DIPLOMACY AND SECURITY ISSUES AFTER 9/11 ATTACK.

DIPLOMACY AND SECURITY ISSUES AFTER 9/11 ATTACK.
Abstract
Diplomacy is the main tool and instrument of foreign policy through peaceful means. It involved negotiations, bargains, reciprocal interchanges and economical or military trade between two countries or more. Diplomacy has long history since the dawn of civilization, early history ever known. As the field of diplomacy increased and not limited to aristocrats anymore, people from different background can be part of it. On September 11th, few years ago, a massive attack on the heart of U.S's economic centre triggered many changes in international activity. Certain policies of some countries changed and people have new vision of what lies ahead in term of terror. Diplomacy is peace-oriented interaction, while terrorism is obviously violent action. So how can terrorism be related to diplomacy?. Diplomacy is a tool, it can be used in both good and bad purpose, so it has significant role in conducting as well as counter-attacking terrorism.

Diplomatic approach in resolving terrorism issues
Diplomacy represents the most powerful tool—one possessed by every country—in the fight against modern forms of terrorism that have expanded beyond state boundaries.
As a global problem, terrorism has exposed the entire planet to the threats posed by operations carried out by terrorist groups and organizations. An adequate and skillfully implemented diplomacy is the central factor that can consolidate all anti-terrorist measures in a compact and related whole. Political and diplomatic antiterrorist measures can contribute to the resolution of intractable conflicts, and should attempt to do so through the means of both public dialogue and so-called secret diplomacy.
These methods prevent terrorist organizations from participating in mass movements that are seen as effecting both political and social change. Fostering change without resorting to violent means implies that a familiar characteristic of traditional movements is strengthened, while the impact of terrorist organizations is reduced.
Partial or conditional amnesty can be granted to the members of some terrorist groups that are seen in their home countries as being part of liberation movements, further delegitimizing more violent terrorist groups, and diplomatic pressure can be exerted on countries and all other supporters of terrorist organizations (e.g., withdrawal of diplomatic staff from countries that provide financial or moral support to terrorism, termination of diplomatic relations with those countries, etc.). Diplomacy therefore can play a major role in anti-terrorist activities in general, whether in agreements, negotiations, or even mediation processes aimed at funding peaceful anti-terrorist solutions. Those individuals in political and diplomatic positions are some of the highest-ranking figures in state and governmental bodies and have decisive role in the governing process.

Negotiation and Terrorism.
Terrorism has also opened a new chapter in both internal and international negotiations. Governments are often forced to negotiate with terrorist groups, especially in cases of hostage taking. They negotiate with terrorists with the aim of making them relinquish their objectives and turn themselves in, or—if the terrorists are under government control or in prison—to assist in detecting further intelligence about the terrorist network and its intentions. This is a very specific type of negotiation: on the one side there is the state, and on the other individuals or organizations that are not formally recognized by the state, but that obtain the status of a negotiating partner through force or the threat of force. Governments often offer terrorists a combination of safe surrender, amnesty, or reduction of sentences for previous criminal offenses, along with benefits and security guarantees for them or their family members. The purpose of these settlements is to reduce the number of terrorists and weaken their network. A side effect may be sowing distrust and suspicion among the terrorists. Having learned from the experience of the first round of government amnesties for terror groups, terrorists have applied counter tactics to render subsequent promises of amnesty ineffective. When terrorists are first captured, the government has a good chance of negotiating with them, offering them milder sentences in exchange for information.
But there are certain problems in the negotiation with terrorism which is based on fundamental thought, ethnicity, or religious background. Terrorists who belong to fundamentalist ideological, religious, or racist circles are generally those that are least prepared to cooperate. The very existence of suicide terrorist attacks demonstrates that no victim is off limits for members of such ideologically committed groups. Being fully indoctrinated and convinced of the justifiability of even the most brutal action, they will almost never decide to negotiate with the authorities when they are caught, because they believe that it would be the betrayal of a great goal. Neither the promised benefits resulting from cooperation nor the threat of the harshest possible sentence if they refuse to do so have any impact on them. This is why, in cases of these kinds of terrorism—whether domestic, regional, or international—it is most difficult to apply the “carrot-and-stick” method ( give and hit).

US’ policy after 9/11 and Diplomacy as the weapon of counter terrorism
After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the U.S. developed a new national security strategy in order to _ ght global terrorism. U.S. military power became the key weapon in this fight, and it was also used to prevent potential threats.

Another weapon in the fight against terrorism that has often been neglected, however,
is public diplomacy, which includes diplomacy and the use of information in order to influence foreign public opinion about the United States’ foreign policy goals. The use of information and diplomacy, which are often referred to as forms of “soft power,” may be considered part of the information war, which is conducted together with the “hard power” conflict that is carried out using military and economic means. There are still no clear results regarding the success of the use of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it has become clear that the United States is losing the war of ideas, and that the international public is starting to express doubts about the war on terrorism. For example, the pictures and videos that became public in Spring 2004 that showed the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. troops in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad had a severe negative impact on the United States’ standing in Iraq and on the opinions of the foreign public when it comes to the war on terrorism. Also, as a result of these incidents, the U.S. damaged its credibility with Muslim publics across the Middle East, and Islamist extremists used these incidents of torture as an excuse to justify the murders of civilians in the United States. Hans N. Tuch, a retired foreign affairs officer of the U.S. State Department, defines public diplomacy as the “government process of communicating directly with foreign publics in an effort to bring about understanding of our current policies and national goals, our ideas and ideals, as well as for our institutions and culture.” Philip Seib, a professor of journalism and public diplomacy and the head of the Public Diplomacy Center at the University of Southern California, defines public diplomacy as “a government (and some non-state actors) reaching out to foreign publics, rather than confining itself tothe government-to-government communication of traditional diplomacy.”

Conclusion
Diplomacy is the most powerful tool at the disposal of every country in the fight against modern terrorism, one that goes beyond state boundaries and is largely unhindered if not encouraged by globalization. Terrorist groups and organizations thus build their networks to span the entire world. Diplomacy, skillfully guided, represents the connective tissue that can incorporate all anti-terrorism measures into one compact and well-connected whole. Without efficient diplomacy, anti-terrorism measures and activities are fragmented and unconnected, and therefore also inefficient. In terms of the fight against modern terrorism, diplomacy does not relate only to professional diplomats working with their counterparts in governments abroad, but also to all officials performing other tasks specialized for and related to the fight against terrorism.
Diplomacy is a weapon in the fight against the new form of international terrorism that knows no boundaries. Terrorist groups are continuously expanding their scope of activities. The fight against a terrorist network such as the one including Al Qaeda requires the cooperation of numerous countries, since the network is active around the world. Efficient anti-terrorist diplomacy consolidates all these activities into a coherent whole. Anti-terrorist diplomacy is not only the duty of professional diplomats in embassies and ministries of foreign affairs. Persons in charge of other specialized antiterrorist duties have to cooperate closely with their colleagues abroad. Regulatory agencies in charge of the safety of passenger air transport, for example, must perform a completely diplomatic function and ensure the necessary coordination in cases of overlapping of domestic and international security systems. Customs officers and immigration officers have the same task. The largest part of such specialized cooperation is implemented bilaterally, but multilateral diplomacy may also make a significant contribution. Multilateral diplomacy, which also includes UN resolutions and dozens of international conventions on terrorism, also improves international regulations against terrorism. Some conventions, such as the convention on airplane hijacking, represent the basis for practical cooperation in cases of overlapping national jurisdictions.
There are clearly things that diplomacy is simply not capable of accomplishing in the fight against terrorism. Terrorists do not change their behavior as a result of a UN convention or resolution. But diplomacy supports all other tools that are used in the fight against terrorism, no matter whether it deepens the moral basis behind them, or whether it ensures the international legal framework for their use. Financial oversight is an important tool in monitoring terrorist activities. By cutting off terrorists’ access to financial resources, their activities can be reduced or even blocked, because the lack of resources makes it difficult for terrorists to plan operations. When we confront the challenge of stopping terrorist activities, we are faced with two great problems. One is that terrorism does not require significant financial assets; the other problem lies in the fact that it is extremely difficult to trace terrorist funds. Both of these represent an obstacle for all forms of the fight against modern terrorism. Diplomacy can to nothing to resolve the first, but it could have a significant impact on how we address the second challenge.

Reference :
1.    Haris Presto, The Role of Diplomacy in The Fight Against Terrorism, The Quarterly Journal, 2010.
2.    United States Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Diplomatic Security Fights Terrorism, 2013.
3.    Johan Eriksson & Giampero G, International Relations and Security in The Digital Age, Routledge Publishing, New York, 2007.
4.    Negotiating with terrorists, -, -