TL-DR: Unlike what your Hollywood movies want you to believe, Governments do negotiate with terrorists depending on the situation.


“We do not negotiate with terrorists” is a line that is ubiquitously regurgitated in governmental rhetoric.
In and out of Nairaland, I continually hear this phrase "government doesn't negotiate with terrorists".

Unfortunately this comes from watching too many movies and does not fully comply with the reality of the world.

The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple: Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means.

In practice, it is not uncommon for democratic governments to negotiate with terrorist groups. In 2014, countries such as France and Spain paid millions of euros in ransom to bring home journalists and aid workers captured by the Islamic State in Syria. In response to the same dilemma, the governments of the UK and US refused to make concessions, arguably leading to a number of high-profile hostage killings.

Closer to home, the amnesty agreement for militants can be called a negotiation, as well as giving them security contracts. Even more recently, the current administration has given what many have seen as concessions to Boko Haram.


Why Governments Negotiate With Terrorists

Terrorism itself can never be systemically eradicated. The phrase ‘war on terror’ seems like an oxymoron. Tactics cannot be defeated, even if those who make use of them can be. Bringing the enemy into the establishment is often a political and moral gamble. However, the potential dividends for peace and stability are significant.

Secondly, dialogue and engagement with terrorist movement should not be seen as concessions to the enemy. They do not bestow legitimacy or show weakness, they merely acknowledge existence and exhibit a pragmatic will to end conflict, putting ideology and doctrine aside. Rarely is dialogue ruled out during inter-state conflict, so why should asymmetric conflicts be treated as an aberration to the norms of warfare?

It is deleterious to disparage the importance of dialogue in dealing with terrorist threats. So why do governments continue to do so? Maybe because representative democracies encourage the adoption of clear Manichean policies and world views - us vs them? Or is it linked to a short term memory when it comes to conflict resolution? Are decision makers simply unaware of historical examples? Countless studies of successful counter-terrorism campaigns show that mixed method approaches offer the highest chances of success, especially in conflicts involving democracies. Dialogue is rarely altogether absent from this mix.


Summary:

Unlike what your Hollywood movies want you to believe, Governments do negotiate with terrorists depending on the situation.


Sources
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2007-01-01/negotiating-terrorists

http://eip.org/en/news-events/negotiating-terrorists

https://www.chathamhouse.org/event/negotiating-terrorists-0

I always laugh at the little kids that mouth a few lines from a movie they've seen thinking it operates in the real world.



Kids.

There are different type of terrorists
Religious terrorism long story