Should You Ever Negotiate for Hostages?

In the last couple of days, I heard the good news that 19 Christian missionaries from South Korea will be released from their Taliban captors. There were originally 23, but unfortunately, two of them were executed by the Taliban already. Two more were freed previously.

I also heard that this was not a good deed on the Taliban's part, but instead, was part of a negotiated deal that includes the conditions that South Korea pull out its remaining non-combat troops like engineers and medics (I thought it was a strange request as well, as I thought they'd pick the combat troops to pull out) as well as promise not to have any more Christian missionaries in Afghanistan.

Now, I am sure this will draw the ire of the U.S. (and I believe the U.K.), who continues to maintain a no-negotiation policy with terrorists. This was shown in the fact they these countries willfully allowed their own citizens to be executed by terrorists, while they sat by and "regretted" the circumstances.

I don't know - something just doesn't seem right with this. I can appreciate their stance, in principle, but letting innocent people die does not seem humane. On the other hand, I know that by negotiating with terrorists, you are essentially empowering them, giving them what they want, and in this case, who's to say that that Taliban won't view South Korea's actions as a victorious precedent that they can now utilize with citizens of other countries?

I was recently on a discussion forum in which I was embroiled in an argument with someone about the hostage situation with the South Koreans. They maintained that the South Koreans missionaries knew the risks of going into a very hostile and volatile country, and as a result, it is their fault that they got themselves captured and they shouldn't expect their government to bail you out. I can appreciate that point, but I countered with the fact that if no one took any risks to help others, we would have a lot more people dying on this globe, as people would stay within the borders of their own countries. And I believe it is important to rise above people who do and act evil, and continue to show compassion and support - this is one of the thing that make some Christians so counter-cultural to society at large, as they are following Christ's command to help those who are hungry, thirsty, in need, etc. That being said, I don't believe the South Korean missionaries ever asked or solicited their government's assistance to help them out - the government initiated the talks with the Taliban. To the South Korean government's credit, they did recognize the value of life, that they would do something that is considered pretty despicable in order to get their citizens back.

While I can appreciate the U.S. and British policies, I am very uncomfortable with the fact that you let your innocent civilians die. Of course, if the Taliban kidnapped Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan or Nicole Ritchie, they can do with them what they wish, and I would support a no-negotiation policy in that case - maybe even pay the Taliban for their kindness. However, for people who are in the countries to help others, I think their home countries need to fight for their release, even if it means bowing to some pressure to negotiate. They may need to take their lumps and then return with a new strategy, for the sake of innocent lives.

Obviously South Korea did not meet all the hostages' demands - they are not released captured Taliban terrorists, and they are not pulling out combat troops. So from that sense, it's not like South Korea keeled over to the Taliban.

Despite this, though, and as very sympathetic as I am to the South Korean government for negotiating for the release of their innocent citizens, I see several long-term problems with this:

1) This is sending a really bad message to both the enemy and to South Korean's allies - the ones who are fighting against the enemy. Now that the Taliban knows that they can get some sort of compromise with one country, you can bet they will try to work on another country. Meanwhile, tons of countries are fighting against the Taliban on behalf of the frail Afghan government in order to raise the authority of the current government. The fact that an established country (and an ally of the good guys) like South Korea negotiated with the bad guys is not very good. It is, really, undermining the mission in Afghanistan, and who the enemy is, since you're really giving them power as a result.

2) We will now likely see an increase of kidnappings of international workers in Afghanistan, holding them hostage for money or the release of terrorists. This sets a pretty bad precedent, and more countries will likely face similar ethical decisions in the future. But then again, if the South Korean government stayed muted on this issue, there is no doubt that the Taliban would have killed all of the missionaries in due time, and this would be a serious tragedy.

I'm not really sure what I would do in this case - this is one of those issues where I can really see both sides and empathize with both sides. However, in the interest of long-lasting peace, and to not give the terrorists what they want - thereby defeating them slowly, I would ultimately have to side with not negotiating with terrorists. I know it's easy to say when it's not my friends or family being held hostage. But that is my position.

I think it would be very beneficial if these international workers all have some sort of liability waiver that they sign and the governments have on record, whereby they recognize that they are doing things at their own risk, and if they are captured, they are on their own and no one will be negotiating for their release. This may actually deter kidnappers, since there's really no incentive to kidnap, if the worker and their government acknowledge that their release will not be negotiated.

This one is controversial, but I actually support South Korea's decision not to send in any missionaries. In the past decade or so, I have thought about this a whole lot, and while it sounds harsh, I think that if you go into a hostile country and they so hate you that they will kill you on the spot and have killed others who are preaching the gospel there, it may not be as good of a time to be evangelizing now. Yes, I know - the Bible teaches that there will be those who will be killed for the gospel, and Jesus commands His followers to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth. But at the same time, while those so militantly against the gospel are in need of salvation, there's no point in presenting the gospel to them, if they won't even listen. I know, I know - it's not us who does the changing of the hearts, and this is probably why I was not called to be a missionary overseas to terrorist countries (sorry Keith Green - I have to disagree with you there). I am not sure what message you send when you make Christians ripe for the picking by terrorists. This is no different than sending a Black Christian into a KKK meeting to preach the gospel. Sure, it needs to be done, but maybe it can be done a different way other than that. I'm sure that in this case, there is much value in K.P. Yohannan's view that foreign missionaries are not as effective as local missionaries (I've held this view since 1998, and I'm even more strongly in favour of it nowadays), and the best thing to do is probably to train Christian Afghanis to go witness to their countrymen, and then pull out the foreign missionaries. That way, the gospel is still being preached, but the chance of the Taliban picking off an obviously non-Afghan citizen is reduced.