Most of
us have already watched movies, which involve negotiations between
the police and a killer or a hostage taker. Well, when these kind of
interventions happen in real life, you actually realize that there are quite
similar than the ones described in such movies. However, they may last longer…
During
more than 30 hours, between Tuesday 20th March and Thursday 22th
March, an anti-terrorist unit of the French national police, called Raid, has
stood up in front a building in Toulouse (France). Let’s quickly summarize the
situation.
Since 11th March, a young French man, Mohamed Merah,
started shooting people; both soldiers and civilians. He made 7
victims in total before being “intercepted” by the police. Negotiations have
lasted during more than 30 hours in order to determine the motives of the suspect,
but especially to try to arrest him alive. However, the intervention did not
process as the Raid hoped for. In fact, on Thursday, during an exchange of gun
shots with the police, Merah jumped out of his flat while shooting policemen.
However, a sniper killed him during his jump. In some way, we can say that
Merah has won the negotiations as he wished to die during a firefight with the Special
Forces. This last point means that, unfortunately, the Raid couldn’t achieve
its objectives, which were to arrest him alive and to judge him for his crimes.
However, as Merah pointed out himself during the intervention, he wouldn’t have
stop fighting until his death. Collaborating with the Raid
and sharing information about where some of his weapons were hidden was just an
excuse to gain more time.
As
Christophe Caupenne, Raid former negotiator, explained at the French television
on Wednesday, during negotiations every channels of communication are offered
to the suspect, in order to make him talk and to gather as much information as
possible. Some elements may also be negotiated; however the context is very
important and determines the whole communication process. The purposes of this kind
of exchanges are to establish a trusting relationship with the suspect and to
make the individual changes his mind while offering an honorable exit. Usually, only a single person is in contact
with the suspect in order to facilitate the trusting relationship. As we can notice
here, the use of a single spokesperson is also used during business crisis.
Moreover, the negotiation techniques used during Special Forces interventions
may refer to the compromising theory used to resolve conflict. Both parties win
and lose in order to finally agree on something. However, in this case, Merah stopped
several times the communication with the negotiator, which made the whole
process even more complex.
However,
in this case, in some way the negotiations have failed, as the Special
Forces couldn’t arrest Merah alive. As a result, would Merah’s death make hostile
feelings rise from people who think like him? (and there are some, because
unfortunately we live in a crazy world) Would these people try to avenge him? Would
it be more damaging for France and its international relationships with the
concerned countries? Therefore, would it make things worse?
More
information about Merah and the intervention are available on the following
links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17471313
To your question “would Merah’s death make hostile feelings rise from people who think like him?” we have now the answer: the police had to intervene discreetly yesterday to prevent the departure of a demonstration in favour of Mohamed Merah. About thirty people, mostly women and children had gathered in Merah’s native neighbourhood in Toulouse to honour his memory. I don’t think it is a matter of revenge but it is clearly showing support for such extremist actions; from the moment you decide to honour the memory of someone who has killed 7 people, it is as if you blessed that kind of behaviour. And what scares me more is that this is probably only the tip of the iceberg. There are probably other people supporting less obviously Merah’s actions. Also I think it is not impossible that some reactions emerge in the next days from members of al-Qaida who would like to seize the opportunity to show what their organisation is really capable of. The problem with this kind of widely commented and reported in the media event is that it can raise hostile feelings both from the supporters of the victims and from the supporters of the killers. From then on, this can lead to revolt at a larger scale (country). And if I may comment on this point: I think media over-communicated on this event and exceeded their classical role of informer. Making such hostile feelings arise from an entire population is dangerous, especially in a period of social crisis and electoral campaign.
ReplyDeleteAbout the damages for France and its international relationships with the concerned countries, I don’t think this will have any consequences – or at least I hope it won’t! It is not because Merah travelled in countries such as Afghanistan or Pakistan that those countries are responsible for his actions. The presence of extremist Islamist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan does not mean that everyone in those countries think like a member of al-Qaida – hopefully! And I believe that our politicians are able to make this distinction. If they are, then relationships should not be affected. The issue is to eradicate organisations such as al-Qaida, not to judge the countries where they are!
Thank you for your comment. I do agree with you with the fact that sometimes media do over communicate information. One of their first purpose is to stay objective. By sharing too many information, it can be perceived as taking side; and therefore, more hostile feelings may arise. I also share your point of view regarding the fact that all people in Afghanistan and Pakistan are NOT member of Al-Qaida. I believe that politicians know the distinction, but I'm not sure everyone in Occidental countries makes this distinction. Generalities are easier to handle. This is, of course, quite sad, and a bit dangerous as well.
ReplyDeleteIn Merah's case I think that the negotiation was meant to fail... As he said before, he wanted to die and wasn't ready to negotiate anything, he just tried to gain time. But in other cases, I think it will actually be really interesting to know what is being said in those kind of police/individual conversation. See what is being said and how the police actually try to convince the suspect.
ReplyDeleteMerah didn't survived, in my opinion, not because the Raid failed, but because he decided not to surrender. He knew that he had high chances to get killed if he started shooting at everyone; and that's what he did. I believe that in those kind of situation when other life depends on the police's decision, the neutralization of one person shouldn't even be put into question.