The Best Way to deter terrorism is to not negotiate- backgroundA landmark resolution adopted in 1991 led the United Nations General Assembly to state that it unequivocally condemns, as criminal and unjustifiable, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whoever committed. Though terrorism has been rather difficult to define and an official definition has not been made yet, terrorism has been loosely defined as criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. Several examples of terrorism have occurred over the past two decades including the infamous destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City on 9/11, the Beslan school massacre in Russia and 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. Each one of these debacles has caused hundreds of fatalities and many injuries and there is widespread debate on how to solve such terrorist cases one of which is simple negotiation. Negotiation has come under widespread scrutiny. It may be considered an effective tactic to ensure hostage safety but governments continually stress that they do not negotiate with terrorists. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments' political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent.Yet in practice, democratic governments often negotiate with terrorists. Governments stray from their outward policy simply because negotiation seems to be the preferred policy in assuaging the widespread violence. Safety of its citizens is one of the principal requirements a government needs to uphold and risking citizens lives is completely unacceptable to most. Furthermore, negotiation has led to a more lasting peace in cases. For example the Spanish government negotiating with the ETA led to a more lasting peace negotiations starting in 1989 culminated in a diffusion of violence in the area in 2011However, sometimes negotiations come to haunt governments. Terrorists may end up launching more attacks on the government in the future and create more chaos.

So does negotiation appear an effective solution to deter terrorism or are there more effective methods to deal with these pariahs?