Why The U.S. Swaps Prisoners But Doesn't Pay Ransoms
Piece at Rand by think tanker Brian Michael Jenkins, whom I heard speak there a while back:
The policy against negotiating with terrorist kidnappers has its origins in the early 1970s, when terrorists began seizing diplomats and other government officials to attract publicity, win the release of imprisoned comrades or demand cash payments. Initially, the United States took the position that the host country was responsible for the safety of diplomats accredited to it. Therefore, if American diplomats were kidnapped, it was up to these host countries to secure their release. The governments of Brazil, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Colombia have all released prisoners, arranged for the payment of ransom or allowed terrorists to escape in order to secure the safe release of American diplomats.But attitudes hardened as the tactic proliferated. The U.S. policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorist kidnappers was sealed in blood in 1973 when two U.S. diplomats were taken hostage by the terrorist group Black September in Khartoum, Sudan. The terrorists initially demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, members of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist gang held in Germany, and Sirhan Sirhan, the man who shot Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.).
The United States was willing to talk to the terrorists, but not release a convicted assassin. President Nixon made this clear when asked at a press conference specifically about the demand to release Sirhan. He responded: "As far as the United States as a government giving in to blackmail demands, we cannot do so and we will not do so." News of the president's remarks was broadcast in Sudan, where the terrorists heard them. Hours later they murdered the two Americans along with a Belgian official. The response to a specific question in specific circumstances became general policy. It has been U.S. policy not to make concessions or negotiate with terrorists ever since.
The premise is that yielding to terrorist kidnappers only encourages more kidnapping. However, a RAND study in the 1970s showed little correlation between the negotiating policy and the occurrence or absence of further political kidnappings. The study found that, even when their demands were not met, terrorists derived benefits from kidnappings, including publicity, alarm, and throwing governments into crisis. Still, U.S. government officials insisted that terrorists were aware of and affected by the policy.
Hostage situations are political kryptonite that can threaten government survival. This is precisely why a number of European governments are willing to quietly pay cash ransoms and avoid debilitating crises. Many people believe that the inability of the Carter administration to rescue or negotiate the release of Americans taken hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran in 1979 contributed to his defeat in the 1980 presidential election. And the revelation in 1986 that the Reagan administration, in contravention of U.S. policy, had secretly sold arms to Iran in an effort to bring about the release of Americans held hostage by Iran's protégés in Lebanon, caused an embarrassing political scandal. Evasions aside, the policy stands.
U.S. policy does not prohibit private parties from paying ransom. In domestic cases, families routinely negotiate and pay ransoms with the assistance of the FBI, which uses information gained during ransom exchanges to help apprehend kidnapping suspects. And U.S. policy discourages but does not prohibit American families or corporations from paying ransom in kidnapping cases abroad. Whether these private actions contribute to the greater good is arguable, but banning them would expose families to prosecution for doing what they will desperately try to do anyway.
Paying large ransoms to terrorist kidnappers -- whether the source of funds is public or private -- finances further terrorist operations. The kidnappers of James Foley reportedly sought a ransom of $132 million, among other demands. That is the equivalent of several hundred thousand AK-47s at black market prices or more than 200 times what it cost al Qaeda to carry out the 9/11 attacks. One can only imagine the uproar if it were revealed that the United States had paid millions of dollars to the group it currently regards as the most serious global threat to U.S. national security.
What would you do? Cash payment? Prisoner exchange? Other?
I support the policy of never giving in or negotiating, but I don't believe the US has actually followed that policy for a long time now. In particular the US made some sort of deal to get the hostages back from Iran in January 1981, which resulted in the Iran-Contra hearings (but if they ever reached any reliable conclusions, they must still be top-secret).
I also would like to see either a ban, or at least a voluntary policy by media outlets, never to broadcast the real or speculated identity, motives, or demands of a terrorist group, since one of their major goals in committing the crimes is to receive exactly that kind of publicity. Just tell the public that a bunch of idiots or "charlies" took the person hostage, killed him, set off the bomb, or whatever it was they did. (Credit for these ideas belongs to Dean Ing, who predicted the problem in his 1978 book "Soft Targets.")
jdgalt at January 24, 2015 12:00 AM
Assuming I had the money being demanded, I'd turn it around and offer that amount as a bounty for the death (or capture) of the kidnappers.
I'm not terribly at risk, so that's theoretical, of course. But I have two data points that reinforce that. First, if I were the hostage, I'd hate for the bad guys to get what they want using me as the means to their ends. I'm ornery like that. I'd rather suffer whatever they dish out than be used as a means to do evil. (it seems an easy gimme that money to kidnappers will go to those intent on doing evil. That's not even in question, right?) Second, I just can't see purchasing the well-being of loved ones at the expense of underwriting evil, either.
So I can see myself with the frustration of being unable to act and turning that into the only action I feel I can morally take--i.e. a bounty on those doing evil. At least then, my jeopardy is being used to eliminate evil rather than underwrite it...
Jacob at January 24, 2015 3:02 AM
I believe we should have an unstated but obvious policy that any group harming U.S. citizens in this manner are executed when we find them even if decades later. Treat it like Spec Ops exercise/training if the host country does not cooperate.
Also follow the money and if the host country is involved at all deduct stop all monies BUT conduct humanitarian aid totally on our own bypassing the middle-man gov't parties that take the aid money w/o providing aid. Again, treat it like a military exercise.
These guys are never going to like us so KISS. Don't mess with us or our dollars go elsewhere and we take our irritation out on you not your people.
Bob in Texas at January 24, 2015 4:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/01/24/why_the_us_swap.html#comment-5798479">comment from JacobI'd turn it around and offer that amount as a bounty for the death (or capture) of the kidnappers.
This does lead to the danger/possibility that more people will become hostages or killed, but I do love the notion of some good old boys with guns from Texas going off and trying to take out the bad guys.
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2015 5:08 AM
I'm not against negotiating if there are demands that are reasonable, or exchanging equivalent prisoners. Random lost tourist for criminal mastermind... no. Civilian for civilian, sure. Low level petty criminal, maybe.
NicoleK at January 24, 2015 5:09 AM
It's the good of the one vs. the good of the many. For any individual, paying ransom is obviously better for that person. However, it sets a precedent, and encourages further hostage taking.
Government policy should definitely be no ransom, plus discouraging private payment of ransom. One step farther: government policy should be dead kidnappers whenever possible.
a_random_guy at January 24, 2015 6:34 AM
My family has a multigenerational policy of not paying ransom and instead looking into ways to support the execution of anyone who kidnaps a family member. We will not interfere with corporate policy, either for or against. But as a family we recognize once you have been kidnapped you are most likely dead either way. Since there is little we can do for us we look into ways to eliminate such kidnappers for the protection of others.
Some might ask why we don't then pay to eliminate kidnappers everywhere instead of just the ones who target our family? And the answer is limited resources.
Right now the risk of kidnapping in the family is fairly low. But that has not always been true. My wife and I know people who's families have been devastated by kidnappings. If you are willing to pay a ransom I highly recommend moving afterwards. If they kidnap someone once they can do so again. If you pay once they have incentive to repeat the act. It usually ends in the death of multiple family members.
Ben at January 24, 2015 7:04 AM
I think we have to be careful about a one size fits all approach. For example, the pirates that take oceangoing vessels hostage, are in it for the money and want to live. Jihadis are in it for the publicity, power and revenge, money and survival are side benefits.
You have to consider the adversaries motives and weaknesses in developing a strategy.
You also have to consider whether the actors are state sponsored or supported. After 9/11 the world dictators sensed the American people were really pissed off. I think the fear that an amphibious squadron full of pissed off US Marines might show up off shore seemed to bring a lot of clarity of thought to third world dictators. "You are either with us or against us." We seemed to get a lot of cooperation from places like Libya and Pakistan. Now that we are back to our old hand wringing ways, "oh what should we do?" "Why don't they like us?" Things are pretty much back to normal.
Bill O Rights at January 24, 2015 7:50 AM
Jacob: "Assuming I had the money being demanded, I'd turn it around and offer that amount as a bounty for the death (or capture) of the kidnappers."
I think you've been watching an old Mel Gibson movie - Ransom - in which the wealthy father of a kidnapped son does just that. Great flick, and I love that idea; but, I don't think it would really work well in the real world as too many folks would try all sorts of stuff to get the bounty. Such as turning in the wrong guys, etc. while the real bad guys slip away. Or the real bad guys would set someone else up with the hopes of getting the reward.
If I recall correctly (not always a possibility) Japan Airlines back in the 70s was hit again and again with hijackers because they would always pay to get the hijacked airliner back. So, hijackers knew that they would pay and go after them instead of other airlines.
In the case of ISIS and other like-minded groups, I don't think it really is about the money. More often it seems to be a case of showing off, proving that you are the greater bad-ass than other groups. If they get money, great; but that doesn't seem to be their main motive. Killing people is.
The bottom line, I think, is to never give in, never negotiate (except as a delaying tactic), never pay. Just kill them whenever possible.
Which brings to memory (again, not always accurate in my case) the Israeli raid on Entebbe in which Israeli commandoes stormed the airport killing the terrorists and saving most of the hostages. Now, THAT is the best way to deal with such terrorists.
Lastly, if my memory serves me correctly, the raid on Entebbe involved Air France and the terrorists allowed all gentiles to leave, keeping only Jews and Israelis. The Air France crew decided to stay behind, despite being told they could leave, as the captain felt it was their duty to stay with their passengers. So, despite our American mocking of the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" they do have some genuine heroes.
charles at January 24, 2015 10:03 AM
Were I in charge I'd publically execute anyone the hostage takers asked to be released
lujlp at January 24, 2015 10:40 AM
It's interesting; I seem to remember hearing that during the Korean War, North Korea occasionally swapped prisoners with South Korea - but the Chinese did not, usually.
lenona at January 24, 2015 11:23 AM
Regarding Sirhan Sirhan-- It's been well known for years that he didn't kill RFK. The real killer was a rent-a-cop named Thane Eugene Caesar, whose clip-on tie was in Bobby's right hand as he lay bleeding on the floor. Gene Caesar was also a contract employee at Lockheed's "Skunkworks", which produced the U-2 and SR-71 spyplanes.
jefe at January 24, 2015 5:30 PM
I've always thought that the best response to terrorists demanding the release of other terrorists or assassins is to release the prisoners - dropping them off with a few pounds of explosives fastened around their neck, a timer running, and an anti-tamper circuit that would blow it up at any attempt to remove them.
I suspect that would be unconstitutional (execution without a trial). OK, second choice, implant a tracking and bugging device in such a way that it can't be removed without killing the guy. Wait until he's meeting with his supporters and, depending on where this is, send in the cops, the SEALs, or a drone.
markm at January 30, 2015 1:00 PM
jdgalt: One thing the politicians hate to talk about concerning Iran-Contra: no Americans were released because of this. The so-called Irani moderates at end of that deal were probably con-men. During that time frame, one American hostage in Lebanon was released - an extremely leftist, pro-Palestinian professor at the University in Beirut. His family claims that this was because of their efforts to find Arab leaders who were respected by the kidnappers to tell them that kidnapping their friends was _stupid_. That seems a much more likely story than that someone in a rather distant country had any influence, but just in this one case.
markm at January 30, 2015 1:13 PM
Leave a comment