In one of the most iconic satirical films of the 21st Century, Tropic Thunder, the aggressively unlikeable studio executive Les Grossman, played by Tom Cruise, finds himself in a shockingly serious and delicate situation. He finds that the actors he sent to a remote South Asian jungle to shoot a film were captured as ransom by the ‘Flaming Dragon’ gang, who demand $100 million in ransom money in order to release their actors. With stark comedic poise, the ill-tempered Grossman tells the gang to ‘skin the bastards alive’ and to not forget to ‘go fuck themselves’. When confronted by devoted agent Rick Peck, played by Matthew McConaughey, with the fact that they will murder the captives, Grossman eloquently responds with the notorious line: “We don’t negotiate with terrorists”, which is followed by an enthused patriotic applause by the crowd. 

While it's unknown whether the writers of Tropic Thunder created this scene as a satirical political message, this ridiculous and short-sighted response by Grossman eerily reflects direct American foreign policy that have irreversible consequences. So why do we continue to follow Les Grossman’s view of negotiating with terrorists?

Where did the phrase “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” come from and why is it still American foreign policy?

On a warm spring morning in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum in 1973, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Sudan gave a formal welcome and reception to American diplomat George Curtis Moore as a guest of honor. During the reception, eight masked gunmen burst into the Saudi Embassy firing in the air and taking ten hostages, including Moore and the U.S. ambassador to Sudan, Cleo A Noel Jr., and Belgian, Jordanian, Saudi, and Kuwaiti diplomats amongst others.

The group of gunmen later declared that they were part of the Palestinian militant organization Black September and initially demanded that the U.S. government release Sirhan Sirhan, the convicted killer of Robert F. Kennedy. While the group altered their demands and requested instead the release of 90 Palestinian militants being held in custody in Jordan, U.S. President Richard Nixon responded in a news conference claiming that “the U.S. will not pay blackmail and that there could be no negotiating with terrorists”. This term eventually became a cornerstone of American foreign policy for decades to come and has been repeated by other American Presidents, diplomats, and fictional characters. 

While Les Grossman and Richard Nixon delivered the same iconic and seemingly brave stance against terrorism, the consequences of Nixon’s statement were dire. Grossman’s actors were eventually saved by a rescue team who destroyed the terrorists in patriotic Hollywood fashion. Tragically, their real-world counterparts were not as lucky as Moore, Noel, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid were executed less than 24 hours after Nixon’s speech.

So, if Nixon’s seemingly brave and unyielding statement ultimately resulted in the murder of two American diplomats, why is it still American foreign policy to not negotiate with terrorists?

The logic behind not negotiating with terrorists

The concept behind this policy is the same concept that parents follow when raising troubling children, which is that you cannot reward bad behavior under any circumstances. In theory, the best way to stop terrorism is to take away the incentive. If nations develop solidarity around the principle of never negotiating with those who commit acts of terrorism such as taking hostages or committing violent acts of resistance, terrorists would be less inclined to commit these acts as they would not be given desired outcomes, just as parents should not give positive validation to rebellious children.

While the logic of such a theory is sound, terrorists are not children. Parents largely control the world around their children and have clear authority over their children as their guardians. Unlike a child, when terrorists capture American citizens, they force themselves on the negotiation table as American lives are in their hands and the stakes become drastically high. The world of terrorism and foreign policy is much more complicated and dire than children demanding ice cream for breakfast, and such conflicts cannot be handled with such stubbornness and insistence that we have the upper hand. 

Along with the Khartoum incident, another tragic example of the dangers of maintaining such a policy is the case of American journalist James Foley, who was taken hostage by ISIS and ultimately executed in Syria in 2014. Despite the constant efforts by Foley’s mother, Diane Foley, to pressure the American government to do more to safely secure the release of her son, the Obama administration refused to make any effort to engage and communicate with ISIS on Foley’s release and their demands, subsequently leading to his execution.

In contrast, some of the U.S.’ closest allies who do not have such policies, such as Italy and Spain, have successfully negotiated the release of their citizens on several different occasions by making contact with terrorist organizations. Even in the case of the Khartoum kidnappings that birthed such a policy, the Sudanese government, along with other Arab governments whose nationals were kidnapped, continued to negotiate with the terrorists and were able to secure the release of all the other hostages, with the terrorists surrendering to Sudanese authorities after 72 hours. As Joel Simon, the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, describes in his book “We Want to Negotiate: The Secret World of Kidnapping, Hostages and Ransom”, there is no evidence to prove that developing such a policy means Americans are less likely to be kidnapped by terrorist groups than the nations who prioritize bringing back their nationals even if it means making concessions to terrorists. In fact, not negotiating absolutely increases the likelihood that Americans will be killed according to Simon.

While such a bold, stubborn, and definitive stance towards such situations may seem moral and patriotic, the policy of not negotiating with terrorists under any circumstances is a simply ignorant one that risks more American lives.

America’s view of terrorists and false narratives 

Not only does such a policy inherently put more Americans under threat of being killed, but it also perpetuates an inaccurate narrative of terrorists, which makes America and its citizens more hated abroad.

As the slogan goes: “One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. Lest us forget that for decades, leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X amongst others who are nationally celebrated were put in the same categories of terrorists and radicals during their struggle for liberation. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were both labeled as two of the most dangerous men in America prior to the historical whitewashing of their characters and beliefs. In fact, Nelson Mandela was put on the terror watch list by the United States government until 2008 for his role as leader of the African National Congress (ANC), which was the primary political and armed group in South Africa fighting against Apartheid. The U.S. labeled groups such as Black September, the ANC, the Black Panther Party, and many others as morally inferior enemies before any acts of terror were ever committed. 

Ultimately, these inaccurate preconceived notions of terrorists happen long before they kidnap any Americans, leading America and its citizens to be further hated in the world for discarding legitimate political grievances of oppressed peoples seriously, making terrorists more likely to target and attack Americans. The label of terrorist in the United States has been historically malleable and largely political in order to inaccurately describe such movements as unfathomable radicals who have no serious and legitimate qualms or objections, which could not be farther from the truth. While taking innocent civilians hostage and committing violent attacks are indefensible, it is ridiculous and frankly dangerous to assume that such groups do not have legitimate political grievances that have pushed them to such extremes. Understanding this will help us position ourselves better in future situations and increase the likelihood of bringing our citizens home safely. 

So, what is to be done?

Unfortunately, Americans are not the only nationality that are kidnapped, and no country has found a way to completely prevent terrorism. While there is no clear and simple answer on how to successfully deal with such situations, there are two clear steps that can be taken to increase the chances of Americans in such situations coming home, and that is to abandon our policy of not negotiating with terrorists and abandon our false sense of moral superiority. These situations must be handled on a case-by-case basis with grace and strategic coordination, without any patriotic bravado. Handling such complex political actors and circumstances with outdated policies and overt self-righteousness will only lead to more hatred for America across the globe and more situations with the same grim conclusion of Foley, Moore, and Noel. By maintaining such policies and narratives that accurately perceive and analyze terrorist organizations, the United States continues to blind itself with a false imperialistic moral pride and superiority, disdained by allies and adversaries alike.