Hostage diplomacy ‘warrants academic study’ as risks increase

The world needs theoretical tools to help tackle the resurrection of the “ancient phenomenon” of hostage diplomacy, and academics must step up their efforts to research a “geopolitical trend” that places them at direct risk, a new paper argues.

Australian political scientists Kylie Moore-Gilbert and Dara Conduit say lack of information, or even a definition, is curtailing the academic study of hostage diplomacy. “How can scholars collect reliable data on state hostage-taking when many cases are never acknowledged or publicly reported on, [and] we can’t even agree on who is and who isn’t a hostage?” the pair ask in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism.

“When national governments are not themselves appraised of all the facts, how can we expect scholars, researchers or other outside observers to analyse this phenomenon with any accuracy?”

The paper, part of the journal’s special issue on hostage diplomacy, says academics have an important role to play in collating information and “delineating the boundaries” of hostage diplomacy. But data is difficult to obtain, for multiple reasons.

First, governments and other stakeholders “have an interest in obscuring the existence of cases”. Second, the term “hostage diplomacy” is used interchangeably with other types of unjust detention, which “muddies the waters of a phenomenon that is already poorly defined and understood”.

Third, governments themselves struggle to work out “who is and who isn’t a diplomatic hostage”, partly because the kidnappers hide their handiwork behind a “veneer” of legal legitimacy. “Consular officials might not be in possession of full information [of] the facts underpinning their citizen’s detention abroad and it might take months or even years before these circumstances become apparent, if at all.”

The paper postulates that hostage diplomacy can only be reliably identified “in hindsight”, by examining how each case was resolved. This definitional issue “matters”, the researchers insist. “It has flow-on implications for consular resource allocation, for developing suitable negotiation strategies…and for broader diplomatic relations.”

Moore-Gilbert, a research fellow at Macquarie University and guest editor of the special edition, said these were not merely academic questions. University researchers were ever more likely to find themselves targeted by state hostage-takers – as she experienced personally when she was imprisoned in Iran.

“We have data to show that state hostage-taking is increasing…and certainly it’s affecting academics more and more,” she told Times Higher Education. “But it’s really hard to have exact figures because many governments prefer to operate entirely behind closed doors, especially in their negotiations.”

She said academics could be state hostages right now, unbeknown to their colleagues unless the family, university or captors chose to publicise it. Her own case had been “essentially covered up for the first 12 months”.

But the plight of other victims – such as Princeton University doctoral student Elizabeth Tsurkov, who was released in September after 30 months’ captivity in Iraq – became public knowledge because their kidnappers wanted it known.

In an editorial introducing the special issue, Moore-Gilbert said it was ironic that hostage diplomacy was so little understood, given its ancient roots. The Roman Empire, early Islamic civilisations, Napoleon’s France and Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany had all indulged in routine hostage-taking, she said.

But incidences have increased in recent decades “as the international rules-based order is degraded”. Western democracies are prime targets because they have “traditionally placed a high value on individual life”, and their leaders – who depend on public approval to remain in office – “may be seen as directly responsible for the captive’s fate”.

Weaker states indulge in hostage diplomacy “to deliberately develop a reputation for intransigence that might serve to deter future attempts at coercion”, the article argues. “Repeat state perpetrators of hostage diplomacy, such as Iran and North Korea, have consistently demonstrated such an approach when faced with international pressure.”

Moore-Gilbert said citizens of powerful states like the US were, counter-intuitively, particularly at risk from hostage diplomacy because their kidnappers may be disinclined to negotiate their release.

“If there’s overwhelming military force being used to coerce you as the hostage-taker, you’re probably more likely to think that they might use that force against you regardless of whatever deal you make. Countries that are middle powers, like Australia, are perhaps perceived as more likely to want to negotiate.”

But this did not necessarily mean kidnapped Australian academics were safer than their American counterparts. “Sometimes…Australians or Canadians or Brits or whoever are taken as a proxy for the US. I can’t get my hands on an American so I’ll pick up an Australian, because they’re all the same.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com