Travel is getting riskier
On the plus side is the release of five Americans. That is good, but what is to prevent Tehran from taking five more hostages? Thousands of Americans visit Iran every year, despite State Department warnings. Many are dual citizens with family there. Tehran isn’t likely to scoop more up right away, but eventually it may return to lucrative hostage-taking. The slippery slope is real.
The US will release some Iranians, so far unidentified, from US prisons. Exchange for them is not a fair deal, as they have all been tried and convicted in a court system that guarantees a lot more rights than the Americans arrested in Iran. But the exchange is understandable and even laudable. If Iran wants a drug dealer or sanctions breaker back, he will only add marginally to the miscreants already there. And the exchange will save the US taxpayer a few dollars.
The problem is the money
$6 billion is a lot of money. The agreement allowing the dollars to go to Iran may require Tehran to use it for humanitarian purposes (food and medicine), but cash is fungible. It is easy enough to shift the money you might have spent on food (but no longer need) to purchase weapons. You can be pretty sure the ultimate beneficiary will be something the United States doesn’t like: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or a drone factory whose main customer is Russia.
The money is not American. It is Iranian, frozen in South Korea at Washington’s behest. It derives from South Korean payments for Iranian oil. So the American taxpayer is not footing the bill, but the cash will relieve Iran of some financial pressure. If that leads to other agreements–in the nuclear talks, for example–it may be worthwhile. But that factor is hard to weigh before it materializes.
It’s not only Iran
Iran is not the only hostage-taker. Russia, China, Venezuela, Syria, and others also indulge. Each will now hope for a billion or so in addition to the prisoner exchange in negotiations on American hostages. We likely have sufficient frozen funds from some of the hostage takers. It will not be good if today’s deal whets hostage-taker appetities.
There is already an International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (New York, 17 December 1979), but it foresees individuals as the perpetrators, not states. It has 176 state parties, including the United States. While it has been argued that Iran’s use of arbitrary detention constitutes hostage taking, holding individuals responsible is unlikely to prove much of a deterrent when it is a state that decides to detain someone. The existing convention is inadequate to deal with a situation where a state is the hostage-taker. Something more is needed.
Easily said, hard to do
What is needed is a policy that will prevent states from resorting to arbitrary detention/hostage taking. Easy to say, but difficult to institute. A convention requiring multilateral sanctions against states that detain foreigners arbitrarily might be an attractive proposition in theory, but in practice it will prove difficult to get agreement on which detentions are arbitrary. And in many instances the miscreant states will already be subjected to extensive sanctions.
In the absence of more effective measures, international travel has already become more hazardous. There are today more countries where I would hesitate to travel due to the threat of arbitrary detention than ever before in my lifetime. This latest agreement is going to make it even more risky. That may be no real loss to the hostage takers, who don’t really want nosy foreigners observing the way they treat their own citizens. But it is definitely a loss for those of us anxious to see and experience the world beyond our own shores.
RSS - Posts
