American International School Model United Nations 2014

Terrorism can take many forms, all with different rates of frequency and preference among terrorists. Acts of bombing and assassination may rank high consistently, while hostage taking rests much lower on the scale (Antokol 1990: 189). Despite its relative lack of frequency however, hostage taking is an important form of terrorism, distinct from other forms. But, with so much destructive power available to terrorists, why should they need to take hostages? The answer is simple—media attention and money (Poland 1999: 169). The study of hostage situations must be considered a separate and distinct form of terrorism requiring independent examination, due to the following reasons.

Firstly, a hostage situation can drag on for many days, and the outcome remains in doubt (Antokol 1990: 58). Hostage taking for ransom is one of the most profitable sources of funding for terrorist groups. There are always plenty of potential hostage-victims available and never enough security to protect them all (Poland 1999: 169).

Secondly, hostage taking creates a dramatic forum in which human life and death hang in the balance. The outcome is suspenseful; there are victims, weapons and emotions; and most importantly, there is a message for the world (Gladis 1979: 11). When considering the continuing drama of a hostage situation and the visual image of a few armed individuals holding the lives of innocent people in their hands, the appeal of this mode of terrorism is clear. It creates a stage to dramatize and distort the aims of the terrorist(s) (Poland 1999: 169). These situations almost always ensure getting the attention of citizens, media, entire governments and/or private organizations. With the stakes being so high and in such an imminently delicate balance, it is quite possibly the only way to command such an audience (Antokol 1990: 75).

A hostage crisis develops when one or more individuals or an organized group hold people against their will and try to hold off the authorities by force, often threatening to kill their hostages if provoked or attacked.

Typically, the party of the hostage-taker(s) will issue demands to the forces keeping them surrounded. In a planned hostage crisis, there is often a list of political or religious demands, often including the release of imprisoned friends or allies. In cases where the hostage situation was improvised as a desperate attempt to avoid capture, the demands usually revolve around exchanging the lives of the hostages for transport to safety.

Hostage (n)

A person held by one party in a conflict as security that the opposing party would meet specified terms.
Hostage taker (n)
Hostage taker is a person who seize the hostage
Crusader (n)
The crusading hostage-taker is idealistic, seeking no personal gain but power and prestige for a collective political goal while acting for the interests of the collective good.
Criminal (n)
Criminal hostage taker is driven by personal gain through the payment of ransom.
Crazy (n)
Crazy hostage taker is driven by personal motives that often do not make sense to anyone else.
Terrorism (n)
Terrorism is a systematic use of terror. Terror refers to a violent act by either a person or a group of people. Terrorism, which is intended to create fear or intimidate a huge group of humans or government, is immortalized for ideological, political, or religious reason. A Terrorist is a person who advocates terrorism in specific region.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (n)
A common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.
Negotiation process (n)
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage.
Media (n)
The main means of mass communication (esp. television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively.
Crisis Intervention (n)
Emergency psychological care aimed at assisting individuals in a crisis situation to restore equilibrium to their bio-psychosocial functioning and to minimize the potential for psychological trauma.
History

The taking of another person as a means of obtaining concessions has a long history. The Ancient Romans took hostage, for example, the sons of princes as a means of guaranteeing subservience and fulfillment of obligations of their conquered regions. In Medieval times, the taking of knights’ hostage occurred in accordance with their ransom value. By means of their heraldic devices, the knights indicated their personal value; ‘highly prized’ knights were much less likely to be killed.

The practice of taking hostages is very ancient, and has been used constantly in negotiations with conquered nations, and in cases such as surrenders, armistices and the like, where the two belligerents depended for its proper carrying out on each other's good faith. The Romans were accustomed to take the sons of tributary princes and educate them at Rome, thus holding a security for the continued loyalty of the conquered nation and also instilling a possible future ruler with ideas of Roman civilization. The word ‘kidnap’ derives from two etymological roots – ‘kid’ (i.e. child) and ‘nap’ (i.e. to snatch) – and was first associated with the stealing of children for deportation to the North American colonies for employment purposes.

This long history of political and military use indicates that political authorities or generals would legally agree to hand over one or usually several hostages in the custody of the other side, as guarantee of good faith in the observance of obligations. These obligations would be in the form of signing of a peace treaty, in the hands of the victor, or even exchange hostages as mutual assurance in cases such as an armistice. Major powers, such as Ancient Rome and the British who had colonial vassals, would especially receive many such political hostages, often offspring of the elite, even princes or princesses who were generally treated according to their rank and put to a subtle long-term use where they would be given an academic elitism or possibly even a religious conversion. 

Key Issues

There are many motives for contemporary hostage taking. Prisoners in penal institutions may take hostages in an effort to highlight some perceived grievance and/or to obtain a change in their circumstances. Criminals, interrupted in the pursuit of another crime, may take a hostage in an effort to secure their escape from apprehension. ‘Tiger kidnapping’ refers to an event where an individual is taken hostage to induce, for example, a loved one, friend or colleague to commit a certain act such as the withdrawal of ransom money from a bank or building society. Particularly in South America, ‘express kidnapping’ is a common phenomenon. It entails the seeking of only a small ransom, which the families can easily pay. Some individuals with mental illness also take hostages in response to their disturbed mood, thoughts and fears.

Most recently, we have become familiar with politically inspired hostage taking by terrorist organizations to achieve some political end, such as the evacuation of Iraq by the Coalition Forces and by foreign workers. A feature of some of these incidents is a videotaped beheading of the hostage, and its subsequent transmission through Al Jazeera and/or the Al Arabia television channels. It is a contentious issue (and one too complex to be explored here), but some would argue that the USA, with or without the complicity of the UK, has engaged in a form of hostage taking masked by the euphemism of ‘rendition’.

It should be noted that terrorism-inspired incidents of hostage taking might differ from others. Hostage taking by terrorists tends to involve well-trained and well-organized groups, and their hostages are likely to have been carefully chosen, particularly in anticipation of the likely effect that their abduction will have on others. Media involvement is nearly always a deliberately manufactured feature of such events.

The renewed popularity of hostage taking and kidnapping seems a byproduct of a series of important international developments in the war on terrorism. After September 11, 2001, the United States-led coalition forces conducted offensive military operations against Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorists in various regions of the world, especially Iraq and Afghanistan. Responding to this massive military offense, Islamic terrorists adopted alternative ways to continue their fight and exact revenge based on the understanding that their conventional fighting capabilities are no match for the combined coalition forces. Hostage taking and kidnapping has well served terrorists as a supplement tactic to campaign against coalition forces. Hostage taking and kidnapping has become one of the most valued weapons in the modern terrorist arsenal.

On the other hand, the monetary profit motive has become another driving force for the upward swing of kidnapping and hostage taking in recent years. After the Cold War, many Leftist groups lost their traditional financial support from the former Soviet Union. As a result of this loss of support, terrorists have been forced to find alternative financial sources. Drug trafficking was one option and hostage taking and kidnapping another. After re-discovering this new income source, some terrorist groups have engaged in kidnapping and hostage taking to support their continuing terrorist activity while others do so exclusively for the purpose of generating revenue. As a result, by 2005 hostage taking/kidnapping has become an increasingly lucrative business for terrorist groups.

Current Events

The United States and Iran

The hostage crisis was the most dramatic in a series of problems facing Americans at home and abroad in the last year of the Carter presidency. It is hard to say that Carter is the one to blamed, since the hostage crisis was merely the latest event in the long and complex relationship between the United States and Iran.

With a steady flow of oil from the ground and military equipment from the U.S., the Shah led Iran into a period of unprecedented prosperity. But growing resentment against an uneven distribution of wealth and the westernizing influence of the United States led to a confrontation with Islamic clergy in 1963. The Shah effectively put down the uprising, sending its leader, an elderly cleric named Ruhollah Khomeini, into exile in Iraq. Though no one knew it at the time, Iran's Islamic revolution had begun.

Somali pirates have attacked hundreds of vessels in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean region, though most attacks do not result in a successful hijacking. In 2008, there were 111 attacks, which included 42 successful hijackings. However, this is only a fraction of the up to 30,000 merchant vessels, which pass through that area. The rate of attacks in January and February 2009 was about 10 times higher than during the same period in 2008 and "there have been almost daily attacks in March". Most of these attacks occur in the Gulf of Aden but the Somali pirates have been increasing their range and have started attacking ships as far south as off the coast of Kenya in the Indian Ocean.

Pirates were holding 10 vessels and 159 hostages in February 2012. In 2011, pirates earned $146m, an average of $4.87m per ship. An estimated 3,000 to 5,000 pirates operated; by February 2012 1,000 had been captured and were going through legal processes in 21 countries.[26] According to the European Union Naval Force. Intensified naval operations had by February 2012 led to a further drop in successful pirate attacks in the Indian Ocean, with the pirates' movements in the region at large also significantly constrained.

Major Parties Involved and Their Views

Iran-United States Hostage Crisis

This is a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States. Fifty-two Americans were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students supporting the Iranian Revolution took over the US Embassy in Tehran. President Jimmy Carter called the hostages "victims of terrorism and anarchy," adding that "the United States will not yield to blackmail.

The global community of States has adopted a wide range of instruments aimed at preventing or combating specific aspects of terrorism. Existing treaties, declarations, decisions and resolutions adopted by international or regional intergovernmental bodies address a wide range of terrorist acts. Some instruments, mostly those adopted by regional bodies, are dedicated to terrorism in general, while global instruments are dedicated to particular aspects and dimensions of the phenomenon. Most substantive provisions in existing global anti-terrorism legislation are dedicated to the reinforcement of State cooperation in addressing the subject matter of the treaties. Hostage taking is generally mentioned as one of the modus operandi of terrorists and expressly features in a number of proposed definitions of terrorism, including in Security Council resolution 1566 (2004). As stated by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in relation to reparation for victims of terrorism, national reparation mechanisms must be independent and provide for adequate, effective and prompt reparation, which includes their being readily accessible and their taking a gender perspective into account.

The International Convention against the Taking of Hostages is the only binding treaty addressing terrorist hostage taking. There are currently 170 States parties to the Convention. In the pursuit of a universal prohibition of hostage taking, it is to be hoped that States not yet party will ratify it. Since hostage taking is generally considered a modus operandi of terrorists, other instruments on specific aspects of combating terrorism adopted by international, regional or national bodies also apply to terrorist hostage-taking situations.

Possible Solutions

Where hostages are detained will influence the negotiation process and shape the likelihood of benign release. If the stronghold (i.e. the specific place where the hostage is being detained) is known to and accessible to the authorities, this has some advantages, including secure containment and opportunities for manipulating the perpetrators’ environment (e.g. by cutting off power supplies). Negotiations and rescue operations are made more difficult if the hostages are held where the local population is hostile to the hostage’s country of origin.

In order for a hostage-situation to arise, it requires the most basic unit of terrorism, the terrorist, and more specifically the hostage-taker; therefore, the analysis must begin here. Examining the typology of hostage-takers is the first step in this analysis. James M. Poland classifies hostage-takers into three broad categories: crusaders, criminals and crazies. The crusading hostage-taker is idealistic, seeking no personal gain but power and prestige for a collective political goal while acting for the interests of the collective good. The criminal hostage-taker however is driven by personal gain through the payment of ransom. Finally, the crazy hostage-taker is driven by personal motives that often do not make sense to anyone else.

The use of force to rescue hostages is a complex and sensitive matter. Attitudes have changed over time. Particularly in response to prison hostage incidents in the USA, the suppression model prevailed, and overwhelming force was used as the principal method of resolving them. However, high-profile failed rescue efforts confirm how dangerous armed intervention can be to hostages. The German authorities’ attempted rescue of the Israeli wrestling team, who had been taken hostage by the Black September group at the 1972 Munich Olympics, resulted in the deaths of all hostages. More recently, armed intervention in response to the incidents pertaining to the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow (in 2002) and to the Beslan School (in 2004) resulted in the deaths of 130 and 334 hostages respectively.

Successful resolution by force requires exceptional training, planning and execution, as was demonstrated by the Special Air Service (SAS), who secured the safe release of all hostages taken by the anti-Khomeini terrorists who seized the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980.

Negotiation is now widely recognized, at least in Western countries, as the first-choice intervention. Negotiation consumes time and therefore helps to reduce the arousal levels of the perpetrators, hostages and first responders; it also enables the authorities to gather intelligence and plan a resolution strategy. In the UK, negotiating the release of a hostage is the responsibility of the police. In the case of UK nationals abducted abroad, the UK government has the responsibility to ensure their safe release. This responsibility is exercised through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in London, and the UK’s Embassies and High Commissions. The Hostage and Crisis Negotiation Unit of the Metropolitan Police is the unit through which UK governmental strategy is coordinated. The FCO also part-funds Reunite International, a leading UK charity that specializes in international abductions by parents. In addition, there is the national organization pioneered by Terry Waite to provide care, advice and information for UK nationals taken hostage abroad.

Bibliography

"10 Famous Hostage Situations." Listverse. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014. .

Alexander, David, and Susan Klein. "Advances in Psychiatric Treatment." Hostage-taking: Motives, Resolution, Coping and Effects. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014. .

"American Experience: TV's Most-watched History Series." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2014. .

"Iran Hostage Crisis." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2014. .

"Q&A: Hostage Crisis in Algeria." BBC News. BBC, 21 Jan. 2013. Web. 09 Feb. 2014. .

Sturgeon, William. "Hostage Negotiations and Terrorism Part One." Hostage Negotiations and Terrorism Part One. N.p., 27 June 2011. Web. 09 Feb. 2014. .

"Terrorism and Hostage-Taking." Laura's Writing. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Feb. 2014. .