to ransom payments, it sets a precedent for future negotiations and materially feeds the terrorist organization. Thus, encouragement comes from the results, not from the act of negotiating itself.

Types of terrorist

Contingent terrorists are typically hostage takers and kidnappers. Contingent terrorists seek negotiations in order to exchange their victims for publicity, ransom, and release of comrades, using others’ lives as a bargaining tool.

Absolute terrorists are mainly involved in strategic/political terrorist situations and are beyond contact and communication. They commit a self-contained act that is not a step to a second action. Absolute terrorism expresses the frustration of the “suicider” with his weak power position and his inability to change it by any other means. His sense of injustice may come from revelation (fundamentalists), revolution (social revolutionaries) or revulsion against a discriminatory or corrupt world he feels owes him something. It is not just the suicidal tactics (means) but the unlimited cause (ends) that makes for truly absolute terrorism.

But among absolutes there are differences. Total absolutes have nothing to negotiate about or with, and any attempt at negotiation only encourages them. Conditional absolutes are suiciders whose tactics, while self-contained and absolute, are designed to seek finite goals. Conditional absolutes do have something to negotiate about — such as territory, independence, conditions — but their goal is usually too broad or extreme to be negotiable.

Key points

The categories of contingent and absolute terrorist may overlap and, more importantly, they are mobile. Some absolutes may be or become open to some discussion and eventually moderation of their means and ultimately even of their ends.
The challenge of negotiation is to move total absolutes into conditionals, and work on contingents to either reduce or change their terms.

The task of negotiation

The official negotiator’s task is a difficult one. The goal is to give a little to make the terrorist give a lot. How can that be achieved?

Essentially, there are two appropriate negotiating strategies: reduce terrorists’ terms or change them. Negotiators need to construct legitimacy for a negotiated agreement and build the terrorists’ independent decision-making capabilities to think in terms of lowered expectations and thus of lowered demands.

Negotiators can also show terrorists that their future personal situation is open for discussion, although their original demands are not. These two messages must be delivered in tandem, indicating that while one is closed for discussion, the other is open and personally more compelling, giving them the prospect of something real and attainable.

As in any negotiations, when terrorists become convinced that a search for a solution is legitimate and acceptable to both sides, they will join the search for a solution.

In searching for a solution, there is room for a wide range of tactics. At some points, take-it-or-leave-it offers are useful; at other points, invitations to creative thinking are appropriate. At some points, firmness is in order; at other points, parties can explore alternatives and options. Structurally, time is on the side of the negotiator, a point the terrorist may seek to reverse by either killing or releasing some of his hostages.

Key points

Negotiators have a range of tactics available, but this does not mean that terrorists’ demands should be considered legitimate or that concessions may not encourage terrorism. It all depends on how many of the terrorists’ demands can be considered acceptable and the kind of deal that the negotiator is able to extract.
The negotiator needs to offer the conditional absolute terrorist concessions to his demands as the payment for abandoning his violent terrorism, not concessions to the pressure of terrorism itself. If the negotiator makes concessions to the terrorist part of the negotiation process, so too must the terrorist. Even the absolute terrorist organizer does have something to offer as payment — his choice of terrorist tactics.

Negotiating with kidnappers and hostage takers

Hostage taking, kidnapping, and hostage-barricade situations call by definition for negotiation. If terrorist demands concern issues such as money, freedom for prisoners, or access to media, then a negotiation can take place.
In setting out a process of preparation, organization, and implementation for dealing with hostage takers and kidnappers, Faure and Zartman point to numerous lessons learned from previous negotiation situations. For example:
	The first hour of hostage taking is usually the most dangerous for hostages, as the terrorists are both nervous and aggressive. When the situation has become more stable, the risk of having to face unexpected events reduces on both sides. Then, the real negotiation can start.
	Negotiators must not be decision makers. The negotiator in contact with the terrorists may develop some empathy toward them, and may therefore be influenced by them; he/she should not make strategic decisions.
	A psychological moment occurs when it is possible to conclude a negotiation. While there is no exact formula for predicting when this moment will be, there will be some indications that the situation is ready for settlement. For example, when the terrorist keeps talking longer than necessary to the negotiator, when he speaks about something other than the debated issues, and when he starts considering the future.
	When authorities resolve to make an assault on hostage takers, then the purpose of negotiation is not to reach an agreement, but rather to prepare for assault by collecting information, exhausting the captors, and reducing their level of vigilance. For example, in a Lima hostage taking that lasted four months, the terrorists asked for games to keep people busy. Chess pieces were provided with listening devices to gather valuable information on the hostage takers.

Dealing with absolute terrorists

Key points for negotiators

Recognize that total absolutes are beyond any negotiation and attempts to deal with them directly are pointless. But not all absolutes are totals, beyond negotiation. The point is to identify potential conditionals and encourage them to see the hopelessness of their situation and the potential hopefulness in responding to negotiations.
Address the issues beyond the terrorism. Terrorism is ultimately related to such structural issues as poverty and inequality that are far beyond any immediate remedy. But steady attention to related issues of importance to potential supporters may eventually reap rewards.
Do not negotiate a belief system. In the course of implementing the outcome of a negotiation it may be possible to instill doubt about the basis of motivating beliefs, but the negotiation itself needs to focus on specific items.
Recognize that unlike many hostage/kidnapping situations, the acts of absolute terrorists are not self-contained events. Hence negotiation is not an autonomous subject or policy but a long process.
Respect is the basic condition of any negotiation. “One-down” approaches that seek to impart a sense of inferiority are unproductive.
Effective negotiations can begin when the parties perceive themselves to be in a mutually hurting stalemate and see a way out. Maintain pressure (stalemate) while offering a way out. Show terrorists that there is something to gain from negotiation.
Mediation is often necessary: the mediator can both carry messages and formulate ideas. Neither party trusts the other, but both must trust the mediator for mediation to work.
Identification, separation, and moderation are the general aims of negotiation with absolute terrorists. Identify those who seem open to talks. Split moderates from extremists by emphasizing alternative means to the moderates at a lower cost than the use of terror. Moderation is a process and not a condition of negotiation. Engagement in negotiation, and the new situation it produces, can gradually produce deeper changes, but this will take time.
Investigation, contact, and communication are the general means of negotiation with absolute terrorists. Find out as much as possible about the terrorists’ values and goals. Establish and maintain contact. Contacts are the crux of negotiation. Building contacts will doubtless be in secret but must be backed by public statements indicating openness to negotiate. Use step-by-step agreements to advance terrorist negotiations. Negotiation is a matter of giving something to get something; hence the negotiator needs to offer the terrorist concessions to his demands as the payment for his abandonment of violent terrorism. The terrorist too must make concessions, and the absolute terrorist does have something to offer as payment — his choice of terrorist tactics.

Conclusions

Specific tactics must be employed for negotiating with contingent terrorists, who are seeking negotiations. Specific tactics must also be employed for opening the possibility of negotiating with absolutes who currently refuse negotiations.
The key challenges facing negotiators are: to sense who the contingents are among the absolutes and to convert them to negotiability; to reduce and then change the terms of trade for the cessation of terrorist means, whether the release of hostages or the cessation of suicides; and to move from a reduction of means (terror) to a reduction of ends (motivations).
Patience and persistence are key to dealing with both contingent and absolute terrorists.

Further information

This Policy Brief is based on “The Mediator’s Toolkit: Negotiating with Terrorists,” by Guy Olivier Faure and I William Zartman (United States Institute of Peace, forthcoming). Request preprints from IIASA's PIN Program.

Guy Olivier Faure is Professor of Sociology at the Sorbonne University, Paris V, where he teaches international negotiation, conflict resolution, and strategic thinking and action. I. William Zartman is Jacob Blaustein Professor of Conflict Resolution and International Organization at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, USA. Both are members of the steering committee of IIASA’s Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) Program.