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

A Negotiated End to the Afghan Conflict

A Negotiated End to the Afghan Conflict

Monday, June 18, 2018

By: Borhan Osman

Despite widespread recognition that the only way toward ending the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is a negotiated settlement, understanding of the Taliban’s thinking on the subject is remarkably scant. This report attempts to fill this gap by drawing on face-to-face interviews with Taliban foot soldiers, field commanders, and supporters to better understand the movement’s views on why they are fighting, what issues are negotiable, whether they have faith in negotiation as a way to peace, and what a peace process might look like.

Violent Extremism; Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Scott Worden on the Cease-Fire in Afghanistan

Scott Worden on the Cease-Fire in Afghanistan

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

By: Scott Worden

A temporary cease-fire between the Afghan government and the Taliban to mark the end of Ramadan may offer an opportunity to pursue a more ambitious political solution to end the conflict in Afghanistan, says USIP’s Scott Worden. While there is a chance that the cease-fire—the first since the war began in 2001—will be fleeting, as cease-fires are fragile by nature, it is an important trust-building measure. Combined with Afghanistan’s neighbors recently expressing their desire for an end to the stalemate, the cease-fire could be the first step to a more enduring peace.

Violent Extremism

Sudan after Sanctions

Sudan after Sanctions

Thursday, May 31, 2018

By: Aly Verjee

In October 2017, the United States lifted a wide range of economic sanctions that had been in place against Sudan for two decades. Aly Verjee, a visiting expert at the United States Institute of Peace, recently interviewed roughly 50 Sudanese—including students, business owners, doctors, laborers, activists, and others outside the government-connected elite—on what this first step in the normalization of relations between Sudan and the United States might mean for the future of their country.

Economics & Environment; Global Policy; Violent Extremism

Lessons from Strengthening Capacity in Countering Violent Extremism

Lessons from Strengthening Capacity in Countering Violent Extremism

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

By: Jeff Krentel; Nathaniel L. Wilson

An evaluation of a three-year USIP program to strengthen capacity in the field to counter violent extremism revealed that effective project design, thoughtful recruitment strategies, and tailored course content are critical. Participants reported applying what they learned to either adjust existing CVE programs or develop new programs altogether. This report explores the lessons from the project for funders and practitioners to develop more effective projects.

Violent Extremism

View All Publications