Introduction
This study seeks to provide concise yet comprehensive information on the value of diplomacy in combating terrorism, which is an issue of grave concern to the international community. Diplomacy, in the context of terrorism, posits invaluable virtues for resolving matters between conflicting parties in international relations. The organization of human beings within communities – a phenomenon that traces back to early history, has rendered the use of diplomatic skills and reasoning, given varying community interests that tend to conflict with one another. It is notable to consider that engaging in warfare has become the predominant method for dealing with international affairs prior to the entry of the modern period, which is characterized by the emergence of the nation-state model. When nation-states began to flourish, diplomatic relations became a norm alongside warfare, which in turn finds usage in times of mounting tensions over irreconcilable matters (Comras, 2010, pp. 1-34).
Given the historical underpinnings of diplomacy to the formation of human communities, it is noteworthy to emphasize the differences in diplomatic traditions among ancient civilizations such as that of Egypt, China, Greece and Rome, among many others. Ancient Greece, for instance, featured various conflicts arising from the hegemonic interests of city-states, the most prominent of which being Athens and Sparta. Conflicts between Athens and Sparta required both sides to form strategic alliances with other city-states in their bid to control the entire area now comprising the modern-day nation of Greece. With that, Ancient Greece has become notable for its telling contribution to modern-day diplomacy – the inviolable status of envoys as they seek to resolve diplomatic matters (Comras, 2010, pp. 1-34; Pesto, 2010, p. 64).
Ancient Rome, under the Roman Republic headed by Julius Caesar, became highly successful in its expansion agenda throughout much of Europe due to the concept of divide et impera (divide and conquer), which involves having to deal with large forces by breaking them down into smaller and more vulnerable units. The Roman Empire featured various diplomatic interplays with other states, yet it is important to emphasize that diplomacy at the time tend to come first before warfare, rather than standing as a measure to ease tensions between conflicting sides. Therefore, one could view diplomacy as a measure that primarily requires vast intellectual applications and experiences for its rightful implementation, given that the main objective is for conflicting parties to convince one another to reach a compromise amidst pushing for their respective interests. Each conflicting party should have access and possession of valuable information for purposes of conducting proper analysis and implementing sound decisions (Comras, 2010, pp. 1-34; Pesto, 2010, pp. 64-65).
In modern times, diplomacy provides for a complicated web of relationships inside and outside institution as well as the skills needed to maintain and improve those. Diplomacy in the modern times does not happen exclusively between government representatives anymore, as it also involves other parties that represent crucial concerns to the international community. Non-government organizations, institutions informal in nature, and the academe consisting of researchers and analysts all have significant roles to play within the context of modern diplomacy, albeit not in the same vain as how traditional diplomats coming from different governments interact via official diplomatic missions. Modern diplomacy thus provides several developments in diplomatic communication, given the divergent nature of state and non-state actors. By the same token, other characteristics beyond traditional diplomacy have come to the fore with the introduction of modern diplomacy, such as the emergence of multilateral relations as a norm, the expansion of international organizations in terms of their roles in mediating negotiations between states and notable effects coming from globalization in terms of agenda-building. Haris Pesto (2010, p. 65), a Partnership for Peace Coordinator for the United States (US) Department of Defence at the Embassy of the US in Sarajevo, specifically termed modern diplomacy as “multitrack diplomacy”, as it involves the limited involvement of state (traditional) actors with the involvement of numerous non-state (non-traditional) actors, complete with their own interests, ideas and practices (Comras, 2010, pp. 1-34).
Core to the function of diplomacy is the basic goal to provide representation to a particular state before the international community as a matter of influencing foreign policy with national interests. The evolution of new diplomatic methods arose inevitably from foreign policy implementation and relationships between state and non-state actors, with the most notable being diplomatic protocols and administrative tools. Therefore, diplomacy seeks to provide grounds for negotiations between state and non-state actors in defence of their respective interests before the international community. Historically speaking, one could note the following as the most important contributions of diplomacy – the easing of tensions against impending warfare, the firm elevation of national interests in the international stage and the consequent expansion of the scope of international relations. Moreover, diplomacy involves matters not limited to the political scope, but also those economic and cultural in nature, among many others. Modern diplomacy also came to include matters such as migration, human rights, criminal activities and safeguarding the environment, among many others. Given the foregoing, it is thus crucial to assess how diplomacy resolves terrorism – a problem that has severe consequences to the international community when left unresolved, hence the purpose of this study (Comras, 2010, pp. 1-34; Pesto, 2010, p. 65).
Applying Diplomacy to Terrorism
Resolving the Causes of Terrorism via Diplomacy
In resolving terrorism, diplomacy stands as the strongest way for nations to secure themselves. Given that terrorism is an alarming problem of devastating proportions to the international community, diplomacy prevents it from further subjecting the whole world to imminent danger coming from terrorists. Given the diverse background of terrorist groups and networks – oftentimes carrying out attacks transnationally, the competent application of diplomacy could enable the creation of effective antiterrorist mechanisms encompassing all kinds of terrorism (Buckley & Fawn, 2003, pp. 25-37).
Diplomatic actions coming from politicians and diplomats could help resolve terrorism peacefully through either clandestine diplomatic measures or public dialogue. Both approaches seek to mitigate the enlargement of terrorist groups towards gaining ground in popular movements, which would entail the growth of their legitimacy and consequently greater threats to targets. Diplomacy, in this context, preserves and strengthens traditional notions towards popular movements while weakening the power base of terrorists at the same time. Moreover, pressure coming from politicians and diplomats could come from their diplomatic actions, thus providing organizations or states that support terrorism groups and networks (Buckley & Fawn, 2003, pp. 25-37; Byman, 2007, pp. 121-150; Taylor, 2010, pp. 152-164).
Given the foregoing, it is therefore sound to reason out the premise that diplomacy is a powerful instrument for resolving terrorism without inducing the use of force. Diplomatic methods may provide arenas for conflicting parties to agree, negotiate or be mediated by a competent third-party over the terms of the controversy causing unrest to terrorists. Further aligning diplomatic actions towards greater legitimacy is the fact that politicians and diplomats chosen to preside diplomatically to solve terrorism hold positions or offices that grants them the authority and expertise in resolving the controversy at hand (Corum & Howard, 2007, pp. 233-268; Pesto, 2010, pp. 66-67).
The credibility and conclusiveness of politicians and diplomats practicing diplomacy hold key roles that result to constructive measures. Firstly, politicians and diplomats in diplomacy have the proper knowledge and wisdom in solving terrorism through standardized measures, which emphasizes on the importance of reminding states and organization of their responsibility to deny support to terrorist activities. Secondly, the competence of politicians and diplomats exercising diplomatic duties grants them the capacity to eradicate factors that cause terrorism. Thirdly, diplomatic skills utilized by politicians and diplomats may serve as valuable modes of acquiring information confirming the existence of particular terrorist groups and networks, in turn enabling the international community to prepare for rendering necessary assistance. Lastly, politicians and diplomats in diplomacy are in the best position to consult various stakeholders in different spheres of the international community to gain backing against terrorists (Pesto, 2010, pp. 66-67; Rees, 2006, pp. 128-143; Rees & Aldrich, 2005, pp. 905-923; Reveron, 2006, p. 453).
Indeed, sustaining anti-terrorist measures politically stands as an effective measure for diplomatically resolving terrorism. However, it is noteworthy to consider as well the importance of military preparations in light of persistent threats and violent actions coming from terrorists. After all, the tendency of conflicting parties to break down in diplomatic efforts is a reckonable reality observed in diplomacy, hence the consequent use of military attacks as a defence mechanism. Resolving matters diplomatically could only go as far as reminding states and organizations not to provide backing to terrorist groups and networks, particularly material support in the form of weapons transportation and procurement, and instructing people to become terrorists. Another reckonable measure lies in the assistance of states in danger of terrorist attacks by capable states and organizations. With greater tenacity in diplomatic actions, politicians and diplomats would be able to condition the mentality among members of the international community aversive against states and organizations supportive of terrorist attacks. The UN Charter, alongside several conventions within the international community, help prevent terrorist groups and networks from expanding their legitimacy in several fields, may it be from a political or purely academic scale. Therefore, one could constructively approve of the premise that diplomatic measures competently conducted by politicians and diplomats hold valuable solutions to the causes of terrorism premised on preventive and nonviolent actions. The importance of diplomacy in the foregoing context is crucial, in that it also provides for providing reasonable premises on the use of military action when the urgency for it grows amidst tensions inflicted by terrorists. Such enables the maintenance of support within the international community for anti-terrorist forces (Corum & Howard, 2007, pp. 233-268; Daalder, 2003, pp. 147-166; Nesi, 2006, pp. 25-33; Pesto, 2010, pp. 66-67; Peterson, 2002, pp. 74-94).
Diplomatic Negotiations with Terrorists
The advent of terrorism has shaped modern diplomacy in terms of negotiations. Under modern diplomacy, states tend to negotiate with terrorist groups over particular matters such as appeasing them from conducting attacks against civilians and resolving hostage-taking crises, among many others. What makes modern diplomacy very different from traditional diplomacy is apparent in the foregoing situation – states, on one hand, treat terrorists as their partners for negotiation, usually under their coercion, in resolving the root cause of terrorism peacefully (Faure & Zartman, 2010, pp. 31-46; Peterson, 2002, pp. 74-94).
States, however, still emerge as the dominant party under modern diplomacy, despite the status accorded to terrorists as negotiating partners. The power of states to provide conditions for amnesty, surrender or mitigation of punishments over particular cooperative measures tend to encourage terrorists to back off from carrying out further attacks as they rethink matters over their own welfare. The foregoing enables states to dissolve the support base of terrorist groups and networks effectively without having to resort to costly violence, yet there is an understanding as well that such could also imbibe unto terrorists greater feelings of distrust towards states (Fitzpatrick, 2010, pp. 37-62; Peterson, 2002, pp. 74-94).
It is thus important to note that terrorist groups and networks that have strong inclinations towards ideologies – political, social or religious in nature, are the hardest to compel towards cooperation. Given that ideologically-rooted terrorist groups have the greater tendency to brainwash its members against negotiations with the government, they present themselves as the strongest threats against security, as in the case of suicide bombers terrorist groups under the Al-Qaida network have exhibited (Dubois, 2002, pp. 317-335; Nye, 2004, pp.16-20). A dilemma present in the case of ideologically-rooted terrorist groups is the fact that they are willing to enter into greater risks that would render incentives to cooperation coming from states moot and ineffective. States, in this case, face the problem of whether to entertain the demands of terrorists for the sake of peace and consequently induce other terrorists to do the same, or deny terrorists of their demands and risk losing what they have at stake – hostages, properties, on-going ceasefires and the like. More often than not, ideologically-rooted terrorist groups have the power to divide states with regard to their priorities - securing the welfare of those that are at stake, particularly in the case of hostages, and destroying all elements pertaining to terrorism (Fitzpatrick, 2010, pp. 37-62; Molloy, 2006, pp. 56-70; Shapiro & Byman, 2006, pp. 33-50).
Given the foregoing view, it is crucial for states to act reasonable in order to prevent terrorism from getting worse. Substantial cases have proved that when states act unrestrained and unreasonably against terrorists, their sympathizers and even those who simply question the legitimacy of their respective governments, there is a greater chance for violence to rise further. If states do not exercise diplomatic care in their actions on negotiating with terrorists, then it becomes more possible for them to confront more forms of retaliation. Moreover, it is important to note as well that limits to civil liberties did not contribute to lessening terrorism; states, therefore, should not justify any of their actions that run counter to civil liberties as viable measures against terrorism. Rather, it is more important to note that the priority of states in fighting terrorism is to counter any measures violating human rights. After all, terrorism in itself is an act that violates human rights; states should therefore prevent themselves from responding in other ways that, in effect, actually violates human rights (Fitzpatrick, 2010, pp. 37-62; Reveron, 2006, p. 453).
Conclusion
Fighting terrorism would not become effective without the use of competent diplomacy by politicians and diplomats – modern diplomacy, to be specific, since terrorism in the modern times involves actors not exclusive to states anymore. The strength of terrorist groups and networks in conducting transnational attacks against states compels politicians and diplomats to take action in conjunction with the international community. It is noteworthy to emphasize, in this regard, that terrorists have a vast range of networks spanning different parts of the world, thus enabling them to become more threatening against states and their innocent civilians. Modern diplomacy therefore stands as the solution against terrorism, albeit its imperfections driven by the belligerence of the terrorists themselves.
It is significant to consider the importance of synchronizing and standardizing measures against terrorism, given the idea that terrorists respond strategically as well. Globalization, in this case, is a reckonable feature that both states and terrorists exploit in their respective operations. Therefore, for anti-terrorism measures to work, it is crucial to practice diplomacy competently. Such should not be limited to state representatives as in the case of traditional diplomacy, but also parties that hold considerable expertise in handling terrorists such as organizations and experts from the academe. Engaging all those who hold responsibilities and knowledge on fighting terrorism is an important measure for fighting terrorism. States, organizations and experts should multilaterally unite in discouraging the commission of terrorist attacks through measures and incentives that would lessen the motivation of terrorists and their supporting parties to conduct attacks.
References
Buckley, M., & Fawn, R. (Eds.), 2003. Global responses to terrorism: 9/11, Afghanistan and beyond. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Byman, D., 2007. US counter-terrorism options: A taxonomy. Survival, 49 (3), pp. 121-150.
Comras, V., 2010. Flawed diplomacy: The United Nations and the war on terrorism. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
Corum, J., & Howard, M., 2007. Fighting the war on terror: A counterinsurgency strategy. St. Paul, MN: MBI Publishing Company.
Daalder, I., 2003. The end of Atlanticism. Survival, 45 (2), pp. 147-166.
Dubois, D., 2002. The attacks of 11 September: EU-US cooperation against terrorism in the field of justice and home affairs. European Foreign Affairs Review, 3, pp. 317-335.
Faure, G., & Zartman, W. (Eds.), 2010. Negotiating with terrorists: Strategy, tactics and politics. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Fitzpatrick, K., 2010. The future of US public diplomacy: An uncertain fate. The Netherlands: Brill.
Hoffman, B., 1999. Is Europe soft on terrorism? Foreign Policy, Summer, pp. 62-76.
Molloy, S., 2006. Security, strategy and the war on terror. In: R. Dannreuther and J. Peterson, eds. 2006. Security strategy and transatlantic relations. United Kingdom: Routledge. pp.56-70.
Nesi, G., 2006. International cooperation in counter-terrorism. United Kingdom: Ashgate.
Nye, J., 2004. The decline of America’s soft power. Foreign Affairs, 83 (3), pp. 16-20.
Pesto, H., 2010. The role of diplomacy in the fight against terrorism. The Quarterly Journal, Winter, pp. 64-81.
Peterson, P., 2002. Public diplomacy and the war on terrorism. Foreign Affairs, 81 (5), pp. 74-94.
Rees, W., & Aldrich, R., 2005. Contending cultures of counterterrorism: Transatlantic divergence or convergence? International Affairs, 81 (5), pp. 905-923.
Rees, W., 2006. Transatlantic counter-terrorism cooperation: The new imperative. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Reveron, D., 2006. Old allies, new friends: Intelligence-sharing in the war on terror. Orbis, 50 (3), pp. 453-923.
Shapiro, J., & Byman, D., 2006. Bridging the transatlantic counterterrorism gap. The Washington Quarterly, 29 (4), pp. 33-50.
Stevenson, J., 2003. How Europe and America defend themselves. Foreign Affairs, 82 (2), pp. 75-90.
Taylor, P., 2010. Public diplomacy and the information war on terror. In: P. Inderjeet and M. Cox, eds. 2010. Soft power and US foreign policy: Theoretical, historical and contemporary perspectives. United Kingdom: Routledge. pp.152-164.
