Logics of Support and Opposition to Peace Negotiations with Militant Groups:A Case Study of Negotiations (2014) with Pakistani Taliban

Abstract

The support-opposition aspect of peace negotiations with militant groups that use terror and enjoy political support is significant in several ways. It determines, at least partly, whether the concerned government will hold negotiations with the militants or not and, if held, whether the negotiations will be overt or covert. This article attempts to explain the phenomenon with the help of a case study of the negotiations that took place between the Pakistani government and the Pakistani Taliban in 2014. Those who debated the desirability and undesirability of the negotiations employed at least eleven different pivotal points in their respective arguments. These pivotal points of the arguments or logics behind support or opposition to the negotiations comprise two sets: (a) logics employed both in support and opposition to the negotiations—ideology, national interest, constitutionalism, pragmatism-workability, and victimhood and (b) logics put forward in opposition to the negotiations—legitimacy, patriotism, weakness, tactic, timing, and violence.