Introduction & Details
The forced abduction or detention of humans for ransom or exerting political pressure is no novelty. Examining the historical landscape of political abductions, this issue delves into past cases, exploring their lasting impact on public consciousness and counterterrorism practices. This report aims to illuminate the purposes, rationales, and intricacies of hostage takings, offering insights into types, motives, and the effectiveness of such actions particularly in the context of insurgencies. Additionally, it scrutinizes countermeasures that evolved in response to specific hostage-taking scenarios.
Past Uses & Renowned Cases
Examples of past cases span history. The Global Terrorism Database lists 16,127 cases between the years 1970 and 2020. Among these cases is the attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca, in which a large group of attackers assaulted the holiest site in Islam, took hundreds of pilgrims hostage, and entered into a two-week stand-off with the Saudi military (1). 1979 also saw more than 50 Americans famously taken hostage when the U.S. embassy in Tehran was stormed by a mob of students during the Iranian Revolution. (2)
Large-scale hostage takings have also been seen in Russia where in 2002 and 2004 Chechen militants attacked the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow and School No. 1 in Beslan in an attempt to force the creation of an independent Chechnya. The two attacks resulted in over 400 civilians killed, in large part due to the violent and indiscriminate response by law enforcement. (3)
Jihadist insurgent groups such as the Islamic State have taken hostage as a means to exert pressure on local communities, undermine the legitimacy of national governments, and for the significant income it generates. Notoriously it was the release of videos of foreign hostages being executed that brought international attention and military strikes against the group (4). In Nigeria, Boko Haram has repeatedly abducted large groups of civilians. In 2014 over 200 girls were abducted from their school. The explicit abduction of girls and women came as a response to the arrest of wives of Boko Haram members thus creating a cycle of gender-based violence. (5)
In South America, following the disarmament of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a FARC splinter group called the Central General Command (EMC) led a campaign of hostage-taking. However, recently the group announced it would cease taking hostages for financial gain. This does not include other, political, captives such as soldiers. (6)
More recently the abduction of over 200 civilians and security personnel from Israel by Hamas as part of the October 7 attack has brought renewed attention to insurgent hostage-taking. Currently, more than 100 remain in captivity with most of the others having been released during a truce (7). The rationale for taking these hostages is complex but the reasons include using them as bargaining chips in negotiations, as a show of strength to highlight Israel’s incapability to free them, and simply as a means to instill terror in the Israeli population. The hostages could also function as human shields; however, given the unknown location and intensity of the Israeli military operation in Gaza, the effectiveness of this is questionable. (8)
Some cases have stood out for their lasting impact not only on public consciousness but also for the effects they had on the development of counterterrorism practices. One of the most notable cases is that of the 1972 Munich Olympic attack in which eight members of Palestinian Black September entered the Olympic village, took nine Israeli athletes and trainers hostage, and killed two. The attackers demanded the release of over 200 Palestinians as well as the imprisoned leadership of the German Red Army Faction. German police had little experience negotiating hostage situations and no counterterrorism or hostage rescue units. Further complicating the matter was the ongoing live broadcasts by the assembled media teams from around the world. Ultimately the event ended with all hostages, five hostage takers, and one police officer being killed in a botched rescue attempt. (9)
Five years later Lufthansa Flight 181 was hijacked by four members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. After a five-day trek around the Mediterranean, the aircraft was successfully stormed by the German counterterrorism unit GSG 9. The unit had been created as a direct consequence of the disastrous police operation in Munich. (10)
Purpose of Use & Details
Hostage-taking mainly takes one of three forms: kidnapping, hijacking, and barricade-siege. Kidnapping describes the abduction of one or more individuals and their detainment usually at an unknown location. Hijacking involves the unlawful commandeering of an aircraft, bus, train, or ship. The hijacking of aircraft may also be referred to as skyjacking. Lastly, barricade-siege involves the hostage-takers detaining their victims in a building or other static location.
Kidnapping is the simplest form of hostage-taking. The need for planning and resources is comparatively low, as is the risk and effort involved for the hostage-taker. This is due to the typically low amount of people being held captive requiring less control. Additionally, the unknown location and mobility of the perpetrators pose significant challenges to the authorities. However, the risk and effort may increase if the target of the kidnapping has personal protection. Lastly, a kidnapping offers the hostage-takers an easy way out. Should they decide to abort their efforts, the hostage-takers may release or kill their captives and flee. Doing so can allow the perpetrator to remain anonymous. (11)
Hijacking, especially skyjackings, are generally the most complex hostage-taking operations. Difficulties for the would-be hostage-takers arise due to the secure nature of airports. Both the number of attackers and the presence of weapons increase the risk of detection but also, if successfully smuggled on board, lower the risk to the hostage-takers as they have an easier time controlling the vehicle and passengers. Hijackings offer the ability to stay mobile, yet generally such hostage-takings transition into static siege scenarios once the aircraft is grounded. Other vehicles such as buses and trains typically also transition to stationary sieges shortly after the takeover. Ships have an added disadvantage for a political hostage-taker, as being at sea means less attention is brought to the undertaking due to a lack of media presence and the size of ships means boarding by security forces is difficult to prevent. (12)
Barricade-siege is more complex than kidnapping and involves any number of hostages. However, with an increase in the number of hostages, the need for control and risk to the hostage-taker also increases. Generally, barricade-siege involves a higher degree of planning as well, although especially criminally motivated may arise spontaneously, for example, a bank robbery foiled by the quick arrival of the police forcing the robber to remain in the bank. The static location of this type of hostage-taking can be advantageous to the authorities as they can control the environment of the hostage-takers. (13)
The purpose of hostage-taking is primarily one of coercion and extortion. By controlling people, the hostage takers gain leverage to be implemented for many reasons such as to free imprisoned comrades, seek political concessions such as recognition and therefore legitimacy from states, extort monetary or resource ransoms, call attention to their cause, or enact pressure on political processes e.g. by disrupting peace processes. Additionally, hostages can serve as human shields to deter armed intervention by security actors. Lastly, hostage takings may serve as intimidation of political rivals or a show of force by highlighting a lack of security offered by the state and police. This could be either the kidnapping and threatening of an individual political rival or, more broadly that, especially large-scale hostage takings raise questions about the ability of states to protect their citizens. Additionally, a failed or poorly carried-out rescue attempt could shift the blame from the hostage-takers to the security forces. (14)
Technical Analysis
While the previous section has discussed types of hostage-taking, another differentiation that can be made is by type of hostage-taker. As with the different scenarios, there are three broad types of hostage-takers.
The first is the criminal. This hostage-taker is mainly motivated by financial gain. This includes kidnapping and hijacking for ransom. Barricade-siege, often serves the purpose of negotiation sage passage. If the hostage-taking arises spontaneously the hostage-taker is at the disadvantage of being unprepared. Additionally, a criminal hostage-taker likely would not want to escalate a potential conviction from robbery to murder, as in the example of a bank robbery gone awry. (15)
Second, there are mentally ill hostage-takers or those motivated by personal grievances. These include irrationally acting people or those facing desperate personal situations. Their motivations are not political or financial. (16)
Third are politically motivated hostage takers. Insurgents fall into this type. Individuals not backed by political organizations but seeking political objectives may fall under this category too. Here the aims may be motivated by trade-offs (e.g. prisoner exchanges), the acquisition of resources, political recognition, weaking of government authority, etc. This type is also more commonly collective and involves thorough planning. Additionally, this type of hostage-taker presents another difficulty for authorities as the hostage-taking, regardless of the outcome, may be seen as a political victory due to the challenge of state authority. In failure, the hostage-takers may be celebrated as martyrs by their supporters. Insurgent groups can also present a mixed type as they may take hostages not primarily for political gain but rather for monetary gain to further support their political campaign. In this case, the hostage-taking itself is not politically motivated but it is a financial tool in a broader political struggle. (17)
The effectiveness of hostage-taking is predicated on several factors. Each type carries advantages and risks for the hostage-taker. Generally, mobile scenarios, especially ones where the location of the hostages is unknown, give the hostage-taker a significant upper hand due to the limited ability for state actors to intervene. A smaller number of hostages is also easier to control; however, more hostages may also mean more concessions achieved in negotiations and more attention brought to the event. (18)
Effectiveness is also impacted by the context or environment in which the hostage taking takes place. A friendly environment means the hostage-takers are in control of the location, and their access to resources such as food and water, etc. If the environment is friendly, police negotiators have less room for maneuvering and lack control of the negotiation. On the other hand, a hostile environment may result in a “fishbowl” scenario. In this case the means available to the hostage-takers are limited as their adversary controls the environment and can “change the water”. The hostage-takers’ ability to bargain is thus limited and they may seek out more favorable conditions by attempting to move to a new environment. In a hostile environment time also works to the disadvantage of the hostage-takers due to limited resources and increasing fatigue. (19)
Countermeasures
The countermeasures to hostage-taking have largely come about as a reaction to specific types of hostage-taking. Compared to the heyday of airline hijackings in the 1960s and 70s, modern airports and airliners are equipped with more security measures. At airports, these include metal detectors or millimeter wave scanners, x-ray or CT scanners, pre-flight questionnaires, no-fly lists, and others. In airplanes, the cockpit doors have been reinforced and air marshals may be present on flights. Similar measures to those at airports have been implemented for embassies after a wave of attacks in the latter half of the 20th century. Additionally, in at-risk civilian areas gated communities, fences, CCTV, and guards may be implemented. All such measures can be summarised as means of hardening the potential target. This simply refers to any methods implemented to make a potential target more difficult to attack. Hard-targets in contrast to soft-targets decrease the likelihood of a successful attack and can have a deterring effect. Additionally, attacks require more planning and resources while carrying a higher risk for the attackers. Individuals at risk of kidnapping may rely on personal protection details for their safety. (20)
At the substate level, communities facing violence at the hands of organized groups may choose to organize community self-defense groups. As seen in parts of Latin America and the Middle East, these groups’ primary purpose is not specific to hostage-taking but various forms of extortion, physical violence, or coercion. These communities can coordinate training, patrols, and monitor activity in the area as well as directly confronting hostile actors the state is unable or unwilling to address. (21)
Another countermeasure is the establishment of counterterrorism or other specialized units trained in hostage rescue Following the disastrous and amateurish rescue attempt at the Munich Olympics many Western states saw the need for specially trained and equipped police or military units. While this event was not the only or the first terrorist attack to spur the development of counterterrorism tactics, the televised nature of it in particular impacted the perception of terrorism and critically influenced counterterrorism advances around the world. These designated units with the expertise, means, and decision-making power to take on situations like that of Munich have since widely proliferated and proven themselves as capable of dealing with such threats. (22)
Lastly, communities or states facing hostage-taking as part of a coordinated insurgent campaign or war may consider adjusting their framework to counter hostage-taking on a psychological level. Hostage-taking, like other forms of terrorism or fighting, is not only carried out in physical terms but also in psychological terms. This includes the framing of the act in propagandistic terms and a depiction by either side of their “truth”. Countermeasures must therefore consider the information space and include ways to mitigate the impact of an attack on public consciousness and media representations. Doing so reduces the power and leverage such acts create. (23)
Open-Source Intelligence & Field Examples
A Hamas pick-up truck seen leaving Kibbutz Nir Yitzhak on October 7th with two female Israeli hostages.
French police storm a supermarket in which a hostage-taker has barricaded himself as part of the January 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris.
Works Cited (Chicago-style)
1 BBC News, “Mecca 1979: The Mosque Siege That Changed the Course of Saudi History.”
2 “The Iranian Hostage Crisis - Short History - Department History - Office of the Historian.”
3 Dunlop, The 2002 Dubrovka and 2004 Beslan Hostage Crises.
4 Byman, “Understanding the Islamic State—A Review Essay.”
5 Zenn and Pearson, “Women, Gender and the Evolving Tactics of Boko Haram.”
6 Buschschlüter, “Colombian EMC Rebel Group to Stop Kidnapping for Ransom.”
7 The Associated Press, “France and Qatar Announce a Deal to Deliver Medicine to Israeli Hostages in Gaza.”
8 Briggs, “Why Has Hamas Taken Hostages?”
9 Doubek, “50 Years Ago, the Munich Olympics Massacre Changed How We Think about Terrorism.”
10 Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, “Vor 45 Jahren: Entführung der ‘Landshut.’”
11 Wilson, “Terrorist Behaviour in Hostage Taking Situations.”
12 Wilson, “Terrorist Behaviour in Hostage Taking Situations.”
13 Wilson, “Terrorist Behaviour in Hostage Taking Situations.”
14 Pfeiffer, “"Human Leverage: Hostage Taking as a Tactic in Insurgency.”
15 Faure, “Negotiating with Terrorists: The Hostage Case.”
16 Faure, “Negotiating with Terrorists: The Hostage Case.”
17 Faure, “Negotiating with Terrorists: The Hostage Case.”
18 Wilson, “Terrorist Behaviour in Hostage Taking Situations.”
19 Faure, “Negotiating with Terrorists: The Hostage Case.”
20 Hesterman, “Deterring and Mitigating Attack.”
21 Zech, “Drug Trafficking, Terrorism, and Civilian Self-Defense in Peru.”
22 Berger Hobson & Pedazhur, "The Munich massacre and the proliferation of counterterrorism special operation
forces."
23 Pfeiffer, “"Human Leverage: Hostage Taking as a Tactic in Insurgency.”