Cody Cass You’re entitled to your own
opinion. Voice yours by sending it to Cass at ccass@media.ucla.edu. Click Here for
more articles by Cody Cass
The United States has a proud history of refusing to negotiate
with terrorists ““ until now. The kidnapping and murder of
Daniel Pearl was an alarming wake-up call for American citizens
abroad, but we cannot let this one incident change our stance
on dealing with terrorists.
In a policy reversal last Wednesday, President Bush signed a
plan approving future negotiations with kidnappers. The plan opens
the door for the United States to occasionally pay ransoms to
kidnappers, and then try to crack down on the group and recover the
money.
The whole plan sounds great on paper ““ loan terrorist
groups funds in order to secure the safety of American citizens.
Innocents like Pearl won’t lose their lives, and families
won’t lose their loved ones abroad.
Problem is, the plan doesn’t make practical sense. I have
as much sympathy for the Pearl family as anyone else, but the arena
of international crises is best run with objectivity, not
sentimentality.
Sentimentality begs, cries and screams to bring our loved ones
home at any cost. Objectivity tells us paying ransoms only
encourages more kidnappings. Objectivity says terrorist groups
won’t take us seriously if we’re paying some and
refusing the ransoms of others. And objectivity demands to know the
costs and logistics of directly involving the United States
government in every international kidnapping of an American
citizen. Objectivity preserves our convictions, values and the good
of the many by refusing to negotiate any of these over a single
life.
 JARRETT QUON/Daily Bruin Senior Staff
The new policy, in large part, is based on a kidnapping of
American oil company employees in Ecuador in 2000. The companies
paid 13 million dollars in ransom to free seven hostages, four of
them Americans, after another hostage, also American, was killed.
Once the men were freed, the U.S. and Ecuadorian governments worked
together to track down the bad guys and recover the funds.
But American policy cannot afford to consistently take the
gamble ““ a bluff on a pair of twos will pay off more
frequently than this.
Not all countries are going to be willing to cooperate with the
U.S. on recovering ransom monies. I wouldn’t put my money on
an “axis of evil,” for example, seeing much of anything
our way.
And you can’t only negotiate with kidnappers in friendly
countries. “We don’t negotiate with terrorists,
period,” is one thing, but who is really going to listen to
“We negotiate with some terrorists, but the circumstances
here just aren’t right. You’re not enough of a threat
to American interests, and even if we did pay you off, your
government isn’t going to help us track you down and recover
our money. Happy kidnapping, and have a nice day.”
The underlying message to kidnappers would be simple: go big or
go home. Either kidnap someone of high enough profile to warrant a
ransom, or capture enough hostages that you have some leverage in
negotiations. We all like to tell ourselves that every human life
is priceless, but let’s be honest: Washington isn’t
going to surrender the same ransom for John Doe as it will for a
publicized figure like Pearl.
The American hostages in Ecuador weren’t public figures,
but the kidnappers had another technique for securing their ransom:
killing hostages one by one until their demands were met. If they
had known that there was no chance that their demands would be met,
they would have had much less incentive to kidnap anyone in the
first place.
Even if the ransom was recovered, the whole operation
wasn’t exactly free. There are salaries to be paid to
negotiators and military personnel. A new body, the Hostage
Subgroup, will need offices, intelligence equipment, business
managers and employees, just to recover a ransom that we
shouldn’t be paying in the first place.
The case in Ecuador, for example, took months of investigation
to track down the perpetrators. There is a cost associated with
those months, and though it may appear that the ballooning military
budget can shoulder any burden, the truth is, we can’t afford
to be frivolous with our resources when we’re facing the
prospect of a long-term war.
Cases like Pearl’s are tragic and disheartening. But
refusing to meet kidnappers’ demands has an excellent track
record for preventing kidnappings in the first place. Straying from
a steadfast policy may save a life here or there, but in the long
run, it’s only going to encourage more widespread kidnapping,
pain and suffering.