Even as the world gives a sigh of relief and rejoices in jubilation with families of the Korean hostages released by the Taliban; governments and diplomats have begun to raise question and have begun to critically analyze the political consequences and implications of Seoul’s decision to negotiate with the Taliban. The agreed deal got into motion on Wednesday and culminated in the swift release of all 19 hostages by Thursday evening bringing to end the six-week ordeal. The hostage release however was not for free. In return it has been declared that South Korea had agreed to withdraw its troops by the end of the year and to stop Christian missionary work in Afghanistan.
The official conditions of the release have limited scope. For instance the withdrawal of troops hardly amounts to a concession on the part of Seoul since it had already decided to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan even prior to the hostage situation. The suspension of missionary work is also considered a reasonable measure with limited implications. Both the Christian Council of Korea and the Korea National Council of Churches are said to have agreed to honor this condition considering that growing sections of the Korean public are now holding the Churches responsible for disrespecting government warnings not to travel to Afghanistan, which could have prevented the hostage crisis altogether.
However, the wider implications that are causing deep worry and concern are the ones involving the issues of recognition, including the decision to negotiate and the unofficial conditions that may be been agreed by Seoul in exchange for the hostages. While Seoul had no other option but to hold face-to-face talks with the Taliban in Taliban territory, South Korea breached international practices of refusing to negotiate with groups considered as ‘terrorists.’ Common wisdom and past experience in international politics says that South Korea will pay the price sooner or later for an act that diverted from conventional norms of international relations.
What remains further unclear is the issue of ransom. News reports have indicated that a demand of US$20 million was made by the Taliban, but an Afghan mediator was quoted as admitting that only US$ 2 million exchanged hands. The issue is not the amount paid but the dilemma caused when governments decide to pay ransom money in hostage situations. This has stirred strong reactions from countries that have traditionally taken a very strong position not to negotiate. Since the lives of a number of hostages at stake, one can fully understand the compelling reasons why Seoul decided to negotiate, and negotiate successfully in releasing the hostages. The unresolved issues however linger on particularly around ransom payment, and whether this one particular incident would only encourage and spark similar demands.
Diplomats are most concerned for the United Nations officials and personnel of non-governmental organizations engaged in relief, not just in Afghanistan but in similar situations of conflict. The success of the Korean negotiations could have a negative impact and could give rise to hostage-taking as a means to an end, thereby putting to greater risk and exposing non-state actors engaged in humanitarian services. There is no doubt that the resoluteness of Seoul to negotiate with the Taliban, even against international practice must be appreciated; and to applaud it’s diplomatic and negotiating abilities to successfully bring the hostage ordeal to a peaceful end.
Yet, vital information must still be picked up and lessons need to be learned through this experience. No one can point the fault at Seoul for choosing to negotiate with the Taliban and ensure the safe release of its citizens, after it is their responsibility to make certain the safety and well being of all her people. Yet one Korean newspaper editorial raised the issue of citizen responsibility by pointing out that “This crisis raised grave questions about the divide between the country’s responsibility and the responsibility of individuals.” These are questions that the Korean civil society and in particular the Churches will have to reflect upon in the following days and months. For the international community, it will have to find more creative means on engaging with the core issues of crisis in Afghanistan if it is to contribute to a sustainable solution.
One thing for sure, the recent Korean hostage crisis has clearly brought on to public forum the moral dilemmas involved in negotiating issues, which could only further cause broader political consequences. Perhaps at the end of the day as Nelson Mandela pointed out, ‘only free men can negotiate.’
