Dialogue with violent extremist groups is a controversial practice, even when used to prevent widespread violence or atrocities. Humanitarian dialogue may serve as a crisis-mitigation instrument, offering short-term relief and civilian protection. When the risk of atrocities is remote, political dialogue can be used for structural or upstream prevention aimed at conflict resolution or addressing community grievances. Though dialogue as a peacebuilding tool has potential in any stage of a conflict, it is ideally undertaken before widespread violence occurs. However, the conditions for successful atrocity prevention through dialogue with violent extremist groups are rarely in place.

Summary

  • Various forms of dialogue have traditionally been a central mechanism in the toolbox for atrocity prevention. The utility of this noncoercive peacebuilding practice merits reconsideration as violent extremist organizations (VEOs) increasingly embrace mass violence as a means to advance their objectives.
  • If atrocities are imminent or ongoing, dialogue may serve as a crisis-mitigation instrument, with the potential of offering short-term humanitarian relief and civilian protection. When the risk of atrocities is remote, political dialogue can be used for structural or upstream prevention aimed at conflict resolution or addressing community grievances.
  • Despite the broadening recognition of the need to engage extremist groups through dialogue when possible, controversy continues to surround this practice.
  • The conditions for successful atrocity prevention through dialogue with VEOs are rarely in place. Those pursuing dialogue need to gradually build trust, conduct a thorough actor mapping, and reflect on their own role and preparedness to engage. Engaging extremists presents significant risks as well, including extremists’ manipulation of the dialogue to buy time for planning atrocity campaigns.
  • Efforts to engage VEOs directly through dialogue have been inconsistent and are handled with the utmost discretion. Restrictive legislative frameworks may limit the ability to exploit opportunities for atrocity prevention through dialogue with these groups.

About the Report

This report reflects input gathered from United States Institute of Peace (USIP) desk research, interviews with practitioners, and round table sessions jointly convened in 2016 by USIP and the Brussels-based European Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. (February 5), Brussels (February 23) and Nairobi (May 18); the session in Kenya was held in partnership with the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. The round tables gathered policymakers, practitioners, and academics with expertise in the area of dialogue with nonstate armed groups, the prevention of mass atrocities, and violent extremism.

About the Authors

Sofía Sebastián was a postdoctoral TAPIR fellow at USIP, where her research focused on UN peacekeeping and civilian protection. She is the author of Post-War Statebuilding and Constitutional Reform: Beyond Dayton in Bosnia (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014). Jonas Claes is a senior program officer at the Center for Applied Conflict Transformation at USIP, where he conducts research and analysis on the prevention of electoral violence and mass atrocities.

Related Publications

Measuring Up: Monitoring and Evaluating P/CVE Programs

Measuring Up: Monitoring and Evaluating P/CVE Programs

Thursday, September 6, 2018

By: Georgia Holmer; Peter Bauman; Kateira Aryaeinejad

This report considers the various conceptual and practical challenges in measuring the impact and value of programs designed to prevent and counter violent extremism (P/CVE). It examines potential solutions and emphasizes the significance of efforts to assess changes in attitudes, behaviors, and relationships.

Violent Extremism

Taking Stock: Analytic Tools for Understanding and Designing P/CVE Programs

Taking Stock: Analytic Tools for Understanding and Designing P/CVE Programs

Thursday, September 6, 2018

By: Georgia Holmer; Peter Bauman

This report examines the various analytic tools that have been developed to understand the causes and dynamics of radicalization and violent extremism. The report assesses the strengths and limitations of these tools in informing the design of P/CVE interventions. It considers micro- and macro-level frameworks and models, and the various contexts in which they may be relevant.

Violent Extremism

Mona Yacoubian on Syria

Mona Yacoubian on Syria

Thursday, August 9, 2018

By:

As the Assad regime consolidates power across Syria, Mona Yacoubian says that regime change is increasingly unlikely seven years into the civil war. But, the conflict remains complex, as the U.S. and coalition forces continue to work to eradicate remnants of ISIS and Israel becomes increasingly concerned over Iran’s military presence in neighboring Syria.

Violent Extremism; Global Policy

How Saving Rhinos Can Cut Poverty—and Even Terrorists’ Funds

How Saving Rhinos Can Cut Poverty—and Even Terrorists’ Funds

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

By: Fred Strasser

By 2030 African black rhinos and elephants could face extinction as poachers and other criminals, including violent extremist groups, sell rhino horns and ivory to largely Asian markets. The trade in protected wildlife, worth an estimated $7 to $10 billion annually, not only endangers these species, it destabilizes communities and impedes sustainable economic development.

Economics & Environment; Violent Extremism

View All Publications