Origin of terrorism
Terrorism can be dated back in the decades that have passed and it actually is stated that terrorism began as violence between different groups in a community. Radicalism is a disaster occasion that causes the death of people and people, especially civilians, lose their homes. Terrorism can be defined as the illegal use of violence and this is carried out against the civilians and the main aim is because they are pursuing political aims. The main aim of terrorism is to divide a certain group by using violence which creates fear and leads to the death of masses of people in the society. The fear among these groups is created so as to achieve political, financial and a religious aim. Most acts of terrorism are created to coerce a government of a particular group of people to give certain information that the terrorist group needs (Jongman, 2017).
Most terrorist groups create fear in individuals whom they think they can acquire information from. They cause those individuals to have fear which leads to them giving out the required information so that the terrorists can stop the terrorist’s attacks that they have been creating in the community. The terrorist groups use ultimatums in that if the necessary authorities do not give out the information that is needed, they will do a certain harmful activity to the people.
Terrorism is an international activity. Training of the terrorist groups takes place in different areas and it is very hard to note that a particular person is a terrorist as most of those who join these groups are young and energetic people. Also, the terrorist’s activities can be carried out in any nation or location where the terror group feels they want to carry out their activities when they want to create fear in individuals so that they may get information from them (Matusitz, 2012).
There are different types of terrorism that are frequent. These include the state-sponsored terrorism which is ignited by the government of the state on the state. This may be to retrieve information from a particular ministry in the state that does not want to give the information to the state (Whittaker, 2012). The government will go ahead and ignite or coerce fear on the ministry. The second type of terrorism is the dissent terrorism which is a group that has rebelled against the state and carries out activities against the government thus creating fear against the government. Most of the dissent groups are those who were either the militia of the country but due to various disagreements with the government, they decided to come up with their own group which led to the creation of the dissent groups.
There is also another group of terrorists that are politically rooted and they defend a particular group of politicians and they will carry out terrorist’s attacks to ensure that the other people or civilians will comply with the needs of the political group that the terror group is supporting. Also, there is another type of terrorism that is referred to as religious terrorism which is a group that is religiously motivated. An example of the group is the Islamic groups which carry out their terror attacks against the Christians in a country or a specific area that they aim to coerce or create fear. These religious terror groups are motivated by the religious activities and doctrines that they are taught in their religious schools. Criminal terrorism is another type of terrorism that is used to carry out terror attacks in a nation. These activities may be caused by the criminal group wanting to acquire something from people in the nation. Criminal terrorists are those who aid in crime and in acquiring profits that are criminally gained.
Terrorists are people who capture people and they are not allowed to be seen by other people as they are the hostages of the terrorists that the terror group will show and use to threaten the government by showing the hostages to them (Tuman, 2010). The hostages may trigger the government to comply with the needs of the terrorists and the hostages may be used to communicate with the government. However, these hostages may also be required to act as translators to other people who speak the language that is unknown to the terrorists. Therefore, it is important for the government to identify occasions where they will be required to negotiate and instances that they are not supposed to negotiate with the terrorists. It is therefore important for the government to come up with a policy that will guide them when they are negotiating with the terrorist. Therefore negotiating with terrorists is appropriate in some cases (Jackson, 2018).
Despite the fact that some states have a policy that they should not negotiate with terrorists, they are instances they have been found to negotiate with them. The US has on two occasions negotiated with the terrorists. The first occasion was that of the Iran-Contra affair in which the terrorists had taken hostage of seven Americans in which the paramilitary Iranian group had taken them hostage. The negotiation with the terrorists led to the resignation of the high ranking officers who were involved in the process of negotiation.
The other incidence where the US negotiated with the terrorist groups was when one of the sergeants was taken as hostage and the terrorists demanded that the Taliban five who had been in Guantanamo be released. President Barack Obama negotiated for the release of the Taliban five and the sergeant was released. However, this action by Obama was criticized by many people especially by the Republican party which stated that there was an old policy that stated there should be no negotiations with the terrorists (Enders and Sandler, 2011).
However, it is important to note that there are exceptional circumstances where negotiation is the only solution to deal with the terrorists. These situations can be where an important diplomat of a nation has been captured, where the citizens of a nation have been taken a hostage and also where it is predicted that the damage that is to be caused by the terror group will cause extreme damage to the nation. The damage may be one that cannot be easily resolved and will use more expenses that the ransom that would have been used if the government had given the terrorists what they needed. However, it has been quoted that whether or not a country negotiates with terrorists or not, this depends on the ruling political party in the country. Non-negotiation between the nations and the terrorists does not lead to low costs for the government but instead, it leads to using of higher costs (Baudrillard, 2013).
Many surveys that have been carried out indicate that there is no major reason for having the policy on non-negotiation as it does not come along with advantages but instead it comes along with the costly expenses that the government has to incur. Terrorist groups are seen as desiring change in the manner in which a government is run and certain activities should be changed in the government. Many governments regard negotiation as giving in and embracing the terrorists. However, negotiation does not mean acceptance of bowing down to what the terrorists want but instead, it is a problem solving in which both groups can acquire what they need.
In conclusion, negotiation should be treated as a process of amicably solving a solution and coming up with an agreement that is effective for both parties. Negotiation should be used as a tactic with the terrorist’s groups so that a solution can be acquired for the terrorist groups. However, the process of negotiation should not be carried out in all activities but instead, the areas where negotiation is needed should be carried out. Thus, there is need to come up with a policy on negotiation with the terrorists.
Baudrillard, J. (2013). The spirit of terrorism and other essays. Verso Trade.
Enders, W., & Sandler, T. (2011). The political economy of terrorism. Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, R. (2018). Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics and counter-terrorism.
Jongman, A. J. (2017). Political terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories, and literature. Routledge.
Matusitz, J. (2012). Terrorism and communication. Sage.
Tuman, J. S. (2010). Communicating terror: The rhetorical dimensions of terrorism. Sage.
Whittaker, D. J. (2012). The terrorism reader. Routledge.