Negotiating with Terrorists Groups > 영어토론방

• 목록

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 구글+ 공유
• 

Negotiating with Terrorist Groups

Pro
1. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Most terrorist organizations are not engaged in violence simply for the joy if it, nor for personal gain; instead, they stand for a particular political position, and often for a particular group of people. It is important to realize that there are two sides to every conflict. A good example for this is the ANC in South Africa. For many years they were regarded by the government - and by many foreign governments - as an illegal terrorist organizaiton. For the majority black population of the country, however, they were legitimately fighting for their freedom. History will record that they were on the side of right, and the apartheid government was in the wrong.

2. Any government's primary responsiblity is to save lives. History has shown that military solutions have little chance of succeeding : it is almost impossible to defeat an organization composed innocent. In the case of prolonged internal campaigns of terrorism, the promise of negotiations can be used as a bargaining tool to end violence, and will almost always lead to a cease-fire. This has been seen in almost every case where terrorist groups have been brought to the negotiating table. In the case of more isolated incident, such as hostage-taking, it is worth making convessions in order to save the lives of cilivians who the government has no right to sacrifice on a stubborn point of morality.

3. Many terrorist conflicts are the result of political disagreements that run back many years; terrorism is often fuelled by a historical culture of hatred and distrust. In such situations, it is imperative that someone take the first step in trying to resolve the situation. In the interests of peace and of fairness, it is the government which must do so; it is inevitably the more powerful side in the conflict and is therefore in a positon to make concessions. Only by taking a lead is it possible to end the killing.

Cons
1. The example of South Africa is an isolated one. In many cases, the political situation in which terrorism takes place is far more complex, and it is far less clear who is in the right and who is in the wrong. In such cases, the one most important fact is that killing people is immoral. By accepting violence as a political too, these groups become no more than murderer, and should be treated as such.

2. Giving in to terroists may save lives in the sort term, but is harmful in the longer term. Many terrorist groups have been unable to acheive their goals through democratic means and hence resort to violence; by making concessions, the government is saying that groups who us guns and bombs can have more infulence in society than those who use violence in the belief that it will further their cause. Instead, governments must demand that groups abandon violence and cease acts of terrorism before negotiations can even be considered.

3. The reverse problem is that terrorist organiztions have nothing to lose. The threat of violence gives them undue power at the negociation table: they can insist on total concessions to all their demands - even if they are undemocratic- and threaten to recommence terrorist activities if they are denied. In Northern Ireland, spain and Israel negotiations have hit this same strumbling block, and cease - fires have been broken. Terrorists cannot be trusted.

* 은천성 통역 학원 에세이반 수업 자료 중 하나입니다.