Later today Peter Hain, MP, former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will deliver a lecture at the New York University Centre for Irish and Irish-American Studies on whether the model for peacemaking that was used in Northern Ireland can be applied to other conflict situations throughout the world. A central thesis of his message will be that it is good to talk, especially to your enemies, despite what they may have done in the past and even be doing in the present. Identical points are made very forcefully by Jonathan Powell in his detailed insider account of the Northern Ireland peace process.
I must confess that I have changed my mind about this. (Perhaps there is some truth in the dictum that age is occasionally accompanied by wisdom.) I grew up watching the almost daily atrocities in the Province feeling quite strongly that you couldn’t sit down and deal with people who were trying to kill civilians and law enforcement officers and that a negotiated settlement could only start once violence had ended. Personally, I now feel that such a path was likely to have led nowhere because the ‘terrorists’ appeared to have limitless resources, and by being denied communication, they had no reason to do anything differently.
There were two, seemingly compelling reasons for not talking to the ‘enemy’. First, it was argued, it was unrealistic and naive to expect someone to sit down and talk to people who either directly or indirectly had been responsible for some brutality that had affected the individual - the murder of a family member or of a colleague, or the destruction of streets and businesses in a community, for example. I agree wholeheartedly with this. The trauma could be too great for any individual. Any resulting discourse would be extremely likely to be irrational, vitriolic, and pointless. However, while I accept this point, I now believe that it should not stop representatives from government talking to the ‘enemy’. One of the jobs of government is to work for the greater good of all the people and to be able to rise above the real individual traumas and to keep the bigger picture in mind.
Secondly, it was argued that by not talking to the ‘enemy’ you were putting pressure on them. It was part of the force to get them to comply with your will. Talking was a reward that should be withheld until there was change. Of course, denial of talks may not always be a punishment. I well remember finding out that someone had not been speaking to me for six weeks - but I was oblivious of the fact and was quite happy about it. While there is a good argument to be made that actions should have consequences so that people have a reason for doing things differently, denial of communication is not a good consequence to impose as communication is the very thing that could also help the change process.
Lasting, significant change comes about when that process is driven by choice from within rather than being compelled from without. Reminding people that their actions have consequences may be one way of helping them make different choices. But human factors also play a big part in encouraging a different perspective, and talking is an essential aspect which allows those human factors to come into play. Regular communication, over a long-time (in the case of Northern Ireland it took years), builds up relationships and helps foster trust.
Of course, not all talking is productive. Jonathan Powell records that in the early days of the peace progress there was a joke that everytime the negotiators met one of the parties they had to listen to a lecture on Irish history. If the meeting had been going on for two hours they knew they would only have got to 1600 by that point. However, the government knew that the alternative of silence would do nothing to end the war. Long-term communication can lead to opponents seeing each other as human beings, and can lead to chunking-up - the process of realizing that although people may differ over the details, they actually share the greater goal of achieving progress.
My understanding of Irish History is a little shaky so it might perhaps have been helpful for me to have had the lesson that was delivered at every talking session.
However, I am a great believer in talking being a way forward in all sorts of situations where the initial reaction might be to cut people out. Alienating people, or groups of people and not including them rarely makes things better. Maybe talking does not always either but I think it has a better track record for success and however difficult it is, is worth a try. It clearly worked here.
I think that, whilst it is difficult (impossible for some people) to talk with individuals who have wrecked their lives, sometimes there are rewards for both sides when they do. I think that the need to understand WHY someone did something is often the thing that makes personal tragedies hard to get over - and when you have to live with not really knowing why, or how the perpetrator feels about it, or how in a sense it was nothing something personal, well that is very very hard. I am an advocate of schemes where offenders get to meet with their victims - it is not for everyone but in many case it gives both sides an understanding and ability to move on and change that they would not otherwise have been capable of.
Ooops I wandered off subject there, didn’t I? Sorry about that.
Reluctant Blogger
Thanks for your comment. I agree that it can be personally very difficult for an individual to meet another who has caused damage in a life, but like you, agree that it can be productive if done voluntarily.
Talking is just a constant reminder that human beings and not monsters are involved.
There are at least two other reasons put forward for not talking to terrorists. The first is that it is immoral to negotiate with people who perform such immoral acts. Would you want to “negotiate” with a serial murderer, for example, with a view to reaching some sort of “settlement” with him? I think most people’s minds rebel against such an idea. Does this change just because the serial killer claims a “political” motive? Many of us would think not.
Secondly, if government is willing to talk to terrorists, then behaving like a terrorist is an easy way to get the government’s attention. “They won’t talk to us? OK, let’s bomb a bus and then they will.” It could be seen as putting people’s lives directly in danger.
When governments do talk to terrorist, this is often interpreted as weakness by the terrorists. Instead of leading to a solution, it leads to a scaling up of demands or by the replacing of the original group by a more militant group who perceive the first lot to be “traitors” for negotiating.
In any case, terrorists don’t always want to talk. Some simply make demands that have to be fulfilled to the letter and it is obvious that if ever these demands were met, the result would be a new set of even more draconian demands. Al Qaida seems to fit this pattern (though who knows what is going on behind the scenes?)
I am therefore not convinced that the one-size-fits-all solution “Talk to terrorists” (or its opposite) works for all cases. I think every situation is complex and has its own parameters and therefore has to be dealt with by means of a solution tailored to that specific problem.
Another point is that the government did eventually talk to the IRA (in fact, government and IRA talked throughout and the assertion “we don’t talk to terrorists” was propaganda) but is there anyone anywhere who really believes that the Northern Ireland problem has been “solved”? Surely it hasn’t. At best, we are in for a period without shooting in which the ambitions of both communities will be pursued “through political means” and at worse, we might face a new outbreak of violence. (Does anyone really believe that “decommissioning” is either complete or irreversible? A cynic would say the destroyed weapons were out of date anyway and that newer and more effective ones are now available on both sides of the conflict.) Political solutions are never permanent unless all parties get everything they want which is clearly impossible in most cases.
All in all, therefore, I think it is naive to believe that just because we are prepared to talk to enemies, by this means alone we can always solve the problems. It remains one possible tool in government’s toolkit, ready to used when it can be effective. You don’t use a hammer to insert screws.
I can see the rational of your argument. I have also held the believe that talking with terrorists could be viewed as appeasement and little can be achieved that way. However, when there is complete and utter deadlock-such as was with Northern Ireland and the killings and bombings just go on and on, with no end in site and no clear victory over either faction, then another plan has to be put in place. The peace process in Northern Ireland, in the end, was the only way for the bombs and bullets to be put down. We also have to remember that the shinn fein( wrong spelling I think ) representatives now in parliament were putting their own necks on the block, and they were actually in real danger from their own militant element of their party for treason and betrayel of their cause.
SilverTiger
I not sure about the validity of the comparison with serial murders. The difference for me is that with a serial murder there is a possibility of the state actually ‘winning’, whereas in a terrorist war, it is stalemate, and unusual and difficult steps have to be taken to break the deadlock.
I am not sure that talking would be seen as a reward if it was policy to talk. It only becomes a reward against a background of presumed non-talking.
Northern Ireland may not have been solved, but 10 or so years of peace has to be preferable to 10 or so years of war.
I don’t think talking is a tool to fit every situation. I think the argument is that you stop seeing it as a tool, remove it from the toolbox, and start using it as a process that enables other tools to be used. It is a catalyst to enable participants to eventually move away from guns and for the deployment of other negotiating tools to be used appropriate to that particular situation.
You’ve almost convinced me that I should talk to my mother in law more often
Nice post. As you’re probably aware, the issue of talking with one’s enemies (whether simply perceived or actual is not always clear) is a hot one in the coming US presidential election. My preference is for the candidate who agrees that it is a tool that has to be in the tool box, ready for use in appropriate situations.