In an important new book, a former top diplomatic negotiator for the United Kingdom's government explains how diplomacy, as opposed to an escalation of violence, is the West's best bet for combating terrorism in the Middle East.
Jonathan Powell, a former British diplomat who gained first-hand experience conducting delicate negotiations in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, explains the need for dialogue between even the most bitter enemies in Terrorists at the Table: Why Negotiating is The Only Way to Peace.
Powell, who was also former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff, augments his own experiences talking to people with blood on their hands with thorough research into modern and historic terrorist movements. He now runs Inter Mediate, an NGO dedicated to mediating international crises and creating dialogue between parties in conflict.
Powell’s premise is straightforward: Democratic nations need to negotiate with their enemies, however vile they may be. This is something that the world's powers have repeatedly done throughout history: In World War II, the US and Britain made common cause with Joseph Stalin to defeat an even worse tyrant.
Talking to bad actors isn’t easy and it doesn’t always work. But in Powell's view it is still generally preferable to continuing or escalating violence. “Despite all of these difficulties (which involve building a neutral channel of communication, establishing the terms of negotiation, and convincing the domestic audience that negotiation is worthwhile), when a serious opportunity to talk to terrorists materializes, a government cannot responsibly refuse to seize it,” he writes.
He cautions that talking to terrorists shouldn't be conflated with submitting to their demands. But he thinks that every group has some potential for compromise. Terrorists use violence as a means to an end, so providing terrorists with other means may allow them to forgo that violence. Powell concludes that “No group is irreconcilable forever.”
The US has talked to some profoundly unpleasant people even in the recent past. According to Powell, General David Petraeus, the US military commander in Iraq from 2007 to 2011, came to the conclusion that “we would not be able to kill or capture our way out of the industrial-strength insurgency." Peterus opened lines of communication with disgruntled Sunni tribesmen, many of whom had been involved in operations against US soldiers. With the support of then-President George W. Bush, Petraeus was largely successful in winning them over and pacifying a country that had been in a state of civil war.
More recently, President Barack Obama secured the release of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban in Afghanistan in exchange for five prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner swap was broadly criticized, and Powell points out that getting one’s own side to agree to a settlement with certain bad actors often is harder than the original negotiations.
Negotiating with terrorists has a further pragmatic advantage: Not only have governments reached deals with terrorists, many people once considered to be terrorists have gone on to head governments. The list includes Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, a former Irgun commander who ordered the bombing of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel in 1946; and Kenya president Jomo Kenyatta, who was imprisoned during the pre-Independence period after being accused of leading the outlawed Mau Mau movement.
Skeptics might question whether Powell’s doctrine applies to fighting the likes of ISIS. He believes that it might, saying that while the West would never entertain caving to ISIS' demands, they should "discuss the legitimate grievances of Sunni Muslims in Iraq and Syria who have been disenfranchised by sectarian governments in both countries."
According to Powell, the new terrorists aren’t all that much different than the old ones, such as the anarchists and nihilists that indiscriminately bombed and shot people a century ago. Powell writes, “If you offer terrorists a political way out, then the military pressure can have the desired effect, especially if combined with a sustained effort to address the grievances that underlie the conflict.”
Even if this isn't exactly a beach book, Powell has made a significant contribution to the understanding of how democracies can and often do deal with their most challenging opponents.
With virtually every side of the conflict in the Middle East engaging in or considering some type of military action against non-state groups, this book offers a refreshing perspective that offers diplomacy as a real option.
SEE ALSO: Turmoil in this tiny gulf country is a real danger for US security interests
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Turkey's Latest Plan To Drain $3 Million A Day From ISIS Is Working