[Assam] From NYT - Op Ed

[Chan Mahanta]

Some of our  militarily oriented, might-is-right self-righteous  crowd  
may find the following interesting:
cm

OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS, Why We Talk to Terrorists, By SCOTT ATRAN and  
ROBERT AXELROD, Published: June 29,  2010, FACEBOOK, TWITTER,  
RECOMMEND, E-MAIL, SEND TO PHONE, PRINT, REPRINTS, SHARE,  ,



NOT all groups that the United States government classifies as  
terrorist organizations are equally bad or dangerous,  and not all  
information conveyed to them that is based on political,  academic or  
scientific expertise risks harming our national security.  
Unfortunately,  the Supreme Court,  which last week upheld a law  
banning the provision of “material support” to foreign terrorist  
groups,  doesn’t seem to consider those facts relevant., Enlarge This  
Image, Alex Nabaum, Many groups that were once widely considered  
terrorist organizations,  including some that were on the State  
Department’s official list,  have become our partners in pursuing  
peace and furthering democracy., The African National Congress is now  
the democratically elected ruling party in South Africa,  and of  
course Nelson Mandela is widely considered a great man of peace. The  
Provisional Irish Republican Army now preaches nonviolence and its  
longtime leader,  Martin McGuinness,  is Northern Ireland’s first  
deputy minister. Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestine Liberation  
Organization have become central players in Middle East peace  
negotiations., In the case of each of these groups,  there were  
American private citizens — clergymen,  academics,  scientists and  
others — who worked behind the scenes to end the violence., The two of  
us are social scientists who study and interact with violent groups in  
order to find ways out of intractable conflicts. In the course of this  
work and in our discussions with decision makers in the Middle East  
and elsewhere we have seen how informal meetings and exchanges of  
knowledge have borne fruit. It’s not that religious,  academic or  
scientific credentials automatically convey trust,  but when combined  
with a personal commitment to peace,  they often carry weight beyond  
mere opinion or desire., So we find it disappointing that the Supreme  
Court,  in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project,  ruled that any  
“material support” of a foreign terrorist group,  including talking to  
terrorists or the communication of expert knowledge and scientific  
information,  helps lend “legitimacy” to the organization. Sometimes,   
undoubtedly,  that is the case. But American law has to find a way to  
make a clear distinction between illegal material support and legal  
actions that involve talking with terrorists privately in the hopes of  
reducing global terrorism and promoting national security., There are  
groups,  like Al Qaeda,  that will probably have to be fought to the  
end. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court reasonably conjectures  
that any help given such enemies,  even in seemingly benign ways like  
instruction about how to enhance their human rights profile,  could  
free up time and effort in pursuit of extremist violence., Yet war and  
group violence are ever-present and their prevention requires  
America’s constant effort and innovation. Sometimes this means  
listening to and talking with our enemies and probing gray areas for  
ways forward to figure out who is truly a mortal foe and who just  
might become a friend., It is important to realize that in a political  
struggle,  leaders often wish they could communicate with the other  
side without their own supporters knowing. Thus the idea that all  
negotiation should be conducted in the open is simply not very  
practical. When there are no suitable “official” intermediaries,   
private citizens can fill the gap., Conditions,  of course,  should be  
stringent — there must be trust on all sides that information is being  
conveyed accurately,  and that it will be kept in confidence as long  
as needed. Accuracy requires both skill in listening and exploring,   
some degree of cultural understanding and,  wherever possible,  the  
intellectual distance that scientific data and research afford., In  
our own work on groups categorized as terrorist organizations,  we  
have detected significant differences in their attitudes and actions.  
For example,  in our recent interactions with the leader of the  
Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad Ramadan Shallah (which we  
immediately reported to the State Department, as he is on the F.B.I.’s  
“most wanted” list),  we were faced with an adamant refusal to ever  
recognize Israel or move toward a two-state solution., Yet when we  
talked to Khaled Meshal,  the leader of Hamas (considered a terrorist  
group by the State Department),  he said that his movement could  
imagine a two-state “peace” (he used the term “salaam,” not just the  
usual “hudna,” which signifies only an armistice)., In our time with  
Mr. Meshal’s group,  we were also able to confirm something that Saudi  
and Israeli intelligence officers had told us: Hamas has fought to  
keep Al Qaeda out of its field of influence,  and has no demonstrated  
interest in global jihad. Whether or not the differences among Al  
Qaeda,  Islamic Jihad,  Hamas and other violent groups are  
fundamental,  rather than temporary or tactical,  is something only  
further exploration will reveal. But to assume that it is invariably  
wrong to engage any of these groups is a grave mistake., In our  
fieldwork with jihadist leaders,  foot soldiers and their associates  
across Eurasia and North Africa,  we have found huge variation in the  
political aspirations,  desired ends and commitment to violence. And  
as one of us (Scott Atran) testified in March to the emerging-threats  
subgroup of the Senate Armed Services Committee,  these differences  
can be used as leverage to win the cooperation of the next generation  
of militants,  who otherwise will surely become our enemies., It’s an  
uncomfortable truth,  but direct interaction with terrorist groups is  
sometimes indispensable. And even if it turns out that negotiation  
gets us nowhere with a particular group,  talking and listening can  
help us to better understand why the group wants to fight us,  so that  
we may better fight it. Congress should clarify its counterterrorism  
laws with an understanding that hindering all informed interaction  
with terrorist groups will harm both our national security and the  
prospects for peace in the world’s seemingly intractable conflicts.,


  Scott Atran,  an anthropologist at France’s National Center for  
Scientific Research,  the University of Michigan and John Jay  
College,  is the author of the forthcoming “Talking to the Enemy.”  
Robert Axelrod is a professor of political science and public policy  
at the University of Michigan,  and the author of “The Evolution of  
Cooperation.”