Perfect hostage negotiations don’t exist, but good ones save lives

Last week’s release of 16 individuals wrongfully detained by Russia, including three Americans, was greeted with justified jubilation. 

The Americans being held were seized by Russian authorities to pressure and embarrass the U.S. government and extract a painful price for their return. That pain manifested in the release of Russian criminals, several of whom have blood on their hands.

Republican voices — led by the top of their presidential ticket, Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) — criticized the deal, claiming that the U.S. paid too steep a price that would encourage more kidnappings. Such critiques always surface when deals like this are made to free hostages, dating back to America’s earliest days. 

Not long after the Revolutionary War concluded, for instance, the new U.S. government faced a hostage crisis with pirates from North Africa seizing U.S. naval vessels. The subsequent $1 million payment did free the hostages, but it led to those same pirates kidnapping approximately 700 more Americans over 20 years.

Kidnapping is a complex crime and often defies easy resolution. If you are ever kidnapped, you should hope it is by criminal gangs and not a terrorist group or a state like Russia. 

In the former situation, money quietly changes hands, and the hostages are usually sent home. A quiet industry of professionals supports corporations, nonprofits and those who were abducted. These consultants know the market for hostages in particular locations, utilize data and trends on recent kidnappings and, through a variety of methods and guidance, facilitate the release of the hostages, whether they are being held in a Colombian jungle or on a ship off the coast of Somalia.

But if a terrorist group or a government takes you, it usually ends up being a much more protracted and complicated case. Sadly, death is a more frequent outcome. These hostage-takers most often make demands of the U.S. government, typically asking for the release of their own prisoners or a policy change. This leads to frustratingly slow movement, deeply upsetting families awaiting their relative’s release. 

Countries need to balance getting citizens back with the parallel needs of administering justice to prisoners they’ve captured and, perhaps most glaringly, not encouraging further detention, as the U.S. government learned early on.

No policy is perfect, and it is difficult for government officials to thread the needle. Leaders often look hypocritical or as if they lied as they try to figure out a path forward. 

In 1985, when a TWA flight was hijacked by Hezbollah terrorists demanding the release of nearly 800 prisoners held by Israel, President Ronald Reagan said: “America will never make concessions to terrorists — to do so would only invite more terrorism — nor will we ask nor pressure any other government to do so.” 

But only a few days after, the Americans on the flight were released and Israel freed approximately half the prisoners. Though both Israel and the U.S. claimed that the two had nothing to do with one another, few people believed it.

In more recent years, the Obama administration was heavily criticized for what seemed like heartless behavior in dealing with the families of individuals taken hostage by ISIS and other terrorist organizations. 

The administration went so far as to threaten the family of James Foley, an American taken hostage by ISIS not to try to find a backchannel to pay for Foley’s release. And yes, such a payment would fall afoul of U.S. laws against providing material support for a terrorist group, but this was a rotten way to treat a family in crisis.

Foley was unfortunately killed — as were several other Americans in ISIS custody — while several European hostages were set free after their countries made large ransom payments. The release of the Europeans and the death of the Americans was a stark contrast that showed U.S. policy on this issue simply wasn’t working. 

That isn’t to say that the European approach of paying large ransoms is correct. But when hostages are being executed and the government threatens families as they understandably try to do everything they can to get their loved ones home, it clearly shows a failed strategy.   

After his murder, Foley’s family set up the Foley Foundation, which has made urging the U.S. government to take a more humane approach to dealing with such kidnappings a central part of its mission. 

In 2015 the U.S. established the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, created to “bring home U.S. nationals held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad.” The office coordinates the efforts of government agencies, overseas allies and the private sector to support the goal of bringing home wrongfully detained individuals.

In the case of those released from Russia last week, it’s worth highlighting the collaboration with overseas allies. Our relationships with nations like Germany, which released a Russian assassin as part of the deal, is a huge part of this vital work. Often it is a more subtle form of cooperation, particularly, intelligence sharing. This work is done quietly, in the shadows, but it is essential to national security. 

As we reflect on the good news of the hostage release, we should try to avoid looking at these situations through the rubric of statements like “paying the ransom will only encourage more kidnappings.” No one will accept their family member being sacrificed for an abstraction, especially one that hasn’t proven to work. 

In this case, the U.S. did better and showed progress in dealing with a thorny issue that won’t go away anytime soon.

Don Aviv CPP, PSP, PCI, is president of Interfor International. Jeremy Hurewitz is the head of Interfor Academy and author of the forthcoming book “Sell Like a Spy.”