The recent release of Peter Theo Curtis and the horrific murder of James Foley both demonstrate the difficulties confronting a nation whose nationals have been kidnapped by terrorist groups.

Any nation seeking the release of a hostage must face the fact that securing the release of their nationals will usually require the adoption of policies that will reward the act of hostage taking. The ransoming of one hostage may very well make the taking of more hostages inevitable.

But it is also important to note that the often-quoted maxim that the US does not deal with terrorists is in fact false. The US, Israel and numerous other nations have made deals to secure the release of their nationals, ranging from prisoner exchanges to the provision of monetary or material support.

One of the most widely known examples of this form of hostage exchange was the Iran-Contra scandal in 1986, where the US and Israel provided Iran with various weapons in return for Iran's assistance in securing the release of US hostages who were being held in Lebanon. More recent examples include the prisoner exchange that secured the release of Bowe Bergdahl and several Israeli prisoner exchanges.

In all of these cases, the nations involved had to make the determination that the monetary and political cost was worth the release of the hostage. The presence of an effective negotiating partner was also indispensable, whether it was the kidnappers themselves or an organization that had some degree of influence over the hostage-takers. 

The importance of securing the release of a prisoner should not be understated. In the case of Bergdahl and other captured soldiers, being seen to abandon them is often morally and politically indefensible. This can be especially true in the US, a nation where an entire mythology has grown up around the claims that some Vietnam War prisoners were never returned to the US.

The return of a hostage or a prisoner of war can often result in a political boost for the government that has secured their release. It conveys the message that a nation's citizens and soldiers will never be simply written off by their government.

But meanwhile, a nation cannot be seen to have submitted to simple blackmail in order to secure the release of a hostage. In the case of Curtis, The New York Times has reported that the US specifically forbade any sort of monetary payment for his release. The demands on the part of the Islamic State for Foley's release included a ransom demand of 100 million euros ($132.5 million), a sum that was both politically and financially impossible to pay.

Unfortunately, even non-monetary prisoner exchanges of the sort both the US and Israel have engaged in can encourage future hostage taking. Even ignoring the advantages of swapping hostages for prisoners, many terrorist and insurgent groups would gain a great deal of prestige by being seen to force vastly more powerful national governments to negotiate for the release of their nationals.

In today's interconnected world, hostage-takers are able to publicize their acts and thus put pressure upon their captive's family and government alike. It is likely that insurgent and terrorist groups will continue to see hostages as a useful tool. This will continue to place foreign aid workers, soldiers, and journalists at risk of being kidnapped for political gain.

The author is a freelance writer based in Corona, California. charlesgray109@gmail.com