Terrorism is a big problem in the world nowadays. Multiple countries all around the planet are affected by terrorism every day. This global threat makes people concerned and creates serious issues in the world of politics. The political leaders of all countries are engaged in a constant fight against terrorism. After many negative and positive experiences and incidents, the world’s experts are aware of the efficiency of various strategies and tactics applied to various cases.
Of course, every situation is special; it has different people participating and different circumstances (Keinon, par. 3). This is why the outcomes may vary and the most effective strategies may not work or may show negative results. The case we are dealing with is kidnapping and it is very complicated because there are many hostages and one of them is a political figure.
Different countries and political leaders have various ways to address such issues. Of course, the main and first thing to do in a situation like this is to figure out the most important objectives. The case we are handling involves innocent people, whose lives are under a threat. The main objective of the team dealing with the terrorists is to save all of the hostages; this includes the tourists from Canada and Peter Manning, the undersecretary of state of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs. The terrorist attacks are normally divided into two categories, macro and micro terrorisms (Samson, 3). Normally hijacking and kidnapping cases are considered as attacks of micro-level, but, to my mind, the case we are dealing with is international, this is why it should be treated as a macro case.
Statistically, in most of the world’s countries terrorist acts, where the criminals have demands and promise to exchange the hostages for some favors or money, are solved using fulfilling the demands of the terrorists to avoid lethal outcomes. The lives of hostages have the biggest values for state leaders. At the same time, terrorists that expose themselves to open negotiations with the politicians and FBI are perfectly aware of the risks they are facing.
Kidnapping important figures put them under a big threat and make them very important targets for the rest of their lives. Besides, the groups of terrorists that are desperate enough to mine a whole train with over thirty people in it normally have the mentality of kamikazes. One of the main psychological traits of a terrorist is the experience of alienation (DeAngelis, par. 7). They feel like they have nothing to lose, and they do not want to be caught under any circumstances (Game Theoretical Hostage Negotiations, par. 5).
This makes the situation more complicated for the rescue team because the criminals are highly unstable and may detonate the bomb as soon as they feel even the smallest kind of danger of being caught. In a situation like this, there is very little chance that even a very skillful negotiator will be successful at convincing the terrorists to release the hostages and give up to the police.
The suggested course of action involves the exchange of the tourists for ten million dollars that the criminals have requested. This measure will lower the risks of the operation in case something goes wrong. The minimization of the number of potential victims among innocent people is the first objective the rescue team and the negotiators need to achieve. Step number one is assigning a professional negotiator for communication with the terrorists (Vecchi, Hasselt, Romano, 536). The negotiator needs to communicate using the Behavioral Change Stairway Model (Barker, par. 1). The next step is receiving proof that all of the hostages are alive and unharmed (Managing a Kidnap Event, 6).
While the negotiator is having a conversation with the group of terrorists, the other part of the team needs to arrange the discussion between the political leaders of Haiti, Jamaica, and the United States. The goal of this conversation is to achieve an agreement between the United States and Haiti. The claim about the termination of the aid to Haiti needs to be made officially, to convince the terrorists that their demand is fulfilled, but in reality, this cancellation will be temporary. The United States will promise to increase the current aid in the future, but for that Haiti will agree to release the fifty political prisoners and transfer them to Cuban Havana.
The next negotiating session will move the operation to the next stage. The thirty people from the train need to be released in exchange for ten million dollars. The indicator of the success of this stage is thirty unharmed people taken under the protection of the rescuers (Hostage Negotiation Study Guide, 9). After this stage is accomplished, the negotiator will announce the last exchange. The group of terrorists will set free Peter Manning and for that, they will be allowed to leave the country.
The negotiator needs to clarify that Delta Force people are ready to shoot and will do so in case if the terrorists decide to harm Manning. Delta fighters provide the opportunity of shifting to another plan of action in the event of a failure. The success of the whole operation will be indicated by the total lack of victims among the civilians.
Finally, the parliament of the United States needs to discuss the situation with Cuban leaders and agree to accept Cuban exiles as a consequence of the asylum granted by Cuba. This measure is undesirable, yet it could be viewed from the democratic point of view, which will create a positive effect on the publicity. In general, the risks involved in this course of action are high, the lives of people are under a threat, and so are the international relationships between the United States, Cuba, and Haiti. The costs of this operation will be outweighed by its benefits, such as the peaceful resolution of the dangerous situation.
Statistically, only a third of all American citizens are worried about terrorism in the country. This variable has changed significantly right after the information about the death of Osama Bin Laden (Saad, par.1). Yet, the news about new attacks happening on the territory of the country or involving its people is taken very seriously. This situation is likely to be discussed all around the world, and the course of action worked out by the USA is going to be argued about, probably criticized.
In conclusion, this course of action was chosen because it is more likely to grant positive and peaceful outcomes. The lives of hostages and peaceful relationships were the main focus of this course. This kidnapping case can sabotage the relations between several countries and create a lot of problems for the United States. This course of action allows the political leaders of all the participating countries to reach an agreement and compromise.
Works Cited
Barker, Eric. 6 Hostage Negotiation Techniques That Will Get You What You Want. 2014. Web.
DeAngelis, Tori. Understanding Terrorism. 2009. Web.
Game Theoretical Hostage Negotiations. Virtual Economics. n. d. Web.
Hostage Negotiation Study Guide. Learningforlife. 2010. Web.
Keinon, Herb. The Kidnappings: Using Recent History to Help Determine a Course of Action. Web.
Managing a Kidnap Event. Saferaccess. 2008. Web.
Saad, Lydia. Americans’ Fear of Terrorism in U. S. Is Near Low Point. 2011. Web.
Samson, Adam. Modeling Terrorism: A Game Theoretical Approach. n. d. Web.
Vecchi, Gregory M., Hasselt, Vincent Van, Romano, Stephen G. Crisis (Hostage) Negotiation: Current Strategies and Issues in High-Risk Conflict Resolution. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10 (2005), 533-551. Print.