America’s new hostage policy right on target
For weeks we have been hearing daily reports on the search for missing journalist Daniel Pearl. Unfortunately the search ended abruptly, and we now face the brutal reality surrounding his kidnapping and murder. This event was tragic for many of us, especially those in the media. He was one of their own, and his loss reminded many reporters of the dangers they may one day face if they are sent into the Middle-East.
I would not blame the media for placing such heavy attention on this story as it unfolded. Pearl was a beloved friend to many reporters, and it is perfectly natural for them to show concern for a fellow journalist. Still, I wonder if they would give the same amount of attention to the story if the victim were just an average American. More importantly, should the United States government give the same attention to the crisis if that were the case?
With a new policy adopted by the Bush administration in place, every kidnapping situation will be considered for military intervention. Cases can no longer be ignored if they involve private citizens or if they do not advance the international agenda of the United States. In the past, the United States would normally pursue cases only if they involved economic or political goals. The new policy would effectively eliminate the inconsistencies of the old system where one human life is given more value than another.
The United States exists under the guidance of our Declaration of Independence, which asserts that “all men are created equal.” If this is our standard, then we cannot accept practices that rank some individuals as more important than others. Presidents, generals, movie stars, reporters, and average citizens are all inherently valuable as human beings. By only pursuing cases where the government stands to benefit, we ignore our own value of equality. The White House should be commended for setting a new standard for this reason alone.
The new policy serves some practical purposes as well. To this day Americans still are struggling to feel secure when travelling abroad. After the kidnapping in Pakistan, many people may worry if they could face a similar fate. Such fears can be eased to a certain extent if the United States pursues a protocol to guarantee that all kidnappings will be taken seriously. Not only will this strengthen the deterrent against terrorists, but it will also allow travelers to know that the government is working actively to protect them even if they don’t happen to be famous or powerful.
Some opponents posed the possibility that the changes could make all Americans more vulnerable to kidnapping since the United States will have in interest in everyone the terrorists go after. I would argue instead that the value of individuals would be dispersed, whereas before the value was concentrated onto a few officials. While the United States would still have a big interest in protecting the powerful, the incentive to take hostages is somewhat deflected because these individuals are no longer golden prizes for terrorists. Moreover, the shift in mentality reflects a certain reluctance of the United States to react under pressure, thus reducing any potential leverage against the government.
As the State Department has pointed out, the new policy will also reduce the danger of kidnappings because of the overall heightened aggression in pursuing the suspects. The strategy, much like the War on Terror, actively places kidnappers in the crosshairs. In the long run, the policy of unbiased, swift action will probably save lives and bring more terrorists to justice.
As the recent debates have demonstrated, the changes still leaves some questions unanswered, and we are not altogether certain that these changes will produce good results. Still, in light of the gruesome slaying of Daniel Pearl, I feel our government should try something new. A policy that guarantees the protection of all Americans is long overdue.
Nathan Long