Was Hostage Release "Bad Deal?"
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 08/28/2007 at 3:47 PM
Today Taliban militants agreed to release the 19 South Korean church volunteers held hostage for six weeks in Afghanistan. (Two of the original 23 hostages kidnapped on July 19 were killed in late July, while two others were freed earlier this month.) World Magazine reports:
Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi said that the South Koreans — mostly women in their 20s and 30s — would be freed "in the coming days" and that tribal elders would act as go-betweens. He gave no further details.
The deal for the hostages' release was struck during talks between Taliban negotiators and South Korean diplomats in the central city of Ghazni. The Afghan government was not party to the negotiations, which were mediated by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
In return for the hostages' release, Seoul pledged to withdraw its troops by year's end and prevent Christian missionaries from working in Afghanistan. Worldviews blog reflects on the implications of the trade-off:
While the release of the remaining hostages is great news, has South Korea considered the long-term cost of its actions?
Negotiating with terrorists is a recognized no-no, but what makes this capitulation all the more embarrassing for the South Koreans is what they agreed to:
"...the government in Seoul agreed to end all missionary work and keep a promise to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year."
What do you think of South Korea's decision to strike a deal with the Taliban? The World Magazine article speculates the deal will give terrorists more credibility.
The militants apparently backed away from demands for a prisoner exchange. But the Taliban, who killed two South Korean hostages last month, could emerge with enhanced political legitimacy for negotiating successfully with a foreign government.
My first reaction to the news is joy for the release of these Christian sisters. Their impending deliverance is something to be thankful for. However, I wonder what kingdom work will be lost as the Taliban gains greater credibility and control.
1. Mike Theemling said the following at 4:02 PM on Aug 28:
The biggest problem of all is that it legitimizes kidnapping as an effective political/business tactic.
There is great concern that kidnapping in Afghanistan will become a new industry there and given the result of the hostage situation unfortunately don't see the problem decreasing.
2. Evan said the following at 4:04 PM on Aug 28:
I'm glad that those brave missionaries are still alive. But would they rather be alive and have God's work stop in that country, or would they want the task to continue? And if they would rather have their lives than their mission continue, and we agree, what does that say about all of us?
3. mindlab said the following at 4:57 PM on Aug 28:
Seems to me that Seoul's involvement is fundamentally misguided in this case. The hostages were in Afghanistan of their own free will and I don't think that the Korean government's obligation to defend/protect them extends into a hostile country like Afghanistan. Refusing to negotiate would have deprived the Taliban of almost any benefit from taking the hostages.
In cases where a country is clearly obligated to protect its personnel in a hostile country (ie kidnapped Israeli soldiers), I think the best response is the most extreme: kill (with extreme prejudice) anyone you can find who is even remotely connected with the hostage takers. If a country is consistent in this response, I think it would save lives in the medium and long term by reducing or eliminating the motivation for kidnapping.
4. Justice said the following at 5:05 PM on Aug 28:
WOw, this is very surprising...
In other news, I believe Justice would be served that when bin Laden is captured that every traveler that has had to be patted down and searched should be able to give bin Laden a kick in the pants!
5. k. said the following at 5:27 PM on Aug 28:
I don't know that I would refer to it as a "bad deal." I do think it's a bad idea. Negotiating with terrorists helps legitimize them, encourages them to repeat their tactics, etc.
On a side note, while I'm very glad these women are apparently being released, I also question whether their presence was a good idea in the first place.
6. Chris said the following at 7:48 PM on Aug 28:
I'm not sure the Taliban really got anything out of this other than some PR. As I understand it, South Korea was already planning on removing forces.
Also, South Korea has already said it would try to prevent groups from engaging in missionary work where they're not wanted.
If all this is indeed true, then the South Korean negotiators just took the Taliban for a ride. They got the hostages freed for basically doing the same thing they were already doing.
7. BDB said the following at 10:58 PM on Aug 28:
I believe that this puts all Christian missionaries at even more risk. And I know a couple of people who were planning to go to Afghanistan and do relief work later this year.
8. Leah said the following at 11:03 PM on Aug 28:
Was it a bad deal? No. I disagree with much of what happened, but it wasn't a bad deal.
Firstly, the Taliban has not gained any credibility. Control, maybe. But who have they gained control over? Seoul? And that's it.
Secondly, are you suggesting it's a bad trade-off that 19 lives are saved in exchange for stopping Christian missionaries entering Aghanistan? I personally think human life is always more important, and if someone is to be martyred, it's not up to their government to leave them to their death. A government has a responsibility to its citizens.
I agree with Mike- the biggest problem here is that South Korea has indulged the Taliban's terrorists. You do not negotiate with terrorists. To do so, and to agree to their demands, legitimises what they are doing. It's a logical cause and effect situation. They see kidnapping + demands = success. So what will they do for more success? Kidnap more people!
Also- and this is in response to Evan too- Seoul's agreement to prevent Christian missionaries going to Afghanistan isn't going to affect the Christian witness in that country much. There are missionaries in Afghanistan from all over the world! This just means South Korean ones can't go in anymore. So what? The rest of the world can take up the responsibility.
If Korea sits there tossing up "Hmm, save the missionaries or leave the door open for more?", do we just sit there and say "Right Korea, you're on your own"? No! Why not save those missionaries and send in more from other countries? Sacrificing that 19 would not have helped.
Their mission, as Evan seemed concerned about, is not that important. It is the overall Christian mission in Afghanistan that is important. Missionaries from other countries can do that without the Korean missionaries being sacrificed.
9. Michael said the following at 4:42 AM on Aug 29:
If the South Koreans can't help us in such an important theater as Afganistan, why should we leave our tens of thousands of troops in South Korea? Time to bring them home, it might appear.
10. vu said the following at 4:54 AM on Aug 29:
"But would they rather be alive and have God's work stop in that country, or would they want the task to continue?"
Interesting. Now put yourself or your close family member in the same situation, and ask your same the same question. What is your answer?
11. Loris said the following at 6:42 AM on Aug 29:
This whole mess makes me frustrated. If these missionaries had gone through a mission board (which I'm assuming they didn't), they would never have been sent to such a dangerous area. Those young women no doubt thought they were being very heroic, but putting oneself in danger like that can be very counterproductive.
12. kman said the following at 7:23 AM on Aug 29:
Taliban win. They got what they wanted.
No Korean troops and no missionaries (what were they afraid of? Christianity is wrong and should be easy to refute with Islamic apologetics right?..)
13. nick said the following at 9:01 AM on Aug 29:
Leah, I agree with what you said about their mission. It can be (and is being) taken up by missionaries from other parts of the world (or even by South Koreans who go with out their government's approval).
But as you also pointed out, this negotiation will only encourage terrorists to kidnap missionaries from other countries to get THEM to stop coming too. And that is what is most concerning. These terrorists may now believe that kidnapping is now a means for their ends.
I know I don't have the wisdom to deal with a tough situation like that. All the more reason to be praying for our leaders, right? :)
14. Raj Sharma said the following at 9:15 AM on Aug 29:
I can't believe what I am hearing here. It is very easy to judge the Koreans and their decisions while sitting in front of your laptop at Yale and sipping lattes. Not many of us would have the guts to go to a place as horrid as Afghanistan. I know I don't. I have nothing but respect for the Korean missionaries and their willingness to serve.
15. Matt said the following at 9:28 AM on Aug 29:
I don't think the South Korean government was wise in making a deal with terrorists because of what it will lead to. But, for the deal they made - it was a great one. They got their citizens back and the Taliban were sold a pig in a poke. There is no authority higher than Christ when he commanded his disciples concerning the Great Commission. So their government cannot overrule Christ therefore their part of the deal is hollow. They only made it illegal (I guess) for our brothers and sisters in their country to carry out the Great Commission in that way. We're law abiding people by God's command, but only when obeying man's laws don't cause us to disobey God's laws. Stop the missionaries - ha. Let's remember where this world is heading - worldwide Christian persecution under the antichrist. Come, Lord Jesus.
16. Patricia said the following at 10:13 AM on Aug 29:
It seems to me that these people wanted to serve. Was it a poor decision? Maybe but the presence of Christians is vital to the Middle East as a region. I remember the Pope expressed concern to Bush because Catholic priests had been attacked or even killed in Iraq because of violence and the decreasing presence of Christians in Iraq. My church had a Lebanese pastor come last spring and talk about what it was like to serve in Lebanon. He mostly said it was difficult because Christians were attacked by the Jews and Muslims in his country and their numbers decrease rapidly as people leave because they fear for their safety. I don't blame the missionaries-but instead the governments and people inciting violence. And yes, negotiating with terrorists is bad. But it has been going on for years so really it's nothing new.
17. David said the following at 10:20 AM on Aug 29:
"However, I wonder what kingdom work will be lost as the Taliban gains greater credibility and control."
-Is man more powerful than God that his decisions can derail God's plan?
Michael:"If the South Koreans can't help us in such an important theater as Afganistan, why should we leave our tens of thousands of troops in South Korea? Time to bring them home, it might appear."
- Agreed. Afghanistan is important. It deserves much focus. It's the largest producer of opium (ref: http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070828/FOREIGN/108280031/1003 ) for illegal drugs. Why, then, are the American forces so focused in Iraq (where there was little Taliban influence) and now (so it seems) in Iran? Is it because there are no nuclear weapons in Afghanistan as opposed to Iraq? oh wait.
Christianity Today had an interesting article on South Korea's contribution to the mission world:
"South Korea today sends out more missionaries than any other country except the United States. In terms of missionaries per congregation, Korea sends one missionary for every 4.2 congregations, which places it 11th in the world. (The U.S. does not rank in the top 10.)"
"South Korea sends more than 1,100 new missionaries annually. That means Korea alone sends out as many new missionaries each year as all of the countries of the West combined."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/38168
For the record, I'm not Korean. I do agree that you should not negotiate with terrorists. However, it's easy to say what you should and should not do it's an entirely different matter when it's "real".
Fortunately, again, God is sovereign and more powerful than the Taliban, our world leaders.
18. Evan said the following at 10:46 AM on Aug 29:
My main point is that we shouldn't let violence and threat of physical death stop us from letting brave souls from doing a very important job. The commission isn't to bring the gospel to all nations except for the ones that kidnap missionaries. Do I like the fact that these missionaries had to go through this? Of course not, nor do I feel we should just throw away our lives at random. But the most important thing is the life of souls. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but the spirit, and those who give up their lives will find them. It scares me that inches are being given up here, because then it will be a foot and then a mile.
"Their mission, as Evan seemed concerned about, is not that important. It is the overall Christian mission in Afghanistan that is important. Missionaries from other countries can do that without the Korean missionaries being sacrificed."
The problem is precedent. The problem is getting attached to being alive over service. Again, I'm not saying all of us should move to Africa and try to get ourselves killed. But there are much worse things than bodily death.
19. Katie said the following at 12:57 PM on Aug 29:
I agree, Evan. Physical safety should never be the top priority of a disciple of Christ, but to honor our Lord in all circumstances.
I think that the hostage release was definately a "bad deal." I am definately not trying to be overly critical here, but these missionaries, while I'm sure had nothing but good intentions and a desire to serve, have now put countless others in danger. They made some naive decisions that could have been avoided if they had had even a basic knowledge of the region. The road they were travelling on when they were captured was notorious for being under Taliban control, and it was widely known that foreigners should avoid it. Any local believers that were suspected to have any sort of contact with these missionaries are probably now either in prision or dead. Missionaries from other countries will have to be even more cautious, and the Taliban definately sees this move by the Korean government as a victory. I am NOT saying that missionaries should stop going to places like Afghanistan, quite the opposite! However, while Christ has commanded us to go, he never commands us to leave our brains at home. I almost hesitate to write that, because it sounds a lot more harsh in print than I am intending it, and like others, I am thankful for this group of Korean's willingness to put their lives on the line, and I don't know if I would have had any more forsight than they did if I was in that situation. The whole thing is sad, but I am so thankful that we serve a God who is able to bring glory to His name through our weakness!
k. - I was just wondering, but how are women in Afghanistan going to hear about the hope of Christ if other women do not go and tell them?
20. Ted Slater said the following at 2:02 PM on Aug 29:
Evan -- good points. The early missionaries, as described in Scripture, found themselves led to dangerous places as they shared the gospel. Some were imprisoned, abused, and even killed. Were they wrong to "put themselves in harm's way" to share the Good News? No.
21. k. said the following at 3:00 PM on Aug 29:
Katie -- I'm not saying that all Christians should stay the heck out of possibly dangerous situations. What I *am* saying is rather similar to what you just pointed out: if you visit a country like Afghanistan, which is extremely hazardous for outsiders right now, you'd better be prepared for the worse and aware of the risks you're running. Definitely do your homework...due diligence and all that. There's a difference between being brave and being careless, and I'm inclined to think that the South Koreans fell into the latter camp on this occasion. They sound well-meaning, but perhaps not well-prepared.
That said, I wasn't there and have no idea of what went through their minds. I am happy for those who are being released, and grieved for the families of those who died for their beliefs.
22. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 6:31 PM on Aug 29:
I'd like to share what Glenn Penner, the Canadian CEO of Voice of the Martyrs, an organization dedicated to serving the persecuted church and advocating for religious freedom had to http://www.persecution.net/news/afghanistan8.html>say:
"Ultimately, it seems that the only real concession that the South Korean government was prepared to publicly make was the religious freedom of its own citizens. Make no mistake, this decision to withdraw missionaries from Afghanistan and to prevent others from going there is a violation of religious freedom. It is telling Korean Christians, 'You can obey Christ's commission but not in Afghanistan.' This no government has the right to do, even in the name of protecting their citizens. We are also concerned that this concession by the South Korean government could further endanger the safety of Christian missionaries of all nationalities in other countries like Afghanistan where Christianity is viewed with hostility. Religiously motivated militants may conclude, having seen the Taliban successfully drive out South Korean missionaries in this manner, that kidnapping missionaries in the hopes of negotiating similar concessions by other governments concerned over the safety of its citizens is a legitimate and potentially successful strategy.
The Voice of the Martyrs urges governments to refrain, even with the best intentions, from interfering in rights of its citizens to carry out their faith even in dangerous environments and we urge Christians in free nations to recognize that there are risks in taking the gospel to many parts of the world and to accept the consequences of their obedience. This is biblical Christianity at work and we should not be surprised by it. God does not lead us only to safe places."
23. Leah said the following at 6:51 PM on Aug 29:
Evan- when I said "Their mission, as Evan seemed concerned about, is not that important. It is the overall Christian mission in Afghanistan that is important. Missionaries from other countries can do that without the Korean missionaries being sacrificed."
I wasn't talking about physical well-being. That statement had nothing to do with being alive! Talk about reading into things too much. What I was saying is that by taking these 19 out of Afghanistan, the current Christian witness won't have changed much. There are other missionaries doing the same thing.
yes, this creates a precedent, but not in the "physical life" arena, but rather in the "terrorists kidnapping" arena. Seriously. If you would leave your countrymen to be martyred simply because they shouldn't be attached to life and removing them might hurt the chrisitan witness there, I hope you're never made president. Because they martyrdom would not help the Christian witness.
24. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:39 AM on Aug 30:
I think we should be careful of being too prideful. The idea that any of us would have known so much better what to do there is silly. Afghanistan is a lot closer to Korea than to the US. Don't make the mistake of assuming that these people were stupid. They were merely doing what Christ called them to do. I can think of a certain apostle who got himself executed on purpose just so he could share the gospel with a caesar who he knew killed Christians for fun. All the others except John died for Christ and considered it an honor.
I am glad these brave people were saved. That we should react with such fear of Christians dying however shows just how far Americans have drifted from the spirit that marked the early Christians.