Communicating Arts - Main Web SiteFor the Taliban operating in Afghanistan, it may have been a lot easier not kidnapping 23 foreign nationals in the first place.
So far, with two Korean men dead and 21 mouths left to feed over weeks in multiple locations, the Taliban have not received for their efforts their brothers behind bars. Today, the captors released two hostages, both women [1], possibly, I would guess, because keeping them surely proved more bother than it was worth and killing them would have further dishonored the mission.
Update: August 17, 2007 7 a.m. EDT
The two campers, Kim Ji-na, a 32-year-old animation instructor, and Kim Kyung-ja, 37 and working for a software firm, returned home less than happy [2].
According to Jack Kim's report in Reuters, the Taliban characterized the release as a "good will gesture."
One may suppose that even with their lives spared, the experience of anguish and guilt may remain resident in the two for time to come.
Although talks have ensued between the South Korean government and the Taliban, neither appear to have leverage as regards the goal of obtaining a prisoner release. The calculus noted elsewhere on this blog has not changed:
- Afghanistan's position: prisoner releases encourage kidnapping;
- Taliban's position: only the return of prisoners--family or Ummah--serves as cause; money may not be a desirable substitute;
- South Korea's position: it can argue only for the release of its nationals.
Because killing them would only serve to support expectations about them, the Taliban have the power only to release the 19 hostages still in their possession; however, psychologically if not spiritually, they may be hard pressed to find the honor in that.
"Good will" may apply to two releases; giving up the full house may in their philosophy represent capitulaton rather than a telling demonstration of decency.
1. Azimy, Yousuf. "Taliban frees two South Korean woman hostages." Reuters, August 13, 2007.
2. Kim, Jack. "South Korean hostages held by Taliban return home." Reuters, August 17, 2007.
Correspondence and Permissions: James S. Oppenheim
Comments