人質事犯에 대한 對話指針

A Guideline for Dialogue with Terrorists Holding Hostages

Governments inevitably balance competing objectives in dealing with a hostage situation. They may want to (1) appear in control, (2) make no concessions, (3) save the hostages, (4) apprehend the terrorists, (5) minimize political damage, and (6) avoid appearing callous and inhumane, During the course of an episode, these objectives may shift, making it difficult to maintain a single policy line. Korean Government has announced the policy of no concessions to terrorist blackmail, no ransom or release of prisoners in response to terrorist demands. In other words, there will be no bargaining for the release of hostages and will be only acceptable discussion and dialogue with terrorists holding hostages. A tough line is essential, but it must have a built-in flexibility to provide decision makers with policy options to fit differing situations and varying degrees of crisis intensity. There can be a delicate threshold between dialogue and negotiating. Humanitarian considerations, international political pressures, the weight of national political opinion, the strengths and weaknesses of a terrorist group and the threat it poses can all be important factors affecting a decision that must be made with extreme urgency. Many forms of international and transnational terrorism confront the authorities with a complex, multiparty negotiating problem. This study, therefore, is to guide persuading strategies for authorities confronted by terrorists holding hostages. This study examined trends and patterns in hostage-taking, and the case of Black September’s bloody attempt to disrupt pease negotiations during the Olympic games in 1972. With this case study , six stages are suggested in the persuading procedure: (1) exploratory contacts (2) coordinated delay and information analyses (3) introductory negotiations in earnest (4) psychological shaping and trade-offs (5) bargaining in bed faith (6) storming of the hostages’ locations. This prescriptions are ultimately based in the brief that control over pace and procedure can engender control over the substance of outcomes.