Op-Ed
Held for Ransom
Email: 
Share: 
Between the Lines
April 12, 2007 - 1:18amOne sometimes sees newspaper headlines and wonders whether they are more appropriate to the 21st century or the 12th. Beheadings, honor killing and holy wars are again in vogue. One medieval throwback, now unfortunately prevalent again, is hostage-taking for political purposes. The hostages are frequently mistreated, or even killed, to wring the utmost propaganda value from their captivity. We in the West, and particularly in the United States, need to find ways to adapt to this cruel and illegal tactic.
In countries as diverse as Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, rebel and terrorist groups routinely take neutral civilians as hostages and hold them for ransom until their home governments pay. Quite often, the hostages are compelled to appear in propaganda videos, pleading for release, and demanding that their nation of origin make concessions for release. Sometimes the concession takes the form of a ransom; money that will be used to fund terror attacks or other kidnappings. Sometimes the demand is for the release of prisoners held by the West.
Sun Podcast: A podcast is available for this column. Click here to listen to or to download it.
The practice of political hostage-taking is not confined to terroristic groups such as Al-Qaeda, or Colombia’s narcoterrorists. The sovereign government of Iran, alas, uses the tactic as well. The recent abduction of 15 British sailors is a particularly ominous precedent, because none of the world’s human-rights bodies protested the flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Law of the Sea. Iran has no lawful right to seize ships in Iraqi waters, where the British were. Even if their initial capture were lawful, the terms of the captivity were not. In peacetime, detainees must be allowed access to their nation’s diplomats, a right which the Iranians denied. In wartime, the Geneva Conventions apply.
Unlike captured terrorists in Iraq, British sailors are lawful combatants who are protected by the Geneva Convention, to which Iran is signatory. The Geneva Convention demands that prisoners be allowed to send and receive mail. It requires that prisoners be allowed to keep their uniforms. It prohibits the display of prisoners for propaganda purposes. The Iranians violated all these requirements. Moreover, the convention bars “acts of intimidation” towards prisoners. Iran threatened to imprison the British sailors, and subjected them to mock execution: surely a form of intimidation. And yet, the world’s consciences, the human rights groups, have been silent. Iran has paid no price for its hostage-taking.
Holding captured soldiers as prisoners of war, and even holding civilians as security detainees, is routine in wartime. However political hostages are very different from normal prisoners. Wartime detainees are held because there are ongoing hostilities which they might take part in; hostages are held simply for propaganda value, with no serious claim that they pose a threat. The prisoners held at Guantanamo may not be treated very well, but they are held because the U.S. government holds a reasonable suspicion that they are hostile combatants and dangerous to release. They are not the subject of American propaganda; they are not mistreated for public relations reasons.
Not only are political hostages often treated much worse than normal detainees, but political hostage-taking hurts more than just the hostages. Very often, the hostages are only released after concessions are made. European governments, particularly Italy and Germany, routinely pay ransoms or make other concessions to secure the release of their citizens captured in Iraq or Afghanistan. In this way, European governments have become significant funders of terrorist attacks on allied soldiers, and local civilians.
This sort of hostage-taking poses peculiar dilemmas for the United States. When citizens of a U.S. ally are captured, quite often the U.S. is pressured to make political concessions. This is a pressure we are ill-equipped to resist, and so we should avoid being in a position where the governments of NATO allies such as Italy are pressuring us to release terrorist leaders on behalf of their citizens. Allies are of little worth if we have to free captured terrorists to keep them in the fight.
This sort of political kidnapping is not an inevitable feature of the world. The practice was nearly unheard of in the West for some centuries; it is only with the rise of modern terrorism that it has come back into vogue. Given the serious threat it poses, the U.S. should seek to restore the status quo of the past, when the citizens of neutral powers were virtually sacrosanct. As recently as 1985, the Reagan administration used military force to capture the Palestinian terrorists who hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro.
We are obviously not prepared to mount a military response to every kidnapping. However, if we are not prepared to respond effectively, we should try to avoid the problem in the first place. The State Department already issues travel warnings discouraging travel to hazardous regions. We ought to punish American civilians who put themselves in situations where the country will be pressured to make dangerous bargains for their release. When Americans are captured, we must remain steadfast in refusing to pay ransoms to terrorists. Last, we need to take national responses to kidnapping into account when we decide whether to work with allies. If our troops are killed in Afghanistan with weapons bought by Italian government ransom payments, we can’t treat Italy as an ally.
Political hostage-taking is not an inevitable feature of the world. But curtailing the practice will take determination and a willingness to pay a price for our determination. The payment of ransoms must stop, and we must refuse to be bullied by hostage-takers. Moreover, we must refuse to allow our allies to bully us into making concessions to factions and governments that have resurrected this medieval tactic.
Ari Rabkin is a graduate student in Computer Science. He can be contacted at asr32@cornell.edu. Between the Lines appears Thursdays.
The Geneva Convention
As I read through Ari's column, and his chastising of Iran for failing to follow the Geneva Convention, I pondered the fact that the U.S. has routinely done the things Iran did with its detainees. This made me confused.
But thankfully, Ari cleared that up with one sentance: "Unlike captured terrorists in Iraq, British sailors are lawful combatants who are protected by the Geneva Convention, to which Iran is signatory."
Well that clears it up...
Actually, no. It is ridiculous to use these forms of "international law" as some sort of moral standard, that we as a country can easily find nice loopholes around (eg they're "terrorists", not soldiers). In reality, we know that the U.S. only follows those treaties and conventions that are convenient for it. The U.S. has been picking Iranian diplomats off the streets of Bagdhad and holding them - where is the outcry over this?
Decree so-called "hostage taking" if you desire, but recognize ALL countries that are detaining people from other nations - and that includes the U.S.