Who Wears the Crown of Hostage-Negotiations: Qatar’s Rise to the Top

Qatar’s expansionary influence on the global stage ensures its safety in a volatile region and reflects a foreign relations gameplan of political leverage and selective goodwill.

While the geopolitical landscape once set the scene for Switzerland to be the go-to hostage negotiator, in the making of its reputation of neutrality, Qatar’s rise to the top represents an evolution of the times.

Over the last decades, global conflict has centered around the Middle East, with foreign actors and local states alike engaging in warfare for religious, political, and economic incentives. Best situated to establish a sphere of influence, Qatar has strategically positioned itself to collect political favors and secure its country’s safety in an unpredictable region. Vying for reputation, alliances, and public opinion, Qatar has been playing the long game in politics. With its extensive network and openness to a range of political groups, the state’s success in hostage-negotiations is quickly demonstrating its value on the global stage. As the saying goes, a friend to all is a friend to none, a stance which allows Qatar to succeed on nearly all fronts, ensuring its neutrality and objectivity between feuding countries. 

The recent advances in technology and weapons development are considered to be the main changes adopted in modern warfare but strategic hostage-taking for leverage and bargaining is increasingly used. Whether under the form of trumped-up charges, such as American travelers arrested on Russian territory on improbable charges, or abductions by radical groups, human bargaining chips have become undeniable leverage in conflict. 

Whilst highly valued and praised for its successes in past and current hostage negotiations, Qatar’s long-standing relationships have been a point of criticism, called out for its liberal associations with extremist groups. Another point of criticism has been Qatar’s decision to allow groups to establish political offices in Doha that have been perceived as extremist and radical organizations, such as the Taliban or Hamas. However, the leniency towards such groups has positioned Qatar to be able to negotiate with otherwise unreachable entities with leverage and favorability, improving the likelihood of successful outcomes from hostage negotiations. 

Qatar’s close ties to the U.S. and Iran, a major supplier to the former and collaborator to the latter by proxy of a shared natural gas field, has led to questions about its ability to maintain a neutral stance. However, its relationship with Iran and ties to Afghanistan qualified the state to successfully intervene and mediate in hostage situations in Iran and Afghanistan, even expanding its influence to reach an agreement with Myanmar for the release of an American journalist. 

In 2014, a US freelance writer, Peter Theo Curtis (formerly Padnos), was freed from an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria after nearly 2 years of captivity. A release negotiated by extensive mediation from Qatar and facilitated by high ransoms. The release came approximately a week after the violent beheading of a captured American journalist, James Foley, by ISIS, a radical jihadist group, which was broadcast around the world. Certain experts theorize that Qatar’s renewed efforts to mediate with Al Nusra Front for the release of Curtis was a strategic move after ISIS’ execution led to increasing pressures by the US and UL at the unwillingness of Qatar and its neighbors to confront ISIS in their backyards. The release of Curtis after two years of imprisonment shifted the news cycle away from the war crimes committed by ISIS to the success of the hostage negotiations aided by Qatar, relieving international pressure on Middle Eastern countries to address ISIS footholds in the region. 

Qatar’s official statements on its motives as a hostage negotiator emphasize the humanitarian values and rights it seeks to protect for all people, but the historical pattern of releases secured and relationships formed implies a double game. In addition, the recent pattern of ransoms to buy the release of hostages, despite strict policies of Western and European governments against, could potentially motivate armed groups to keep hostages to secure funds. However, given Qatar’s breadth of financial resources, ransoms are being paid to accelerate negotiations, implying that Qatar may be using it’s money to ensure the goodwill of foreign governments. Qatar’s role as the middleman, especially in cases of terrorist groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda, gives foreign governments the ability to deny their part in ransoms, whilst ensuring that their people come home.