Hostage Diplomacy

There are few acts of diplomacy more striking than a former American president swooping in to the world's most forbidding nation to rescue two women from years of imprisonment and hard labor. If Hollywood produced it, it would almost seem trite. Even Bill Clinton's harshest critic should celebrate this rescue as triumphant and humane. But as the women's families breathe a sigh of relief, a nagging question remains: has Bill Clinton just made the world a more dangerous place?

Inside government, where I once worked as a diplomat, no crisis is greater than a hostage crisis. It's the phone call that every official dreads, usually from the local embassy saying that nationals have been taken. A well-oiled system swings into action: senior officials -- and usually the president himself -- will be urgently informed. Emergency meetings are immediately convened; how a government responds in the first moments can be critical.

Kidnappings are going on today in Somalia, Iraq, Colombia, as well as North Korea. Wherever hostages are taken, governments face the same desperate -- and intractable -- dilemmas. As governments frantically decide how to react, the families of the hostages will be in all-too-imaginable distress. If the press get hold of the story, the pressure for governments to respond -- in any way possible -- grows immense. Should we respond publicly, but thereby immediately giving the hostage-takers the attention they seek? Should we attempt to free them by force? But military action is usually discarded as too risky: remember the disastrous US attempt to free the Tehran embassy hostages in 1980.

Ransoms pose similar dilemmas. It's easy to declare that no ransoms should be paid when it's not your husband or daughter who's in captivity, sometimes under threat of death. I once debriefed a European hostage who had been held for years by a terrorist gang in Lebanon. His suffering was immense. He wept to mention his gratitude to the official who had organized the secret pay-off to get him out.

Absent better options, governments will often seek a messy and unsatisfactory way out. They may offer some concessions, and ideally in secret, in the hope that this doesn't leak and encourage others. Kim Jong Il was rewarded for his hostage-taking with a visit by a prominent American leader. The Administration may insist that no substantive policy concessions were made (and we may never know), but the visit alone was a kind of ransom payment. We can be sure that North Korea will continue to take "prisoners," whether from the South or better yet, America, and will seek concessions for their release. All over the world, hostage-takers, whether states, terrorists or pirates, are being regularly paid off, hush-hush, without fanfare. The message is clear: hostage-taking gets results. Tehran, Hizbollah and Pyongyang, and other violent groups across the world, will be taking notes.

Somehow the whole world is in the grip of the hostage-takers: no one has a good solution. We badly need a debate on how to alter the terms of hostage diplomacy, by reducing the rewards for those who use such coercive techniques -- and increasing them for those who don't. The aim should be to deny those who use kidnapping and violence the attention they crave. The ideal would be some kind of voluntary prohibition -- to legislate it would produce the opposite effect -- to minimize attention to motives and goals of kidnappers and terrorists, whether groups like Al Qaeda or states like North Korea.

Another measure might, in time, start to diminish the force of those who use such vile and objectionable methods to draw attention to their needs: start to reward those who don't use violence, like the Polisario Front of the Western Sahara. Their country was invaded by Morocco in 1975. Since a ceasefire in 1991, this group has refused to take hostages, kill civilians or use violence of any kind. Instead, they continue to use peaceful and diplomatic means to pursue self-determination for the people of this occupied land. But, in the absence of headline-grabbing kidnapping or violence, they continue to be ignored in policy circles, left in the desert to ponder whether a return to arms would better serve their purposes.

A new doctrine offers itself, with which the US can send a strong and positive message to the world: those who foreswear violence will receive greater political rewards than those who do not.

Carne Ross is a former British diplomat and director of Independent Diplomat, a non-profit diplomatic advisory group, which also advises the Polisario Front.

Comments

[kwijibo]

Surely these women knew that what they were doing is illegal. Is there any country in the world in which a person can enter without permission and not be breaking a law?

This is one of the reasons the rest of the world hates the US. We think we can go anywhere and do anything without being held accountable. We believe we can arrogantly violate another nation's borders yet be congratulated and adulated for having done so. What these selfish women did is scarcely different than any other incursion committed by America or Americans on foreign soil. It reflected their apparent belief that Pres. Barack Obama is either so incompetent or so uncaring as to not be able to successfully negotiate the international debate over Trafficking in Persons and the flesh trade of North Korea. In that sense, are they mistaken? You decide.

[huffpost reader]

Listen to the wisdom of the diplomats. Listen to those who live in these countries and whose job is to understand them, bend their thinking to understanding, them to the policies of the our government. Our poor diplomats, like how this author formerly was, get stuck with the work. The real negative situations are when the State Department can do nothing because you are in a contested area, or a war zone. Lots of Europeans and Americans have died. Crying mothers,fathers,siblings murdered for politics that most Americans neither understand or comprehend. It is these professionals jobs to fully, and completely understand them, and to be tough.
These rescuees where Korean Americans, so they are educated to how a Totalitarian regime: North Korea is. Fielding's World's Most Dangerous Places lists it as a no go zone. Personally, I hate North Korea so much it burns in my psyche. But don't let our believes get in the way of good policy. This is a professional diplomat, and he is not a partisan - a Republican or Democrat. These are the people when you screw up , and are in danger in a foreign country you go running to for support.. Our grandfathers fought in Korean war, our grandmothers helped. The diplomats from Nixon, Truman, Carter, Bush 41 and on did the work., and shaped the policies.

[DrPhil]

No.

[mgold]

Mr. Ross is an advisor to the Polisario front, his byline notes. The Polisario front has been opposed to Morocco's invasion of the former Spanish Sahara since the 80's. Since the total pre-invasion population was only about 100,000, it's guerilla tactics against Morocco haven't been very effective; hence the willingness to abjure violence. While I have sympathy for the erstwhile population of Spanish Sahara, it is very doubtful that their policy, violent or non- will gain them much. As an advisor, though, Mr. Ross has a clear interest in his stance in favor of rewarding peaceful actions.

But it is a very dubious proposition, as another commenter has noted; the only way possible for being rewarded for good behavior is to have reformed from bad. Otherwise every peaceful country could claim a reward. It is also dubious to try to develop a general principle for dealing with hostages, or even for defining who is one. Singapore sentenced an Australian national to death for drug dealing and carried out the sentence despite Australian attempts to plead for his life. Yet nothing happened to Singapore. On the other hand, North Korea, which has a record of kidnapping Japanese and holding them for decades, did free these American prisoners; it seems reasonable to infer that now it is possible for the US to deal with NK.

[bushlies]

Looks like we need to stop feeding the trolls...or else call the troll exterminator.

[TinfoilLatte]

"A new doctrine offers itself, with which the US can send a strong and positive message to the world: those who foreswear violence will receive greater political rewards than those who do not."

Most excellent point. I wonder how workable that would be, and if such groups' motives can be matched with good action by us or our media.

[CPR]

Are we being punk'd with this article?

Is getting american citizens back home safe and sound a problem?

Does it matter who is able to accomplish the safe return as long as it gets done?

Are we really to believe that Americans are in danger ALL over the world because of this?

[nilotic]

Are you even willing to admit that these women entered NK illegally and they are not even pretending that they were kidnapped. Why should women who deliberately break the law be "rescued?"They should apologize for the mess they created.

[Bontempo]

This was not a hostage situation. Lee and Ling were legitimate prisoners in a communist country. While I don't agree with their captivity or the rationale used by the North Koreans, it was surely not hostage taking.

Why ya gotta hate?

[Bundenthal]

Exactly - the entire premise of the article is incorrect - these were NOT hostages. I don't know what they did exactly, but it seems pretty clear they were there illegally and so subject to the rules of that nation.

North Korea is an enemy of our own creation. Many people have a reason to keep it that way. Having done threat analysis for the missile defense industry, I can tell you Kims are good for business.

[Archie1955]

I for one do not have much sympathy for those individuals who leave themselves open to kidnapping. I believe everyone who decides to visit places where their own safety is at jeopardy do so at their own risk. They should not expect anyone to come flying in like superman or President Clinton to save them. If these ladies rescued from North K?orea actually crossed the river into that forbidden land from china then they deserved what they got. If they were kidnapped out of China by the North Koreans then they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time although by their own desire. Those who were recently captured by the Iranians within the border of Iran are solely responsible for their plight. no fly in rescue missions should be expected.

[nilotic]

The women were not kidnapped. They entered NK illegally and were sentenced accordingly. Also, they were never going to serve 12 years of hard labor for their crime. There is more to this saga...

[Preacherjim]

This article shares a strange viewpoint that we find among neoconservatives (and some others): that a visit by an American leader is some vast reward. To those who share this viewpoint, it must seem as if a figure of almost holy stature was deigning to visit the poor peasants of some other land than ours.

The intervention of a former president showed the importance the US attached to the safety of two of its citizens. Unlike this gentleman believes, they were inmates, not hostages. They had been -- by the standards of North Korea -- arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. This is not analogous to the Iran hostage situation of 30 years ago.

Finally, if this writer wishes to criticize rewarding hostage takers, then he might more aptly recall the secret and illegal dealings of Reagan and Bush I to gain the release of those hostages in Iran. Am I the only one who recalls how their release was rigged (and probably intentionally delayed) in order to defeat President Carter and elect poor simpleton from California?

[dragonlady620]

I do-and I think that your assessment of the situation is correct.
Good post.

[huffpost reader]

Yes. Iran-Contra must be mentioned because it subverted the Congress of the United States. The world had the Iran/Iraq war, weapons deals involving central American/Israeli business men. Carter started the anti-Soviet push in Afghanistan and Reagan pushed the Wahabi Islamists. Of course Cater was also defeated on economic/emotional pride issues.

[tribalogical]

Two things are clear to me.

One, "hostage" is a misnomer is this case. They were arrested for crossing a border illegally.

Two, we need to break free from this "don't talk" mindset. Whether it's international relations, hostages, terrorists, bank robbers, nations at war, or any confrontational circumstance. It is talking and negotiating, building understanding and compromise and accommodation that is key to solving these confrontations.

It isn't about "giving in". It's about solutions.

We've had years of "solving confrontation" using silence and violence. Sure, if you kill the other party, the confrontation presumably ends. But others are watching, and how we solve each situation affects how well the next one will go. If you don't talk, how do you know what would end the conflict peacefully? How else can you find solutions between two parties if they never act to resolve it mutually?

Respect buys a lot more positive result than anything else... and when we act in a way that makes us more respected than feared, more loved than hated, we will all prosper. We'll be safer, and feel better about ourselves too.

Thank you for your consideration.

[mari2JJ]

What a rational approach to this issue. However, I think much of the anti sentiment about this return of hostages comes from the insane jealousy against Bill Clinton. My party cohorts forget that the Clinton's have a daughter close to the age of the rescued hostages and of course, any parent with a child in trouble could not fault the Clinton's for helping these young women. The fact that North Korea pronounced this stupid sentence on these women is the crux of the matter. Many people wonder across borders all the time. For North Korea to give the insane sort of sentence they did is the problem. I know people in my own Republican Party just get this knee-jerk reaction when President Clinton is involved in anything.

However 1. I congratulate President Obama for not worrying about anything except getting these young women out, 2. President Clinton for his willingness to try this rescue, 3. Both of them for the way they worked together. 4. Vice President Al Gore for his tireless efforts to keep this story front and center.

All this nay saying from my own party just lets me know Republicans have not grown up enough to give credit when it is due and to be totally thrilled that all this planning worked and these two young women are safe and have returned to their families.

[SimonOne]

You article is based on a false premise... that the two women were hostages. They were arrested and convicted of violation of North Korean law. Of course, the sentences they received seemed to the US to be disproportionate and it was incumbent upon the State Department to intercede for the release of US citizens under such circumstances. Other than the extreme sentences, North Korea seems to have acted as any country might with regard to illegal entry. A lot of people will seek any opportunity to criticize North Korea at every turn but this is counter-productive.

I applaud Bill Clinton on his successful mission and believe, as many do, that the exaggerated demonization of a whole nation is ignorant and the engagement in face-to-face dialogue with all nations is the way to achieve worldwide peace.

[lilmama51]

Amen. And there is no evidence that we "gave" the North Korean government anything but enormous face. This esteem is something they need to enter into any relationship with us. In my opinion, this was a win-win done with finesse and delicacy.

[ASF]

Dear Mr Ross
North Korea is a country the two ladies had been arrested and were not hostages ,stop being a drama queen.

[DrPhil]

Technically, no hostages were taken by the North Koreans. They were arrested. The two reporters violated the law entering the country illegally, even if the law of that country is enforced by a crazy jerk.
We make deals with other countries all the time to get American citizens out of jail in those places but we don't usually refer to it as a hostage negotiation.

[Bagacay]

Amazing how many want to pose and posture when one of our people needs help,- For God's
sake.- Get them home, then go back to your petty hair splitting, -IDIOTS !!

[BlackJAC]

Since talking down vapebaits is too politically incorrect for Mister Ross, I propose the following reform for future repeats of this situation: we reclassify hostages and prisoners of war as "defectors/traitors." By establishing that we no longer consider the captive to be one of us, it nullifies their value as bargaining chips and allows us to remain strong in the face of the evildoers.

[Alterion]

Rescuing hostages is no doubt complicated, different situations may require different actions. In the Boat Captain situation, Navy Seal snipers got the job done. This time it was able to be accomplished more peacefully.

Theorize all you want about about how the 'bad guys' will be encouraged, or that in some vague, abstract, ideological way this 'rescue' was a bad thing, but the facts remain (for those who care).

Obama: 2
Bad guys: 0