Beyond Reach

The anguish and frustration that is felt by the three Americans being held hostage in Lebanon and by their families commands sympathy, but along with compassion realism is also called for. The hostages themselves, through a videotape supplied by their captors, ask why their government isn’t doing more to win them freedom. Citing the Reagan Administration’s efforts to obtain the release from Soviet captivity of American newsman Nicholas Daniloff, the hostages demand to know why equal efforts can’t be exerted in their behalf. The dissimilarity of the two situations provides the unhappy answer.

Daniloff could be traded for, first because he was held by a sovereign government that was eager to negotiate, and second because the United States had ready trading material in the person of a Soviet spy arrested in New York. These conditions don’t exist in the Lebanon case. The kidnapers, who are known only by an organizational name, demand the release of 17 persons jailed in Kuwait for bombing plots against the U.S. and French embassies. The same condition is set for the release of nine Frenchmen held captive in Lebanon. Kuwait has always said no to any trade. On its part, the United States is right to refuse to sanction a swap that could only encourage further terrorism and hostage-taking.

Syria, whose army controls Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley where the hostages are believed held by a pro-Iranian group, has repeatedly been asked to help. No help has been given, in part because Syria has seen no reason to do the United States any favors, in part because the Damascus regime, which is in deep economic trouble, doesn’t want to risk losing the cheap oil that Iran supplies it with. With its military power in the area Syria could easily, if it wanted, inhibit if not largely stamp out the pro-Iran Lebanese forces. Its refusal to act underscores again that responsibility for the ordeal of the hostages rests far more with Damascus than Washington.