Events surrounding the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and London have made a basic point very clear: the US policy of not negotiating with terrorists is profoundly flawed. I believe that this failed policy is motivated by a false equivalence between two negotiating situations.
First, there is the secretive, extortion-style negotiating such as that done under the Reagan administration's "arms for hostages" program. The second is the more open kind of negotiation that was done by Clinton, Barak, & Arafat toward the end of Clinton's presidency. These are really two very different kettles of fish. Negotiation with a gun at your head can be useful, for example, as a way to buy time, but the rules for whether the parties can reasonably be held to the outcome are quite different, in my view, than in the more formal, more normal, process. Yet, when people like those in the Bush administration refuse on principle to negotiate with "terrorists", I believe that they are losing an opportunity and gaining nothing.
Let's take an extreme example: should the US enter into official negotiations with representatives of al-Qaeda?
I believe that most Americans would reject this, and in fact would become angry that it is even suggested as a possibility. However, I also believe that they would be wrong, that there is no rational reason why the US shouldn't welcome the opportunity to negotiate with al-Qaeda.
First, this is a fairly low-cost endeavor. A few diplomats, some research people, a secure location, and not much physical risk to the participants. No argument can be made that I'm aware of that negotiating with al-Qaeda would increase the risk of a terrorist attack in the US. If you're reading this and you disagree, please enlighten me below.
Second, even if all it does is reduce the number of attacks on American assets around the world, since its cost is low, the activity will have been justified.
Third, the potential for there being some kind of treaty between al-Qaeda and the US--for example, a promise of "hands off" in Iraq in exchange for a removal or reduction of US forces in Saudi Arabia--could save many lives and increase stability in many areas. Therefore, the potential benefits of negotiations are huge.
I'm sure that many will say that "to negotiate with terrorists like al-Qaeda legitimizes them". And yes, that's true, but is it a bad thing? Is it the only thing that will happen in negotiations? I think not.
First, one of the horrible impediments to peace between Muslims and everyone else is unhumanization--demonization--of each side by the other. To most Americans, al-Qaeda members are barely human, motivated by an abstract hatred for freedom and liberty, dedicated only to death. But there is no doubt that this is exaggerated and wrong. al-Qaeda members are human beings, motivated by the same forces that motivate us all. If negotiations would legitimize and humanize our opponents, it would also reduce this impediment.
Second, and this may seem a little strange to some, negotiations would also legitimize us in the eyes of our opponents. The process of demonization goes both ways. We are the Great Satan, instruments of the devil, dedicated to crushing Islam and Muslims. We have a close-to-zero credibility.It's a little off-topic, but I came across the graphic to the left a couple of days ago. It's from a Pew report last June, and I think it illustrates very clearly our current level of credibility in the Muslim world, and this is very indicative of how legitimate they see our words and actions. In truth, I think that we definitely could use a bit of legitimization too.
There is currently no established forum for negotiations between national and non-national bodies. The UN is based on the concept of sovereign nations meeting, negotiating, and resolving their problems peacefully. This is very unfortunate, because there is a great need at the moment for forums that can work towards resolving differences among nations, separatist groups within nations, multi-national religious or ethnic groups, and so on. In fact, the lack of such a venue has haunted the Palestine question for decades. I believe that the UN remains the most appropriate venue for this kind of negotiation, and that the UN charter should be amended to provide for such forums. They could be done on an ad hoc basis, sponsored by existing members, but in my opinion, there should be a permanent forum for negotiations between states and popular groups that are not states.
However, even in the absence of a UN or other established forum, I believe that the US, along with other concerned nations, should enter into open-ended negotiations with al-Qaeda and other concerned religious or popular, non-state organizations. These should be semi-public, in that there should be open sessions and closed sessions, with the publication of any resolutions, treaties, or other agreements.
Furthermore, I think that it would be wonderful if Democrats could have a "let's talk" plank on their platform, but I understand that this could be risky given the considerations I mentioned at the top of this diary.