Negotiating with Terrorists Part 2 (with Annette Idler, Jytte Klausen, and Fredrik Logevall)

Pulling out of Afghanistan was the top foreign policy event of 2021. Perhaps overlooked in the collective relief to be done with this twenty-year war is the fact that the US had to negotiate with terrorists to get there. In fact, it ceded an entire country to a violent, extremist group. Throughout history, leaders—including those from the US—have vowed never to negotiate with terrorists, but then reverse course. In this two-part episode, three scholars of history, international relations, and foreign policy discuss historic examples and the complexities of negotiating with violent—even murderous—groups.While part 1 explores the caveats of labeling a group “terrorist,” part 2 addresses how to negotiate with terrorists without legitimizing their methods or ideology, and address what happens to a nation’s reputation when they give in, give up, or back down in the face of extremist groups. If the US is willing to negotiate with the Taliban, should it also be open to negotiating with Hamas or ISIS or Al-Qaeda? Jytte Klausen points out that if the demands of the adversaries are reasonable and pragmatic, there is usually an opportunity to work together, the operative word being “if.” Annette Idler describes the successful negotiations with the FARC in Colombia as an example of careful planning and evaluation before the actual talks, and emphasizes the importance of understanding the attitudes, opinions and experiences of local citizens in a conflict zone.The concern that negotiating with groups that use terror and violence will somehow encourage or legitimize their methods does not bear out, according to Fredrik Logevall. He compares the US retreat from Vietnam to that of Afghanistan and finds fascinating similarities, but also key differences, such as lack of public engagement on the latter.Non-state armed groups are part of the new global security picture, Klausen believes, and she highlights regions that are volatile today, such as India/Pakistan/Kashmir. We should not underestimate the importance of Afghanistan in regional stability, she warns. Since extremists groups are likely here to stay, Idler describes a multilevel approach to incorporating non-state actors into foregin policy strategies.Host:Erin Goodman, Director, Weatherhead Scholars Program.Guests:Annette Idler, Weatherhead Center Visiting Scholar, Weatherhead Scholars Program. Director, Global Security Programme, Pembroke College, Oxford University. Jytte Klausen, Lawrence A. Wien Professor of International Cooperation, Brandeis University.  Fredrik Logevall, Weatherhead Center Faculty Associate. Laurence D. Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; Professor of History, Department of History, Harvard University. Producer/Director:Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.Related Links:Transforming the War on Drugs: Warriors, Victims and Vulnerable Regions edited by Annette Idler and Juan Carlos Garzón Vergara (Hurst, 2021)The Changing Character of Conflict PlatformCONPEACEJytte Klausen's Western Jihadism ProjectWestern Jihadism: A Thirty Year History by Jytte Klausen (Oxford University Press, 2021)JFK: Coming of Age in the American Century, 1917–1956 by Fredrik Logevall (Penguin Random House, 2021)“How to Talk to Terrorists” by Jonathan Powell (The Guardian, October 2014)Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:WCFIA WebsiteEpicenter WebsiteTwitterFacebookSimplecastSoundcloudVimeo
This episode was produced, edited, and mixed by Michelle Nicholasen, Editor and Content Producer at the Weatherhead Center.Follow the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs:Weatherhead Center WebsiteEpicenter WebsiteTwitterFacebookSimplecastYouTubeVimeo