Search

The article compares public opinion trends in the U.S., Great Britain and Israel to determine the dynamics of public opinion after terrorist attacks. The metrics compared and considered in the analysis include, the overall sense of threat due to terrorism, willingness to cede civil liberties and government approval ratings. It relates the possibility for shrewd government officials to use the attacks in order to pass civil liberty-reducing counterterror law. It develops a model for how public opinion constrains and drives actions after the attacks.

The United States has a longstanding policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorist organizations. It does not, however, always adhere to this stated policy. During the Reagan Administration, for example, the U.S. not only met with members of the African National Congress (ANC), but it also removed the ban on negotiating with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). These actions outraged South Africa and Israel, respectively. Similarly, President Bill Clinton angered the British government by granting a visa to Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams. This presents an important puzzle: Why would the U.S. make concessions to a terrorist organization, especially one that is in conflict with its close ally? This project asks two specific research questions: First, what explains the shift between a strategy of isolating nationalist terrorist groups to a strategy of engaging them? Second, under what conditions will engagement succeed in integrating these groups into a political system? The significance of this study is that it will determine if NTOs will forgo violence and enter the political system and what role the U.S. can play in facilitating that transition. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]