The Best Way to deter terrorism

is to not negotiate- background

A 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 2011
However, 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?