As with his political career in elected and appointed positions, it wouldn’t be accurate to say Richardson was universally admired, or even appreciated, among those consumed by this urgent work. Passions rightly run high on these issues, and wrong steps can have life-or-death consequences. With so much at stake, of course people disagree on strategies and the best answers to hard choices.
Many in government felt that Richardson sometimes overstepped during his travels and other efforts to free detainees held in North Korea, Myanmar, Iran, Cuba, Russia and other places. Some have told me they believe he even complicated several cases. But there can be no debate about the role that Richardson played in the release of dozens of Americans held abroad.
“There was no person that Governor Richardson would not speak with if it held the promise of returning a person to freedom,” Mickey Bergman, vice president of the Richardson Center and Richardson’s longtime collaborator on hostage cases, said in a statement Saturday. “The world has lost a champion for those held unjustly abroad.”
I can’t speak to Richardson’s broader career, but I know this part of his life’s work well. I first met him at a gathering he organized at FBI headquarters in Washington to discuss the challenges posed by Iranian hostage-taking. He brought together a group of law-enforcement officials, former members of Congress, current staffers, former hostages and others with unique perspectives on the phenomenon.
What I found groundbreaking, and frankly refreshing, about Richardson’s approach was his singular focus on the core problem — freeing American hostages. That allowed him to put aside counterproductive moral judgments. Of course, the regimes in Tehran, Moscow, Beijing and Caracas were to blame. Why waste time discussing that when the priority is the life of a fellow citizen?
As the number of Americans being taken hostage continues to increase, so much of the debate about what to do is focused on whether we should negotiate for their release. Those opposed to making concessions say that offering anything in return for an innocent person’s freedom only incentivizes further hostage taking.
Richardson understood the problem with that stance sooner than anyone else: While a no-concessions policy for hostage taking may be fine as a political position, it further victimizes innocent hostages and risks leaving them to die or languish in foreign prisons for years.
That was simply unacceptable to Bill Richardson — full stop. The void he leaves behind will be hard to fill.
Credit: Source link
