Hammer's work in discourse analysis, conflict aids in Unabomber case, Peru hostage negotiations

1997 will be a year that Mitch Hammer remembers for a long time. Hammer, a communication faculty member in the School of International Service at American University found himself in the middle of two of the years biggest news stories. In both cases, Hammer found his research paying off with solutions to practical problems.

Hammers work has focused increasingly on hostage negotiations, and he has consulted with the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies on issues relating to negotiations generally and ongoing negotiations specifically. Thus, it was not a surprise that he would be contacted by Clint van Zant, a retired F.B.I. behavioral specialist; Hammer had worked with van Zant on other occasions.

This time, however, van Zant had something special: two letters that might have been written by the Unabomber. These letters, written by Theodore Kaczynski, had been forwarded to van Zant by David Kaczynski, Theodores brother. David Kaczynski had found the letters while cleaning out his mothers belongings, and he was disturbed by their similarity to press reports of the Unabombers style. Kaczynski contacted van Zant in hopes that he could put his fears to rest.

In turn, van Zant assigned analysis to Hammer and his research partner, Randy Rogan, Wake Forest University, and a second, independent team. Hammer and Rogan had developed a profile of the Unabombers communication style from an analysis of the manifesto that had been published by the New York Times and the Washington Post. They took the letters and compared the style features they found there to their profile. After doing so, they reported to van Zant that they were 80% confident that the letters were written by the person who wrote the manifesto. The other team reported a similar result, with a lower level of confidence. After van Zant reported both teams findings to David Kaczynski, Kaczynski agreed to forward the letters to the F.B.I. And the rest of the tale is well known.

Hammer had an opportunity to work on another high-profile episode when Hunter Hale, of the Foundation for International Dispute Resolution, contacted him. Hale had been approached by representatives of the Japanese government for advice on how to handle the hostage negotiations resulting from the Tupac Amaru rebels takeover of the Japanese embassy in Peru. Knowing that Hammer had advised on ongoing hostage negotiation situations in the past, Hale asked him to provide an analysis of the situation and recommendations for action by the Japanese government.

Hammers analysis indicated that the negotiations had been conducted in a manner similar to diplomatic negotiations up to that point. He reasoned that such an approach would be counter-productive, because it would allow the rebels to feel as though they had the status of a foreign government, which was the exact opposite of what was desired. Being treated like a government only would encourage the rebels to hold out until they achieved their demands, Hammer argued. He pushed for treating the situation more like a hostage negotiation, where the official position would be that accession to the demands was impossible but where attempts would be made to develop personal relationships with the hostage-takers as well.

After consideration, the Japanese government pressed for more direct involvement in the negotiations. They were convinced that Hammers plan would work. The Peruvian government suddenly ended the stalemate through a risky, though mostly successful invasion of the compound, however, and Hammers plan was not implemented fully.

Hammer believes that, as a result of his work on these two high-profile cases, his years of building and testing theoretical frameworks for crisis communication is paying off. In fact, he is in the process of working with the Secret Service on means by which threats against the lives of the president and other government officials can be assessed as to the level of seriousness.

Hammer and Rogans work is explained in more detail in their edited volume, Dynamic Process of Crisis Negotiation: Theory, Research and Practice (1997, Greenwood Press).