Lending Respectability to Terrorists

B Raman argues:

The Sri Lankan Government and political leaders cannot escape a major share of responsibility for the gradual erosion of the ground from under their feet. While one could understand their decision to allow Norway to have independent access to Prabakaran, it was unwise on their part to have allowed Japanese do-gooders and now Chris Patten to pander to Prabakaran’s ego.
One is seeing in Sri Lanka a repeat of what happened in respect of Palestine. In an unwise decision, the Israeli authorities of the past allowed the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) headed by Yasser Arafat to set up a provisional authority in some of the occupied areas even before a final peace settlement could be reached with the PLO.

I agree. The international community should not lend respectability to terrorists who still threaten violence if their demands are not met. Until the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers have settled their dispute, outside intervention which seemingly adds legitimacy to the LTTE will only complicate matters. What incentive does it give the LTTE to further abandon its violent ways and pursue its agenda through peaceful means?

How would the US and UK react if the OIC sent a representative to negotiate with Osama bin Laden?

If terrorism is to be defeated, the international community has to be unequivocal in its opposition. There cannot be any negotiation with terrorists. There cannot be any acceptance that terrorism is legitimate – no matter how worthy the cause is. In 1922, Mahatma Gandhi called off the mass non-cooperation movement after an irate mob torched a colonial British police station in Chauri Chaura, demonstrating legitimate ends do not justify the violent means