DAR AL HARB/ISLAM: "HOSTAGE DIPLOMACY"

Hostage Diplomacy
by Hassan Haydar

The painful video of the German lady and her Iraqi son, in which the abductors threatened to kill them unless Germany withdraws its troops from Afghanistan in 10 days, synchronized with the bickering and mystery enshrouding the case of the 15 British sailors held by Iran, which said that they entered its territorial waters, and the ensuing bargaining to release them in return for concessions, including Tehran's demand that five of its diplomats, who were arrested by the US forces in northern Iraq over their involvement in arming Iraqi groups, be released.

The two incidents confirm that some countries in the Middle East are now practicing what is now called 'hostage diplomacy' to achieve political or security gains from other countries or parties. They also resort to such diplomacy whenever they feel they are in a cleft stick that requires them to change their position and acknowledge developments around them.

Iran was the first to adopt this method after the 1979 Revolution, when Iranian students held staff members of the US embassy in Tehran captive. They released them only after 444 days. It did not take long before Iran's Intelligence exported this successful method to Lebanon, which witnessed several kidnappings in the 1980s. At the time, every foreigner was turned into a potential hostage. Some of these kidnappings ended in murder.

Israel liked the Iranian method, so it took 10,000 Palestinians, including elected members of the Palestinian National Council and ministers, hostage in its prisons. To free them, Israel says Hamas must first change its political positions and that the second 'Intifada' and all forms of Resistance must end. Israel uses these hostages to pressure President Mahmoud Abbas whenever he demands it to implement some of its obligations according to the signed Agreements. The Israelis convinced the world before that they are the only victims of hostage-taking, which some Palestinians resorted to when this world completely ignored their Cause.

Although every kidnapping or hostage-taking operation is condemned, regardless of whoever is responsible for it, this kind of terrorism requires stronger condemnation if it is proved that the one responsible for such an operation is a country that cannot claim that it is above the law, such as what the irregular militant groups usually do, or that implements the law selectively.

As for Syria, it adopts a broader sense of the same diplomacy: it takes an entire country hostage from the inside and the outside. Whenever Lebanon says it wants to demarcate and control the porous borders with it, Damascus replies by threatening to close the borders and stifle its economy.

Nevertheless, this is the simplest thing, because for almost the past four decades, Syria has used its small neighbor, through its permanent military presence in it, as a laboratory for its policies and regional confrontations. It has also turned it into a field for the tug-of-war with the regional and international powers unconcerned about the price the captive people of Lebanon are paying. This price ruins their present and threatens their future.

Today, after the withdrawal of the Syrian troops in the wake of the assassination of one of one of its major hostages, Lebanon is still suffering from the same hostage-taking policy through Damascus' allies that are controlling its independent decision-making, hijacking its constitutional institutions and obstructing its economic recovery.

The Iranians may sooner or later reap the benefit of sending the sailors back to Britain; the Israelis may release some of the Palestinian prisoners and detain others; and Syria may become convinced of the fact that Lebanon is an independent State. But the whole issue needs a firm position from the UN when it comes to countries practicing political and security blackmail by threatening the life and freedom of individuals.


In my personal opinion, Israel should not be included in this group...


Pertinent Links:

1) Hostage Diplomacy