Talking to the Taliban
Anyone aware of the problems the army used to face moving soldiers around South Armagh and the importance of the helicopters based at Bessbrook for resupplying the border surveillance towers will have followed the debate about the need for more helicopters in order to avoid landmine attack in Afghanistan with a degree of familiarity.
Now we have a spate of stories about talking to the Taliban many accompanied with references to the Northern Ireland example. However as Lord Ashdown pointed out this morning on Good Morning Ulster and in discussion with Douglas Alexander yesterday on the Today programme, there are limits to the analogy, not least that the Taliban leadership seems convinced at the moment it has far more to gain from continuing fighting.
Jeff Dudgeon sent me a copy of his News Letter review of John Bew, Martyn Frampton, and Inigo Gurruchaga's new book "Talking to Terrorists: Making Peace in Northern Ireland and the Basque Country". He distills the book's message as "terrorism thrives on talking, unless already in yield mode. And that state force works." It is, I suppose, working out when an organisation might be entering "yield mode" which is the difficult part.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark
BREAKING NEWS: BRITS SIGNAL TALIBAN VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN
Up to their oxsters in Poor Tommy's blood and guts, the Brits have started to look for a way out of their unholy foreign adventure. The biggest joke is that they are citing the Northern Ireland Peace Process as a template that could end the conflict. [And I thought it was a given that we learn from the past.]
Let's take a moment to look at our so-called Peace Process: In the early nineties the Provos were on their knees but the Brits entered into secret negotiations with the Army Council. What followed?
Warrington Bombing, 1993;
Shankill Road Bombing 1993;
City of London Bombing, 1994;
London docklands Bombing 1996;
Canary Wharf Bombing, 1996;
Manchester Bombing, 1996,
Omagh Bombing, 1998;
Et Cetera, et cetera, et cetera and into the noughties with murders (e.g. McCartney & Quinn) and bank robberies galore.
So not only have the Brits XXXXXX us up here, they're going to do the same to the people of Afghanistan. Tommy and the Afghan people should now brace themselves for a bloody onslaught that mirrors the murder and mayhem perpetrated by the IRA in the UK.
If the Brits are going to follow the example of our Peace Process then the Taliban can sit back and enjoy the prospect of being in key positions in the Afghanistan Government in the not too distant future. How so? Well, just look at the primacy of Sinn Fein in the Assembly these days.
Oh, and what about Poor Tommy? Forget about him, just another case of [& here I paraphrase] a lion led by political donkeys.
Susie
Carryduff
Complain about this comment
The British Government has communicated with republicans from the early 1970s. From the beginning this has included negotiation. Of course these were in the main secret. Secrecy prevents the obvious "stomach-churning" response of the general public, allows denial of leaked deals and secrecy allows negotiations to progress without being held back by either side's support base.
Of course, killings and bombings continued. They continued until there was public, open negotiations. So perhaps the lesson to be learned from the past is not that talking doesn't work but that publicised negotiations in which the content is secret and "nothing on the table is agreed until everything is agreed" does work. That is what happened here and although the situation here isn't a panacea or a model for all conflicts surely it has led to a dramatic reduction in killings and can therefore help other societies tranform from violence to peace?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
'TALKING TO TERRORISTS'
In Mr Dudgeon's review of the book, he mentions that William Whitelaw was in negotiations with the IRA in 1972. This was on 7 July and according to J Bowyer Bell, the Provo delegation comprised Mac Stiofain, O'Connell, Twomey, Martin McGuinness, C/O of Derry, Gerry Adams, Ivor Bell from Belfast and Myles Shevlin from Sinn Fein. The Conservative Government was represented by William Whitelaw (SOS) and three other members of his ministerial team.
The secret negotiations (as opposed to talks) broke down. On 21 July the Provisional IRA exploded 22 bombs in Belfast (Bloody Friday), so what is to be gained by negotiating with terrorists? When they don't get what they want they revert to type.
Pandora
Complain about this comment
EXIT STRATEGY ALL BUT IN NAME
The British (Army) is in Afghanistan under a UN mandate. They now propose having talks with the Taliban, which is a unilateral decision by the UK. Will the US follow this strategy along with all the other countries including the Government of the Irish Republic?
Pandora
Complain about this comment
Before there are negotiations there should preferably be a ceasefire. Pandora is right to say that parties to a negotiation cannot threaten violence if they cannot get what they want.
Negotiations should be about getting to a position based on both parties' principles not their original positions. Negotiations based on positions are unlikely to succeed but getting to a mutually acceptable point where neither parties' principles are violated is efficacious and a recipe for permanence.
Republicans adopted an immovable position in the negotiations with Whitelaw which led to failure before the talking really started.
The 1990s saw a more pliable, principled negotiation and that, coupled with a ceasefire led to a reasonably successful outcome. We need to hear the reasons for violence and if people can be reassured enough to stop that can only be good.
Complain about this comment
The 1972 ceasefire which facilitated talks between the IRA and the British Government was broken by the British army on July 9th, when they shot five civilians dead in ballymurphy. The youngest, margaret Gargan was aged thirteen.
The actual talks were not,with hindsight, viewed by Irish Republicans as a genuine attempt at negotiation, but as a suspected attempt by the British Government to evaluate the Irish Republican leadership, in advance of another raft of repressive legislation.
If the British Government were to desist from invading and occupying other lands and countries in the first place, negotiation phases to conflicts wouldn't be necessary because the conflicts wouldn't exist in the first place. National borders are there to restrain competing ideologies and international diplomacy is the correct methodology with which to maintain Justice and Peace. The border which partitions Ireland is not a national border. It's an English border that was imposed on the country to the detriment of the Irish nation.
Complain about this comment
What has to be remembered is that the British establishment will only facilitate talks on their terms and when it suits them. If they need to use Afghanistan for their own ends they will. In Ireland MI5/6 were in strong contact with key republicians from the mid 70's, on numerous occcasions up until the hunger strikes of 80/81 they toyed with the republican leadership. The main reason that Major reopened negotiations when he ascended Thatcher was twofold.Irelands geographical location had lost significant importance. Throughout history those who wanted to attack Britain used Ireland as a base, by the early 90's it would have been easier to shoot a rocket from half way across the world. Coupled with this the Irish war was eating up money which needed to be redeployed in other areas.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS