State-sponsored hostage-taking

Rachel Briggs OBE

Good evening, and welcome to this event at Chatham House on State Hostage-Taking. I’m Rachel Briggs and I’m an Associate Fellow on the International Security Programme here at Chatham House and it’s my great privilege to welcome you all here to join us this evening. Before we get started into the substance of this, let me do the housekeeping and the admin first, so that we all have that covered. Firstly, I want to tell you that today’s event is most definitely on the record, it will in fact be recorded. As a result of that, you are very welcome to tweet during and after the event today. If you do, I would kindly ask that you use the #CHEvents, as in Chatham House Events, so that we can track those. If you would like to ask questions of our panellists today, I would please ask that you use the Q&A function within the Zoom meeting. Do not use the chat, that is disabled, but if you pop your questions into the Q&A function, we will most definitely see them and will be covering those in about the last third of the meeting today.

And to give you a – just an idea about the format of this members’ meeting, which will be very familiar to members who regularly join these events, I will introduce the topic, I will introduce our esteemed speakers in a moment, and then I will ask each speaker to give some introductory comments for five or six minutes or so, just to set out their stall. I will then facilitate a discussion amongst the three of us, and then we will open up to questions from the audience, and we’re particularly excited to hear from you all on this. The final administrative point I would share is that unfortunately, Foreign Secretary, Lisa Nandy, had to pull out at the very last minute. She sends her apologies, she is indeed chairing a very important debate in Parliament on the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and very much hopes to continue engaging with these issues and with Chatham House. So I hope that we’ll be able to platform her on this issue of state hostage-taking very soon, so watch this space.

So, let me introduce the topic and why we’re here today. A couple of weeks ago, some of you may have caught some coverage, there was certainly a very active Twitter campaign, to mark the very sad milestone of the 1,000 days that the so-called “Two Michaels” have been held in China, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, two Canadian citizens who’ve been held up in China for 1,000 days. Just next week, in a few days’ time, we’ll actually be marking the even more incredible and sad anniversary of the 2,0000th day of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s detention in Iran, five years and counting. You may know less about, but they are no less important of course, Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed who have been held in Russia for many, many, many months and years.

The sad news is that these cases are just the very, very slim tip of the iceberg. One of our speakers today, Carla, in an unpublished paper that I would commend to you all as soon as it’s released, estimates that there are – there were at least 60 Westerners held in Iran in just the last decade, and those are just the cases that we know about. And we know that many families make the difficult decision to remain quiet because they’re worried about repercussions of going public. So, this is the slim, slim tip of the iceberg.

Now, I’ve been working on these issues for two decades and I can tell you that in my casework with both Hostage International and Hostage US, more and more cases were coming across my desk that were not what we traditionally think of as hostage cases, terrorists, political groups, criminals, they were state hostage cases, and by the time I finished on this work last year they were accounting for somewhere between a half and two thirds of the caseload that I was dealing with in the US with US citizens. It’s quite extraordinary. And those of us in the hostage business, and unfortunately there needs to be one, have been seeing this problem rise, but it’s very much a silent crime, so I’m pleased that we can bring some attention to it today.

The great news is that earlier this year, under the leadership of the Canadian Government, we now have an international coalition against arbitrary detention, which is the way that the international community chooses to name this particular crime. 60 plus countries have stood up and said, “Enough is enough, things need to change and we all need to work together to stop this criminal activity.”

And so, against this backdrop, we hold this event and really what I want us to do today, under the stewardship of some extraordinary global experts on this problem, is help you to understand what is state hostage-taking, how is it changing, how has it changed, why does it matter, why should we be gathered in places like this, and how can it be stopped? All in 60 minutes of course. Now, this is the first of two events that we’re organising, the next one will be on non-state hostage-taking, and that will be in October and you can sign up for that on the website. Before I introduce the speakers, I will also just say a note of thanks to Richard Ratcliffe, who really has worked in very close partnership with me and the team at Chatham House to organise, inspire and make today possible. So an enormous thank you to Richard for doing that and making this happen.

So, let me introduce our two speakers. So, I will introduce first Jason Rezaian. Jason is a very senior Journalist at The Washington Post, working on Global Opinions section. He was previously the Post’s Tehran Bureau Chief and was himself caught up in this crime and held at the pleasure of the Iranian regime for 544 days in the notorious Evin Prison. And indeed his book, Prisoner, recounts his own personal story and he has a podcast being released later this month, I’ll say a little bit more about towards the end.

Dr Carla Ferstman is an Academic and a Lawyer, who’s currently based at the University of Essex, who really brings an extraordinary wealth of expertise on human rights and international criminal law, which is so crucial to solving this problem. She was also the – previously the Director of the non-profit REDRESS, which supports victims, amongst other things, supports victims of this crime as well. So, Jason, I’m going to turn to you first and I’ve mentioned your personal experience, of course, but I know and many of us know that since your release in 2016, you have taken that personal experience and built, I would say, arguably one of the most impressive range of expertise on this subject, and I know have thought very long and hard about what the problem is and what we need to do about it. And so, would you start by offering us a scene-setter, if you like, what is state hostage-taking, what’s the scale of the problem, and why should we be concerned?

Jason Rezaian

Well, thank you so much for the introduction, Rachel, I’m really happy to be here, I’m glad that Chatham House is doing this. I’m happy to see you again. You and I have been talking about this issue since several weeks after my release in 2016. I’m thinking back to the first time I met Carla, which was probably in 2017. We have grown an extended community, I’d say a family of people who care very deeply about this issue. It’s not that nobody cared about it before, but there wasn’t the organising around the matter that has, sort of, sprouted over the past several years and I attribute a lot of that to the two of you, but also to Richard Ratcliffe, as you mentioned. Without Richard, I don’t think we’d be here talking about this at Chatham House, but also more globally.

The scale of the problem, and I think that that’s, you know, an important place to begin, is not massive, and that’s maybe not why – and maybe why the issue doesn’t get as much attention as it should, but I will tell you that it’s getting worse and worse. You know, you alluded to the fact that, when you were at Hostage US, you saw the shift of cases moving from organised crime, terrorists and other non-state actors taking hostages to more governments doing this and that’s been a trend that continues right now, and part of that is because we’ve cultivated decent ways, I think, of going after terrorist hostage-takers, we have not done so with states.

People watching might be wondering, well, why don’t I hear more about state hostage-taking? As you pointed out, you know, we call it arbitrary detention, or unjust detention, or wrongful detention, these are all just euphemisms for governments taking innocent people hostage. And I think that a big part of this is trying to change the public’s orientation and government’s orientation about how they look at what has traditionally been considered a Consular matter in a lot of cases. But what’s happened is that this has become a repeated crime, almost a serial crime, that’s hiding in plain sight. The UK deals with it, the United States deals with it, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, everybody is dealing with this and they traditionally have been dealing with it on their own, not in co-ordination with other governments.

I’m glad to report that I think that that’s finally starting to change. I’ve had consultations with people in the US Government, in both parties, in this administration, in the previous administration, and the administration before that, and also in your government, in the current administration, and also, I had a series of conversations with Jeremy Hunt about this, over the last couple of years. And I think that there’s finally an acknowledgement that this is a problem, a problem that we need to learn how to deter, but also one that is going to require a concerted effort by likeminded partner governments, to make it more difficult for governments to take ordinary citizens hostages.

You spoke about the Two Michaels, and I think that’s a perfect example. Just a couple of weeks ago, when they passed their 1,000th day in detention, Secretary of State of the United States, Antony Blinken, put out a statement calling for their unconditional release. That was, for those of us who cover this issue, who look at this issue, a consequential moment. I can’t remember an instance where a foreign official, a non-American official, called unequivocally for my release. I can’t remember an instance where a US official called for Nazanin’s release. So, you know, this idea that countries are going to take a unified approach to handling the issue of state hostage-taking is a good sign, but so much work needs to be done and I think a big part of that is cultivating the political will, right, because oftentimes governments agree on an idea, they agree on the concept that chemical weapons are bad, or that taking hostages are bad. But when it comes to their bilateral relationships with countries who are perpetrating these types of crimes against innocent people, it’s very difficult for them to get involved in a campaign or in an effort to end the problem, and I think little by little we are moving the needle on that conversation.

It’s very slow going, but for somebody who’s been following this since the day that I was released from captivity in 2016, I see progress. But, you know, again, every time I talk to government officials, there are two types of people. There are the mavericks who say, “Yes, we have to use all of the accountability, legal and other resources that we have to attack this problem and make it harder for governments to take hostages.” But more than that you find people who are resigned to the fact that this is a problem that has existed traditionally and it’s continued to exist and it’s sort of a cost of doing business as a democratic country.

As a survivor of one of these cases, someone who had a year and a half stolen from his life, and when we talk about different cases, oftentimes people look at my case as a success story. I just think this idea that this is part of the cost of doing business for democracy is completely unacceptable, and we really have to work together, as democratic, free governments, to think about ways in which we can make this costlier for the people who have gotten accustomed to doing it. Because I think that that is the key to solving the issue, right, we have to look at the motivations of why governments would want to take innocent citizens of another country hostage, what they assume that they’re going to get out of it, and make it harder for them to do that, make it costlier for them than the benefits that they perceive that they will receive for doing this.

That’s why I think this conversation today is such an important jumping off point, you know, I’d like to have more and more people thinking about this issue. People in the media, you know, my colleagues even here in the United States will oftentimes, when a new one of these cases comes up, write a headline that says, you know, “American national arrested in Iran, accused of espionage.” Well, you’re doing the hostage-takers work for them when you strip that fellow citizen of the presumption of innocence that’s guaranteed to them in the constitutions of all of our countries.

We have to change the orientation when our citizens are arrested abroad, and put on show trials. We have to assume that they’re innocent and being held as leverage in bilateral relations, and we have to call it out for what it is. We must grow, as we say, a spine, right, in dealing with this problem and call out the perpetrators when it happens, and do that in a unified way, otherwise, you know, I believe, and I think Carla can speak to this even better than I can, that the essence or the value of our citizenship will decline.

As governments do this more and more often, the dozens of cases that are happening right now will grow to hundreds of cases, and when they grow to hundreds of cases, they’ll grow to thousands of cases. At what point is the tipping point where a government says, “You know what? You’re on your own when you leave the borders of your own country. There’s nothing that we can do for you if you find yourself in trouble when you’re abroad.” And I think that that is a very real concern and one that quietly partner governments are thinking about internally, I just think it’s well past time that they get together and start cultivating a response system collectively.

Rachel Briggs OBE

That’s great, thank you, and, you know, so many things I’d like to come back to there. I mean, you make a very important point, which is that, while many of us would call for international co-ordination on this, that might mean, you know, sort of, no pain no gain, you know. It might be painful for a few years to all stand united together and make no exceptions and, you know, form a human chain around this issue, but – and, you know, at what point are governments going to be willing to, kind of, take that leap?

Jason Rezaian

Well, I think that, you know, you spoke about the Canadian Foreign Ministry’s declaration and the willingness of other countries to sign onto that, that’s a very good first step. But as we all know declarations don’t have teeth, right, so there needs to be follow-on work, follow-on consultations from government-to-government, and to decide how will we make that human bridge and guarantee to one another that we aren’t going to let down our guard just because, you know, a weapons deal with Saudi Arabia or Egypt or China is too important to us collectively. And I think there have been instances of this in the past, and it’s really a matter of our values as democracies, as free societies, and if we do not value the government’s role in protecting the rights of citizens, I’m not sure what the meaning of citizenship is.

Rachel Briggs OBE

And that’s right, I mean, there are huge, sort of, much bigger, sort of, implications of this crime. And just one final end, you know, this is, sort of, mean to ask you this ‘cause it’s such a big question, and this could take days, but why is this growing? I mean, it certainly is. I mean, I can tell you from my own caseload over the last ten years, it absolutely is, and it’s springing up in more and more countries. You know, it used to just be typical one or two countries, but what are your, sort of, thoughts about why? Why now, why, over the last five to ten years, do you think?

Jason Rezaian

So, you know, the United States, in particular, has always claimed to have a no concessions policy, and Joel Simon, who you know, who’s written on this subject quite extensively, did the research on it and, you know, when the no concessions policy is adhered to, people don’t come home alive. When hostages come home alive, there are concessions that are made.

To me, I look at this problem and I have two priorities. One, the immediate priority is the safe and speedy return of hostages who are being held wherever they are around the world. Two, of equal importance but, you know, much more of a long-term problem, how do we deter it? And I think that the conventional thinking among states people, policymakers, lawmakers in different countries has always been these two goals are mutually exclusive of one another. I don’t think that that has to be the case, but you have to have a very, kind of, flexible view that you are willing to do whatever it takes to bring people home, at the same time the deterrents have to be strong enough that other countries won’t continue to take part in the activity. But I think that the legal gap, and I hope that Carla can speak to this more, is one that is more, especially here in the United States, we actually have laws to prosecute these cases, we can take governments to court.

I took the Iranian Government to court and won. I had to appear and testify, and I had expert witnesses, and, you know, a Judge in Federal Court, here in the United States, agreed that I had been held hostage by a foreign state and that’s an act of terrorism. We have to enforce these things, right, and so far I think that foreign governments have made the calculations that the teeth that might be available to prosecute these crimes aren’t being used and in the meantime, we are reaping benefits from doing this, you know, whether it’s a cash concession, a political concession, or the freeing of criminals being held in our own justice systems, in exchange for the release of innocents abroad.

So, you know, I think that the very short answer to that question is, the hostage-takers believe that there’s still benefit in it, and, you know, as long as that’s the case, as long as they think that they’re going to get more from it than they’re going to lose from it, they’re going to keep doing it. It’s really I don’t think much more complicated than that.

Rachel Briggs OBE

Yeah, thank you. Well, you’ve done my job for me and bridged very nicely to Carla, thank you for that. So, Carla, I mean, help us understand the legal setting here. It seems to me that it’s, of all of the types of hostage cases that one has to deal with, this is the one where actually the legal setting, as Jason said, has a really special role to play. Can you help us to understand what’s there, what tools do we have, what’s missing, and what role, what unique role does the law and some of those international policies play in state hostage-taking?

Dr Carla Ferstman

Thank you, Rachel, and so nice to share a panel with yourself and Jason. And I think when we look at what the legal framework is, it’s important to take a step back and to see what is different about state and other hostage-taking, which puts it outside the realm of other cases, because in a way that shows the specificity or the needs for the legal system. So, in the first case, or many of these cases, there’s a doublespeak, it’s a false narrative. So persons are being accused of crimes, they’re being put through criminal trials, and Jason has referred to this already, and the governments of nationality are very used to dealing with nationals who are detained abroad, and there’s a standard approach to it, which is a Consular visit, giving names of Lawyers, and maybe, perhaps maybe monitoring the trial, but nothing more, because governments are very careful not to engage with the voracity of another state’s legal system, they want to keep those boundaries. So, here, it’s quite obvious that there’s a doublespeak and there’s a false narrative, but it takes a long time for the government of nationality to acknowledge that, and that could mean six months, a year, plus, when the government of nationality is pursuing a false narrative and the families are like, “Well, what’s going on? We don’t want just a Consular visit, this isn’t a criminal case, this is a very particular context.”

So, that’s one thing, and the other thing is that it’s not even a normal criminal case, from the perspective of the families. If it were, and let’s say it was a drug case or something like that, the families would hope to maybe be able to hire Lawyers, prepare a defence, this would be within their capacity, at least in principle. In the hostage-taking situation, it’s not a two-way relationship between the detainee and their family and the detaining state authority, it’s a three-way relationship where the detainee and the family are pawns and the real dialogue is between the state doing the detaining and the other state of nationality. So, there is a loss of autonomy for the family because of the way the relationship becomes a triple relationship and there are those power holds in that. And they are thus reliant on their state of nationality, but the state of nationality has its own agenda. So, these two ways of thinking about this really impact on how the legal system works and why it has so many doubts.

From a terminology point of view, there’s a need to recognise the practice for what it is. It’s important to the people going through it to have an appropriate label that doesn’t underplay what they’re experiencing. But it also helps to address this issue of false narratives and the slander, the innuendo that these individuals and their families could face in the media and with governments. But I would say, with respect to this as well, that there needs to additionally be a framework for action. So, at the heart about this, this is about getting the detainees released and back home, but it’s also about criminal liability, civil liability, sanctions and state responsibility. So, there are certain tools. You have the Hostage-Taking Convention, which does not exclude hostage-taking by a state, but it’s not a clear or easy fit. It doesn’t deal with dual nationals very well, because there’s a provision in the Hostage-Taking Convention, which says that the Convention does not apply to purely national events. But of course we can argue that it isn’t a purely national event that the fact that you have dual nationals, for instance, broadens it, but it’s a debate. The law is, I would say, fluid.

Also, the remedies are purely individual focused, so, one thinks of hostage-taking as an act which incurs individual criminal responsibility, but there’s less recognition of state responsibility, and this underplays and doesn’t deal with the importance of the state narrative, which I think is really important.

With respect to the Canadian declaration, I think it’s so important for, firstly, dealing with the narrative, it clarifies the practice, it puts into words what the practice is. Even though it doesn’t refer to hostage-taking, it still clarifies this practice of state-sponsored arbitrary detention, which is really important. It also brings out the state-sanctioned dimension to show that this isn’t a situation of individuals who are simply acting and like a kidnapping. It also recognises the international dimension, in terms of recognising the impact of the practice on peace and security, which in international relations, when Security Council speak, it’s quite powerful, that the act of state-sponsored arbitrary detention can involve international peace and security is a really important statement.

Additionally, what it does is it creates a space for joined up actions between countries, which has been sorely missing, and this is something that Jason has already referred to, and the importance of states acting cohesively in unison. It hasn’t happened up until now much, and there’s a real need for it, and in many ways, this has been pushed by the families coming together. The families are much more unified. It kind of pushes, to a certain extent, the space to be. So, just to come back on the legal points, you do have also a gap in relation to families feeling left out of the picture, which you can also look at from a legal point of view, in terms of what are the possibilities for a family to ensure that they know what’s going on?

Domestically, in different countries, including the UK, but also the US, there is growing recognition of the victims’ declarations, Ombudspersons, which deal with victims’ rights in a variety of different contexts, all of that about victims’ right to be informed, to be kept abreast of what’s going on, and those types of principles should feed into this hostage-taking process. And in a way, in terms of the operationalisation of the Canadian declaration, that is perhaps one area where some good practice can be developed, also in the area of what kind of joined up actions can be taken.

Why is there no instance when state representatives are monitoring trials? So, for instance, when Nazanin had her retrial in Tehran, why was there not a delegation of countries going to monitor her trial? How powerful would that be? And it’s something which is really important, it’s – and that show of solidarity is an important aspect of the process, which shouldn’t be under – which should be underscored for sure. And maybe I’ll stop there, Rachel.

Rachel Briggs OBE

That’s great, thank you so much. One of the – I think one of the key challenges I’ve seen in these cases, which is the most basic problem in policy terms actually, and it’s one of the most basic problems in terms of coming up with a solution, and I think you touched on this, is that this is the ultimate accountability gap. This is the area of policy with the ultimate accountability gap. I mean, we have no data on how many. I mean, great people like yourself are busy gathering together informally datasets. I was – I mean, I was just, sort of, shocked to read a Foreign Office Minister saying to Parliament recently, when asked how many British nationals are being held in Iran currently? He said, and I quote, “We do not confirm how many dual nationals are detained as due to the small numbers, doing so may result in individuals being easily identified.”

How that’s possible in a country of 65/70 million people, I don’t know, but the fact remains that governments are not publishing the data on how many of their citizens or dual nationals are being held. As you say, there is no charter for what families can expect, what kind of information they should get, how involved they should be, whether they should be able to anticipate that their government will go to the court hearings, or make, you know, demand Consular visits, whether they get them or not is quite another matter. But it’s just this, sort of, accountability vacuum, which the optimist in me says is a, sort of, an accident of the situation, rather than a manufactured, sort of, position to be in. But do you see, and I’ll just ask you this, Carla, before we move to questions, and I notice there are some in the Q&A box, so please keep popping them in there please, do you see a legal response to that? Is there anything we could do legally to mandate governments to get their houses in order, in terms of those responsibilities and measurement, and so on and so forth? Is this a policy challenge?

The US Government has enacted the Levinson Act, which, for instance, does require the agencies to report to Congress on an annual basis on how many. Currently, it will be naming names as well, whether that will happen, I don’t know, but do you think the law can play a role? Do you think this is a policy? Do you think this is one of the outcomes we should hope to see from the Canadian declaration? Can you see us making any progress on that accountability gap any time soon?

Dr Carla Ferstman

Thank you, Rachel, it’s a really important question. I think from the UK perspective, part of the reason for the accountability gap is the reluctance of the courts to look behind areas of government practice, which rely on discretion. So, because the types of actions that a government needs to take their certain discretion, both in terms of what measure to take, whether it’s appropriate, when to take it, courts have a natural reluctance to get involved and to force a government’s hands and say do this or that.

That, I think, is understandable, from a variety of perspectives, but to force a government to explain what it’s done and to justify, there I think you can have a lot more movement, and to have a more intelligent relationship between the political and the legal. Right now, we can think of it as a scale where we’re far too one-sided. We’re giving ultimate discretion to governments about whether to follow-up on these cases and how to follow-up on these cases, where there needs to be a much more balanced approach. So, that’s basically what I would say, with respect to this issue about accountability on the side of the governments of nationality.

In terms of the accountability for the acts of hostage-taking, there you have a significant challenge. In terms of criminal accountability, one is relying on certain persons who travel outside of the country and for the state to sanction hostage-taking scenario, getting the criminal law framework to address the different layers of how different people interacted is quite complicated, though it’s not impossible. So, I think we have some gaps there. They’re not insurmountable and they’re not things that cannot be improved on either, so I think there’s a lot of work to be done.

Rachel Briggs OBE

There is certainly a lot of work to be done, there’s an understatement of the day. Jason, I know you wanted to come in on this question as well, thank you.

Jason Rezaian

Yeah, I just wanted to add, you mentioned the Levinson Act, I think that it is a really good model for others, because what it really does is clarify for the Executive Branch what US law now considers to be a wrongful detention, right? And so, you know, there’s an 11 point checklist and if you click any of those boxes, you know, the State Department’s Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs becomes the point person on that case. As we talked about earlier, traditionally, you know, it’s a country office that has to deal with it, it becomes a Consular matter that might take months or years to get dealt with, the Hostage Envoy Office is, as you know, more proactive about these things, because there is a presumption that the person is being held unjustly.

The other thing that it does is that, as I understand it, even though it doesn’t call state hostage-taking state hostage-taking, it puts the more traditional forms of hostage-taking and state hostage-taking on equal grounds, in terms of the lawlessness of it, and I think that that’s a really major and important step that other governments should and can follow.

Rachel Briggs OBE

That’s great, thank you, and I have to say, having spent five years living in the US, 2015 to 2020, I’ve never seen a government move so fast on any area of policy., I think I’m going to stick my neck out and say that, than I’ve seen the US Government, under both of the last two administrations. I’ve never seen one move so fast on an area of policy, it’s quite extraordinary, and actually, I think you mentioned this, Carla, the level of activism in the US around this issue is quite extraordinary and something I think we can all learn from.

Now, talking of involvement, I’ve got some fantastic questions here, all of which of course I, as Chair, had forgotten to think to ask you both. But luckily, we’ve got some smart people in the audience, so I’m going to – forgive me if I – I’m, sort of, trying to squint and read stuff at the same time as Chair, so this is a great question, so – and I’ll paraphrase slightly, but “In the cases of Brits being held in Iran, the UK Government has been criticised for not, I quote, “doing enough.” The FCDO confirmed, in many instances, that it is raising the issue on the highest level with Iranian counterparts at every possible occasion. What more do you think can be done, and does the media and international pressure help or hinder efforts of releasing dual nationals?” And that is an excellent question. I know, and I remember at the time, because I met your brother, Ali, when he was kicking up a fuss about your – about you being held, Jason, quite rightly. What do you think – I mean, there’s two parts to this, what more can be done, but also, I think, an important part of the question here is about the role of publicity and what impact that has?

Jason Rezaian

So, you know, what more can be done? I mean, I think that in the context right now of, you know, Iran’s desire and the P5+1’s desire to get back into the nuclear agreement with Iran, I think this issue should have been much more at the forefront of private negotiations between the UK and Iranian Government over the last four years. I know that it’s been part of the discussion, but I think that the UK Government wields, you know, a much better hand of cards than it’s been playing. So, you know, I think that there should be demands on these people’s releases and obviously the folks that live on that side of the pond know much better than me the conversation about the Iranian frozen assets in the UK and the connection between that and trying to release dual nationals.

The other thing that I would say, on the media front, I firmly believe that once a government, especially Iran’s because it’s the most egregious actor on this issue, once they’ve made a case known publicly, there’s no putting that genie back in the bottle and we should be doing as much as we can to publicly advocate and agitate for the release of our fellow citizen abroad.

I’ve been very disappointed that the campaign, especially around Nazanin, which has reached such a high level in the public consciousness there, has not succeeded in shaking her from the tree, as we would say. And I think unfortunately, and I think it’s something that you alluded to earlier, you know, I worry that in the UK and other countries that are dealing with this, people who hold dual nationality of the country that they’re being held by, are somehow considered lesser Britons, or lesser Germans, or lesser Americans. And, again, going back to my original point about the value of our citizenship, we don’t partialize, there’s no second tier citizenship. The idea that you have two citizenships or you’re naturalised in a country, well, you know, there’s another Brit right now who we don’t hear about as much, who is Morad Tahbaz, a UK-born citizen of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Iran, and he’s been sitting in prison for three years. He’s no less British than you are, right, and I think that that’s a big part of the conversation that needs to be addressed. But, you know, overall, I think media attention never hurts and that certainly was the reality in my case.

Rachel Briggs OBE

Thank you. Carla, I’m going to – you might want to pick up some of that as well, you might have something to add on this dual nationality point, which I think is a real sticking point, or you may not. But I think this question might be particularly poignant for you, given your background, and it’s an excellent question. It says, and I’m going to mispronounce this, so forgive me, it says, “Have there been any consequences from Lukashenko’s kidnapping of Roman” – the campaigner, I’m not even going to try it, because I‘ll mess it up, “the campaigner who was taken from the aeroplane that was grounded? This is a wider context than just an individual being taken, but the security of airlines, for example.” Any reflections on that? I think we were all pretty shocked to see a commercial airliner being diverted away from where it was supposed to land. Could you give any reflections on that case and its implications, Carla?

Dr Carla Ferstman

Unfortunately, I’m not – and I don’t have details on the impacts on that case, but I can say that it’s certainly not the only instance that I know of where persons were taken off planes, or from international airports. And there is a case relating to Ethiopia, which thankfully has been resolved, where a person was taken out of an international airport and brought into this kind of scenario. So, I think it’s something which needs to be addressed, and perhaps Jason heard something on the actual facts of that case.

Rachel Briggs OBE

Well, we’ve got just so many fantastic questions, maybe I’ll push on, if that’s okay. We’ve got a question here from Isobel Hilton, who asks, “In the case of the two Canadian Michaels detained in China, in theory, the Canadian Minister of Justice has the constitutional right to intervene in any extradition case for any reason. Would you recommend that he do so in the Meng case to secure the release of the Michaels? What are the arguments either way?” Would that be one for you, Carla?

Dr Carla Ferstman

In terms of the intervention, I would say absolutely, and governments need to be taking all possible steps to secure the release of their nationals, because at the end of the day, we have to remember that the criminal side of these cases is a false narrative. So, I think that’s where I would go with that. We have to keep remembering that it’s a false narrative, the criminal side of the case, and therefore stronger political responses are always going to be appropriate.

Rachel Briggs OBE

Thank you. I’ve got a question here from somebody who used to be my boss, so if I don’t ask it, I might get in trouble retrospectively. Amy Manson says, “The ideal model is that the aggressor government is pushed to engage with other states who call them to task. Sadly, some of the longest and most complex cases involved governments that are not recognised or are not legitimate. What tools do we have to bring to bear in places like Afghanistan and Venezuela to bring wrongful detainees home?” Jason, do you have any thoughts on that? And I wonder if I might also just ask you to pick up Afghanistan, you know, is the elephant in almost every room at the moment, right, maybe if you pick that up, but also thoughts on how this, the Afghan situation, can change, state hostage-takers can have an impact in the region?

Jason Rezaian

But, I mean, yeah, I think it’s certainly going to have an impact and it’s a good question, Amy, I think, you know, whether or not one government recognises another, if it’s recognised by the United Nations, I think that that should kind of be the guiding light there. But in the case of Afghanistan, I think it’s going to change the equation dramatically. The Taliban, as a group, has a long history of hostage-taking, you know, they – we haven’t seen them do that that we know of so far in the last few weeks since they’ve taken over Afghanistan. But I think, as time goes on, we’re going to have to address this, because part of what we also see is that you have, kind of, copycats, regionally, right? You know, Iran is – has been doing this, as a state, for 42 years, it’s not a coincidence that most of the other countries around it are more heavily involved than countries in different parts of the world. So, you know, I think we have to watch the Afghanistan space very closely.

Afghanistan is a country with, you know, limited international resources at this point, and a lot of them are frozen abroad. I’m not somebody who believes in collective punishment for the citizens of an impoverished nation, like Afghanistan’s been going through wars for decades. That being said, I think we have to look long and hard about, you know, how we manage the relationship with the new Afghan Government, and this particular issue should be one where there’s zero tolerance.

Rachel Briggs OBE

Yeah, it’s definitely a case of watch this space, isn’t it? I mean, the repercussions in all sorts of areas are extraordinary, but I do fear that it will have an impact both on state hostage-taking and also non-state hostage-taking, as well, in the future.

I’m going to – conscious of time, I’m going to ask you both – I’m an optimist and I have this feeling that this might be a very difficult and a very big nut to crack, but human beings have dealt with worse and I think we have to have a mindset that we can solve this problem, and so I’m going to ask you, in just like one minute, 30 seconds, one minute, but tell me, each of you, what are you hopeful about, and what do you think we should do next?

Jason Rezaian

Carla, I’ll let you go first.

Dr Carla Ferstman

Thank you. I am most hopeful about solidarity, both solidarity on the side of the hostages and their families, which has been really important, I think, not only in terms of the strategizing, but at the very basic human level, in terms of psychology, how to deal with the vulnerability and the very difficult personal consequences of this, for both the individuals and their families. That I’m really hopeful that it will lead to really important good things, but also, solidarity on the side of the states. So, the fact that the Canadian initiative has 60 signatories is quite amazing. It would be really important for the next step of that to have, and this goes into what needs to happen, one needs to have action, so joint action, and that can be at the political level, it can be at the very practical level, and I think figuring out good tools, ways of intervening, where there are more than one state involved, can diffuse some of the high-level politics and make things a little bit more smoother, in terms of actively moving forward.

I also think that the UN needs to be brought more onboard formally on the issue, you know, both in terms of peace and security, as I’ve mentioned before, and in terms of that link between this policy and peace and security. But also looking at it and in terms of its long-term effect on stability in different regions, I think it’s really important. But also, regional government briefings can equally be more involved. On the legal side, I would say there needs to be more work in looking at how to complement the Hostage-Taking Convention, whether it’s going to be a protocol or something of that nature, that’s a longer-term project perhaps, and would be a very difficult project, but I do think that there is a need to deal with this issue more specifically, as opposed to tangential as currently.

Rachel Briggs OBE

That sounds to me like a blueprint, I love it, or a roadmap, it’s one of the two, or both. Jason.

Jason Rezaian

I want to echo a lot of what Carla said. One thing I will say also, you know, in speaking about the United Nations, I saw in the questions, somebody had a question about the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, you know, that is an important office that a lot of people have never heard of. And in most of our cases that is, sort of, the foundation, the finding of the working group that we were being arbitrarily detained is an important document in almost all of our legal cases against governments that took us hostage. So, I want to say to the folks involved with that organisation, that office, to keep going, but also, you know, I hope that governments work more closely with that office to streamline the process of getting these decisions more quickly, and really, kind of, creating more of a presence around the work that they do, because it’s very critical to the matter.

I would say that I’m also hopeful about the solidarity. You know, when I was being held in 2014 and 2015, my brother was leading the advocacy campaign for me, the siblings of another American, two other Americans, were leading advocacy campaigns for their brothers, another man, Bob Levinson, who this Act is named after, is the longest held hostage in American history, now we believe – our government believes that he died in custody, his family was advocating for the return of Bob, and they were working not at cross purposes, but independently of each other.

There was this idea that there is, kind of, a competition for the government’s bandwidth on these cases, and I think that in co-ordination with other returning hostages, and Richard and other families who are dealing with this, we’ve kind of cracked that idea open and are rebuilding with a collective approach to dealing with the problem. And I think that it’s paying dividends and I think that there’s more of a solidarity now between the families and, at least here in the US, and with the government, right, the government is much more involved in sharing information with families.

You and I have talked about this before, you know, the gentleman that handles special cases at the Foreign Office, you know, his attitude, as far as I could tell, was always, you know, family is your partner in this, right? You shouldn’t freeze them out of the process, you shouldn’t keep it – of course, classified and sensitive information needs to be handled very clearly, but the last thing that a family member is going to do is divulge information publicly that might hurt their loved one. And so, I think that there’s this building of trust between victims, families, and the United States Government that the government does give a damn, that they are going to try and solve these problems, and that they’re going to be honest about their successes and failures, and I hope that that’s something that we can build off of, work together collectively to put an end to the problem. It’s not going to happen this year, but I think it can happen in our lifetime.

Rachel Briggs OBE

Thank you so much, and I think you’re right, and I think the watchword here is solidarity and coalition, isn’t it, and we have both the efforts of families that have forged those partnerships in the most difficult of times. We have 60 plus governments that are saying, “Okay, we’re now ready to start working together, and publicly, and, you know, that’s part of what this event, and our next event, and we hope more at Chatham House, will be part of doing is being part of creating that, sort of, coalition of the willing and the coalition of folks who are ready to roll their sleeves up and put a stop to this. And I would say this is really a call to action to all of you on this call, which is if you want to join that, I mean, you’re probably – may well be part of it already, but if you’re not and you want to be part of trying to push this forward and make some progress and bring some change, then please reach out to me via Chatham House, and there is a lot of space at our table and we would very much like you to sit around it with us.

I am going to close in just one minute, but before I do I wanted to say thank you to the speakers, to Jason and Carla, I can’t think of folks better placed to deal with such a breadth of issues during the last hour, and thank you for your dedication and commitment to this all-important issue, my hat goes off to you. So, thank you to you both. Thank you to Chatham House for hosting this, it’s really important that we have this conversation and we continue to, so I thank Chatham House for graciously hosting us. And as I said at the start to Richard for, as Jason said, for, you know, being part of bringing us altogether and for being the spearhead for this event.

Just a few final things, the video for this event will become available, so expect that and be able to access it. if you’re struggling to access, get in touch and we’ll find a way to get that to you. As I mentioned, the further reading, or rather further listening, after this event should really be Jason’s podcast, which drops on Spotify on the 28th of September, and I think you’ll find it the natural progression, because he goes through his case, but from the point of view of all of the people who were responsible for getting him back. So, all of those difficulties and challenges and tough situations we’ve been talking about, he goes and talks to the folks within the State Department, within agencies, and so on, who had the job of solving those problems, to get him home, and I can’t wait to listen to it, so watch out for that.

We’ll have a second event at Chatham House on the 14th of October on-state hostage-taking, so please do sign up and join up for that, and please do check out the really fantastic work of my colleagues here at Chatham House, particularly on our Middle East and North Africa Programme, and particularly my colleague, Sanam Vakil, who does fantastic work in that programme, including on Iran. Jason mentioned Joel Simon, who is currently heading up the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the book that he referenced was called We Want to Negotiate, and it’s one of the best descriptions of that whole process and the policy challenges that I’ve ever seen, so if you’re interested, go take a look at that.

On the note of solidarity and hope, thank you once again for joining us, and look forward to hopefully seeing you all in October for our next discussion. Thank you.