Sticky

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapc...ef=mpstoryview

Would you negotiate with the Taliban for the release of the 23 South Korean hostages?
How far would you go - would you meet their demands?
Does giving the Taliban what they want bolster them or satisfy them, steming similar acts in teh future?

In general:
Would you negotiate with hostage takers?
If negotiating, how far should you go to meeting the demands of the hostage takers?
What does it say to the world if you choose not to negotiate?
What does it say to the world if you choose to negotiate?
What message do the hostage takers take away if you choose to negotiate and meet their demands?
What message do the hostage takers take away if you choose not to negotiate or not to meet their demands?
Note: Here when I am referring to hostage takers I am talking about organized hostage taking similar to the situation with teh Koreans taken hostage by the taliban.

I think that these is an essential question that we must confront in the world that we are living in today.

The following, of course, is easy for me to say since I, thankfully, am not in such a position but I will try to be as honest as possible.

I think that if at all possible no real negotiations should take place. Some negotiations may be required to gain information about the situation in order to allow for the planning and carrying out of a rescue.

I think that negotiations are acceptable to a point in order try to convince the hostage takers to abandon their quest - offer them ways out of this situation that don't end in giving in to their demands or them killing the hostages.

As to what a country is saying to the world should they choose to negotiate or not...this is a tough one. I think that it is hard for other countires to criticize one that chooses to negotiate to help is trapped countrymen. The pressure within their country to do something must be enourmous. That being said, I think that they are putting people from other countries in harms way by showing the hostage takers what the result is of their actions...which leads me to the next question.

What are you telling the hostange takers? If you give them what they want I think that you are just bolstering them. You are saying, "hey, don't do this again becuase we will have to get upset and give in to all your demands again"
And the worst part of this whole situation...what message are you giving the hostage takers if you refuse to give in? You are sending a message that this can't be done unfortunately if this is not applied consistently in all cases the message does not get throuhg.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

highthief

OK, maybe my information on this is shaky, but they all went into a war zone voluntarily on a religious mission of some sort?

They're on their own if that's the case - not because of religion but because they wandered in there of their own accord.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Willravel

Honestly? I would tell the Afghani government that they are responsible for organizations operating in their borders, and that I'd be glad to assist them in a military operation to rescue my people. If they declined, I would place a lot more than 200 troops in Afghanistan. I would invade. The SK Army has something like 500k men in it and it wouldn't be difficult to place 20k soldiers in the area in less than a few days. The Taliban have overstepped their bounds, and if the government of Afghanistan can't take care of them, it's up to me. Admittedly, it would just be a show of strength. I would make sure my troops were put into large groups in easily defendable bases. I wouldn't want one soldier injured, and their orders specifically are to not fire upon anyone unless fired upon first and with proof he or she was fired upon. I would again ask the Afghani government if they wanted our assistance in fulfilling their responsibility. I'm not 100% sure how they would respond, but considering the show of force, they may be inclined to accept my gracious offer. We would make an attempt to rescue the hostages. Whether it was successful or not, ALL troops would be removed from Afghanistan after the ordeal was finished (as soon as the mission was successful or failed). SK has no business in Afghanistan.

I don't negotiate with kidnappers. It would set a dangerous precedent, and would invite more hostage taking.

jorgelito

No negotiations. The government should send a message that if you do something stupid deliberately, then you are on your own.

Sticky

Does it matter what they were there for?
- What if they were soldiers?
- What if they were goverment workers (ambassadors, foreign officers, and such)
- What if they were any civilian support for above two groups?
- What if they were tourists that were kidnapped from neigbouring countries byt the Taliban

Does it make a difference?
Do you negotiate in any of these cases?

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

tecoyah

Find out which prisoners the Taliban wishes released.
Place the prisoners on a bus to the designated pickup point.
Allow the Taliban dignitaries to greet the bus, and welcome their comrades to freedom.

Then detonate the tactical Nuke onboard the bus.

Negotiation will not prevent future kidnappings.

highthief

I think it can matter, yes.

If you deliberately put yourself in the line of fire, don't expect a lot of help. If, as in the last example you provide, you did nothing to invite this situation, then government must make efforts - be it by negotiation or by force, as the needs dictate.

It's idiotic to say "Never negotiate with terrorists" - do you think there would be peace in places like Northern Ireland without negotiation?

So long as the negotiations enjoy give and take on both sides, and not one side dictating all terms to the other, negotiation can bear fruit.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Bill O'Rights

While I'm a firm believer in never say never, I also believe that by recognizing the "terrorists" as a formal sovereign entity, by engaging in negotiations, only emboldens the next group.

This isn't a matter of "Lay down your arms and we'll see if we can find some common ground for discussion.". This sends the message that if you want something...take hostages.

Personally...for every South Korean killed, I'd take one Taliban prisoner into the street and have him shot with bullets soaked in pork fat.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Willravel

That's an excellent point, and a connection I never drew. Thinking about it more, I wonder if radical organizations would be less radical if they were treated like human being with real problems. It still stands to reason that if radical organization b sees that radical organization a is getting what they want after committing an illegal attack, and could be tempted to follow a similar path, but nothing in the world works better on radicals than helping them fix their or our problems. In the case presented above, however, the Taliban were and are being stupid. NK was about to withdraw. They were going to take their 200 soldiers, pack it up and head home. This was well published in major news sources, and one would assume it was well known in Afghanistan. Honestly, the kidnapping will actually make it more likely that more troops will be in Afghanistan.

The paranoid side of me wonders if this really is about withdrawal.

highthief

You don't negotiate every time, but there are times when you do negotiate.

There's a reason that agencies as diverse as the FBI and RCMP to your local police force to the United Nations have hostage negotiators.

If a bank robber or a prison escapee takes a hostage in your city, do you advocate automatic use of force in case the next cornered criminal takes a hostage? Or do you negotiate to win the hostage's freedom - there are situations when one method or the other would prove more beneficial.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Sticky

There is a difference with negotiations with the case I laid out above and negotiations with a prison escapee.

When negotiating with a prison escapee he is one person or maybe there is a handfull of people.
The intent of these negotiations like any would be to get the hostages released.
The expectation, in the case of the prison escapees, is that law enforcement will be able to catch them after the hostages have been removed from the situation.

This does not work the same in the case of the Taliban. They are already at war with them. Saying let's give them what they want to get the hostages free and then we will shoot at them again does not take care of the problem like re-capruting a prison escapee would.

Basically the prison escapee will likely not get away in the end but the Taliban will be in the same situation after and they will know that hostage taking is effective.

This is great for when you are not directly at war with them or they are not holding you hostages. In theory it is good.
How do you do this in practicality?
Then let's say you do it and you give them a chance and it does not work, they stay radical, how many times do you go down this path with them and with other organizations?

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Willravel

The answer to this would be situational. When it came to the Irish separatists, things like the constitution being voted on by the Irish and power sharing were big in the negotiations. It allowed the otherwise violent people to gain some control. Frankly, they've done well with it. Had they not done well, England could have said "We gave you what you asked for, and you botched it." It was win win for England and Ireland. In the case of the Afghanis, though, there is a problem. First, the Taliban kidnapped the 23 people after South Korea said they were going to withdraw. What do the Taliban want? Withdrawal. What was already happening before the kidnapping? Withdrawal. This is why I wonder if this really is about withdrawal.
Once. You give them one chance to do it their way, to see if they can handle it. If they can't, it's clear that giving in to their demands will result in failure, and you'll have precedence to call upon to back your reasoning. No one should ever kidnap anyone, and it can't reward childish, dangerous behavior. That has to be balanced with wanting what's best for everyone.

The guerilla tactics employed are an ingrained act of desperation, and in order to stop that behavioral pattern, one must change the circumstances. That's what negotiations are all about. I suspect the members of the Taliban would be a lot happier if they were in a country with a strong economy based on legal trade of non-narcotics, with a country that has a strong government that allows freedom, but respects Islamic law, with a country that allows them to make their way and live their lives without the fear of bombings or having to bomb. We should help Afghanistan to become a more stable, peaceful place. That would help us PREVENT hostage taking.

After all, it's better to prevent than to react.

jorgelito

Good question. Let me clarify.

My comment refers to those that inject themselves in a situation where they had no business being there. Soldiers, government workers are all there as part of their work (or authorized to be there). The Koreans were there of their own accord and deliberately put themselves in a dangerous situation for no apparent reason (they claim they were no there to proselytize). If they were there to administer humanitarian assistance then they should have gone in with an authorized group or through some agency like the UN.

In other words, they got themselves into that mess.

With the case of kidnapped tourists from neighboring countries I think is totally different.

So, with regards to negotiations, while the IRA example is interesting, you would have to evaluate according to circumstance and type. The IRA, PLO etc are political terrorists or negotiable terrorists. That is, they have a specific political objective they are trying to achieve, using terrorism as a tool. There is something to negotiate.

With other types of terrorists, for example, a catastrophic or non-negotiable terrorist, negotiations are impossible. Their objective is your destruction. Can't really negotiate there. Examples include Al- Qaida, Hezbollah, and Hamas perhaps.

I'm not sure where the Taleban fits but their immediate objective seems to be the release of prisoners. Why am I against negotiations in this particular case? Because I am not certain to what end. By rewarding the Taleban for their acts of terrorism could set a very bad precedent.

If the situation were with government workers or military, then there are protocols that they follow to deal with those situations.

Sticky

I agree that you have to change the circumstances but I don't agree that it is an ingrained act of desparation on behalf of the Taliban.
This is Taliban strategy.

I suspect that this is more what teh general Afgani population wants and has nothing to do with what the Taliban wants.
This is only speculation on my part as I have never discussed this with any Taliban but I the Taliban want to be in complete control of Afganistan on all levels - social, political, and religious. They want to do things there way whether or not it offers any type of freedom to the Afgan people and they don't want anyone from the rest of the world peeking in let alone telling them what to do.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Willravel

They kidnapped the South Koreans because they wanted SK to withdraw... after they said they were withdrawing. This doesn't scream 'organization'.
One would hope.
I stopped talking the the Taliban when they started growing opium instead of bud.
Monsters....

Yes, the Taliban wants to rule again. It won't happen as long as the West demonizes them as terrorists, though.

Sticky

I certainly did not mean to imply that they were an organized organization.
Just that kidnappings are a tactic they employ to carry our their strategy.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

joshbaumgartner

It is important to remember that many individuals within these groups have divergent goals. For some, they desire the withdrawal of 'Western' forces. For others, they desire to trap the West in an intractable situation of draining unconventional warfare. And for yet others, they just want to get on YouTube.