Dealing with international hostage‐taking: Alternatives to reactive counterterrorist assaults

Hudson, Rex A.

doi:10.1080/10576108908435793

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ten years later, commando assault was becoming the norm. 112 More generally, embassies have evolved from foreign outposts once deemed a 'safe space' for face-to-face diplomacy to high-security compounds. Armed security, concrete barricades, checkpoints and roadblocks are not an uncommon sight outside embassies across the world, particularly where buildings are deemed to be too old or too expensive to undergo security upgrades.…”

Section: Resisting 'Spectaculars' and The Rise Of Embassy Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Diplomats Under Siege: The M-19 and the Dominican Embassy Takeover of 1980

Shiraz

2019

The International History Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

More senior diplomats were taken hostage in the Dominican Embassy siege of 1980 than at any previous terrorist event. Sixteen members of the Colombian guerrilla group, the M-19, captured fifteen ambassadors, including the American ambassador, along with diplomats from across Latin America and held out for two months before flying to safety in Cuba with millions of dollars in ransom. Using approaches from Area Studies and Diplomatic History, this article deploys newly declassified material from the UK, US, oral history testimonies and interviews with former M-19 members in Colombia to explore how events in Bogotá marked a new trend towards highly visible and performative security 'spectaculars'. It argues that in the short term, the Bogotá siege was successful for the hostage-takers because it delivered unprecedented national and international profile for the M-19 whilst demonstrating their affective acuity in rallying supporters to their cause. But in the long term, states were determined to avoid a repetition of this episode and other embassy attacks. Enhanced diplomatic security has become the norm whilst for some states it has paved the way for the now-familiar 'fortress' embassy. Importantly, the Bogotá case raises the wider questions of how states along with diplomatic captives respond to hostage-taking. It highlights how the study of diplomacy can benefit from recent trends in performativity and emotions, offering a more global and interdisciplinary understanding of modern diplomatic practices and security.

show abstract

Section: Resisting 'Spectaculars' and The Rise Of Embassy Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Diplomats Under Siege: The M-19 and the Dominican Embassy Takeover of 1980

Shiraz

2019

The International History Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its policy is based on three 'noes:' no to negotiation with terrorists, no to concessions, and no to ransom. This policy has been strongly criticized by experts, who assert that the policy is a death sentence for American hostages (Hudson, 1989).…”

Section: Negotiations With Terrorism: the Policy Of Announcements Versus Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiations with Terrorist Organizations for the Release of Abductees: Between Declarations and Practice. The Israeli Case

Nagar¹

2018

10.14746/pp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades, democratic countries have dealt with terrorist attacks carried out for the purpose of negotiations, which is the preferred modus operandi for some terrorist organizations. To what extent can a democratic regime effectively combat this abominable act while preserving a liberal or democratic character? Furthermore, these cases have become one of the most complicated dilemmas in both domestic and foreign policy. The prevalent opinion is that it is not possible to avoid meeting some of the demands of these terrorists. A government may even consent to paying a heavy price, so as to end the situation sooner. Media coverage influences this price, as extensive coverage of the terrorist attacks benefits the terrorists and thus increases their bargaining power. In contrast to the declarations of Israeli leaders in negotiations in cases of abduction, Israel has adopted a very flexible approach and is not interested in adopting the rigid approach of refusal to negotiate. The position of the opponents to negotiations with terrorist organizations is that the very negotiations with terrorist organizations legitimize them and the terrorist attacks, thus devaluing claims that terrorism is not a legitimate means of achieving one's aims, and prevents the use of force in these situations. When all the prisoner exchange deals by the State of Israel are examined, approximately 7,500 terrorists have been released in the framework of the different deals, including terrorists with blood on their hands, in return for 14 living soldiers and civilians and 6 bodies of soldiers. A total of 1,027 terrorists were released in the Shalit deal alone.

show abstract

Colombia's palace of justice tragedy revisited: A critique of the conspiracy theory

Hudson

1995

Terrorism and Political Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dealing with international hostage‐taking: Alternatives to reactive counterterrorist assaults

Cited by 3 publications

References 4 publications

Diplomats Under Siege: The M-19 and the Dominican Embassy Takeover of 1980

Diplomats Under Siege: The M-19 and the Dominican Embassy Takeover of 1980

Negotiations with Terrorist Organizations for the Release of Abductees: Between Declarations and Practice. The Israeli Case

Colombia's palace of justice tragedy revisited: A critique of the conspiracy theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About