Related articles and links |  1 of 3

The overseas kidnapping of foreign citizens for ransom or other concessions is not new. Each year, an estimated two dozen Americans are reported kidnapped abroad. Two notable cases in the past year—those of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and New Tribes missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham in the Philippines—have attracted attention to the issue.

Even before these recent high-profile cases, the U.S. government was revisiting its policy on ransom negotiations. After a lengthy debate between the State Department and the Pentagon, the Bush administration in February signed a new policy that in two ways substantially changed the government's response to cases of kidnapped American citizens.

Dating to a Clinton-era study, the new policy states that the government will review each case in which an American is kidnapped to determine suitable action. An official told The New York Times, "What the new policy ensures is that the government will no longer ignore cases simply because a private citizen is involved, or because the kidnapping seems to be motivated primarily by money rather than political goals."

The February policy also drops the former blanket ban on ransom payments in favor of a case-by-case approach in which the government can cooperate with individuals or private companies choosing to pay. CNN reports the shift is modeled on a 2000 Colombian case where American oil companies paid millions to retrieve workers held hostage. The government then worked with local authorities to recover the money and capture those responsible.

Christian mission organizations are yet unsure what implications the policy shift will have on cases in which missionaries are kidnapped for ransom. Christian organizations typically have strict policies against ransom payments in order to avoid encouraging more abductions.

"The real challenge will come if the U.S. government in a particular case desires an action that conflicts with the policies and core values of the sending organization," says Bob Klamser, executive director of Crisis Consulting International. "There are few [types] of organizations that hold fast to the no-ransom standard."

Groups that do traditionally maintain a no-ransom policy, he says, are international Christian organizations, humanitarian relief and development agencies, and media companies. Klamser says these groups are now concerned that government officials may not understand their convictions.

"Everybody that deals with kidnapping is used to people who say, 'We don't pay ransom,' but then they do anyway," Klamser told Christianity Today. "So when another group like missionaries or relief organizations or journalists say it, it becomes a task sometimes to educate the person that we really mean it."

Charles Rogers, World Vision's director of corporate security, worries that the government may pursue an independent course of action and muddy the waters as to who is heading the negotiations. Says Rogers: "If there is a World Vision staff person taken hostage, who is taking the lead here? Our preference, of course, is for us to do that."

Klamser says the best practice to avoid such entanglements in crisis situations is to create a dtailed plan before a situation arises. He says several Christian organizations are now meeting with federal officials responsible for the policy shift to determine how it applies to them. "I have worked on cases where the cooperation with the government has been outstanding," Klamser says. "In cases where it hasn't been, it's usually because there hasn't been an understanding of who the organization was and what their motivations were."

next page... |  1 of 3

May (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46