ad info

TIME Asia Home
Current Issue
Magazine Archive
Asia Buzz
Travel Watch
Web Features
  Photo Essays

Subscribe to TIME
Customer Services
About Us
Write to TIME Asia
TIME Canada
TIME Europe
TIME Pacific
TIME Digital
Latest CNN News

Young China
Olympics 2000
On The Road

  east asia
  southeast asia
  south asia
  central asia

Other News
From TIME Asia

Culture on Demand: Black is Beautiful
The American Express black card is the ultimate status symbol

Asia Buzz: Should the Net Be Free?
Web heads want it all -- for nothing

JAPAN: Failed Revolution
Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori clings to power as dissidents in his party finally decide not to back a no-confidence motion

Cover: Endgame?
After Florida's controversial ballot recount, Bush holds a 537-vote lead in the state, which could give him the election

TIME Digest

TIME Asia Services
Subscribe to TIME! Get up to 3 MONTHS FREE!

Bookmark TIME
TIME Media Kit
Recent awards

TIME AsiaAsiaweekAsia Now TIME Asia story

FEBRUARY 21, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 7

Destination Unknown
The hijack of an Afghan airliner ends in an anticlimax outside London. Now what was that all about?

Dave Caulkin/AP

Few crimes have such strict conventions as an airplane hijack. There must be an aircraft, a plan to divert it and hijackers willing to risk their lives and those of innocents. All three elements were present in last week's takeover of a Boeing 727 owned by Ariana Afghan Airlines, Afghanistan's state carrier. Skipping its original destination of Mazar-i-Sharif in northern Afghanistan, the plane hopped to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Moscow and finally ended up at Stansted Airport outside London. Some of the original 188 passengers and crew were released along the way, but negotiations at Stansted dragged on for three days. It was all familiar, frightening stuff.

At the end of the tale, though, the most rigid convention of all was broken. When a hijacking concludes, the hostages go one way--with luck, home to their loved ones--and the hijackers another, to the morgue, to jail or into negotiated exile. But at Stansted last week, local police ushered people off the plane not sure how many of the passengers were in sympathy or actively complicit with the hijackers--or whether the theft of the aircraft had no purpose other than transporting a large number of Afghans to a freer, richer country. An early theory that the hijackers wanted the release of a jailed opposition leader in Afghanistan proved erroneous. A later report that a wedding party with connections to the hijackers had boarded the plane, possibly with weapons concealed beneath the female members' all-encompassing robes, gained credence. Late last week, British authorities said they had dealt with eight hijackers during the negotiations, but they arrested 22 of the passengers on preliminary charges--suggesting that the hijackers had accomplices aboard. The most likely theory: that instead of heading for a wedding in Mazar-i-Sharif, a group of passengers from the Afghan capital of Kabul hoped that tickets on Ariana could be parleyed into political asylum in Britain. "Kabul is a hell," says Masood Khalili, a former Afghan diplomat now in exile in New Delhi. "Everybody wants to escape. We can't call this a hijacking. We have to find another name."

A flight to freedom? A scam? The average Afghan probably sees a little of both and is admiring to the point of envy. "Instead of spending $15,000 to $20,000 to try and reach some Western country," says Badam Gul Jaji, an Afghan refugee in Pakistan, "the hijackers found a much cheaper and quicker way to land in London." In fact, when the drama was over, 74 of the passengers immediately applied for asylum, though British authorities couldn't say whether they were innocent hostages or passengers in on the game. The real risk for Britain is that the Ariana incident will give it a reputation for being soft on asylum seekers, even those who devise a major criminal conspiracy to get there. Refugees granted asylum in Britain are eligible for monthly benefits of $240, and more than 102,000 applications are in the backlog. In 1996, six Iraqis were arrested after hijacking a plane to Stansted, but their conviction was overturned on appeal by a judge who compared their plight to Anne Frank's during World War II. They're now in the asylum queue, and the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair is taking heat. His spokesman said last week: "Clearly you cannot have a situation where a signal can be sent to anybody that the way to get asylum is through hijacking a plane." Human rights groups, meanwhile, say the Afghans should be considered refugees escaping an intolerable regime. "A hijacking is a hostage-taking and a human rights abuse and must be condemned," says Amnesty International spokesman Richard Bunting. "But the human rights situation in Afghanistan is extremely serious, and the passengers have the right to have their asylum applications assessed individually."

Cover: What's Eating Leonardo DiCaprio?
Pummeled by his Titanic fame, the painfully self-aware teen heartthrob Leo DiCaprio works hardest at not giving away too much of himself off-screen
The Beach Boy: Leonardo, usually the one who needs rescuing, can't save The Beach
The Real Beach: On the islands off southern Thailand, the idea is to get lost
The Leo Factor: In this Web-only interview, Director Danny Boyle muses on filming The Beach with sun, sand and a superstar

Japan: Getting Away With It
Obuchi's survival skills rescue him yet again. Too bad they can't do that for the economy
Going Boldly Where No Woman Has Gone Before: Osaka's new governor breaks the mold

India: 'His Principle of Peace Was Bogus'
In this extended online interview, Gopal Godse, co-conspirator in Gandhi's assassination and brother of the assassin, looks back in anger--and without regret

Afghanistan: Destination Unknown
The hijack of an Afghan airliner ends in an anticlimax outside London. Now what was that all about?

Web-only Interview: 'We Are Against Terrorism'
Taliban supreme leader Mullah Muhammed Omar

Afghan airliner hijacking over, British police say

Airline head says hijacking may be mass asylum bid

Breaking news from Central Asia

Even if the hijacking is considered kindly, it's a miracle that the plane and its human cargo made it to London unscathed. (The only minor injury was to a flight attendant who, having apparently angered the hijackers, was kicked down the plane's rear stairs to freedom.) Shortly after taking off from Kabul for Mazar-i-Sharif, normally a 40-minute flight, the 727 was reported missing. Just over an hour later it landed in Tashkent, capital of Uzbekistan, where it traded 10 passengers for fuel and food. A Moscow newspaper reported that Uzbek anti-terrorist troopers were itching to storm the aircraft but were pulled back by their government. After the plane took off, a fuel tank sprung a leak and the 727 was forced to land for repairs in Aktyubinsk, Kazakhstan. Three more hostages were released and technicians did their best to fix the plane, but they later told journalists it was barely fit to fly. Ariana owns three aging 727s and a handful of Russian-built Antonov-24s. Servicing for all the planes used to be done in the Middle East: Afghanistan doesn't have the expertise. But that was stopped when U.N. sanctions were imposed last November.

Next stop was Moscow, where the plane was directed to a section of Sheremetyevo airport reserved for the training of Russia's anti-terrorist squads. But authorities decided against a commando raid, instead refueling the plane and giving food in return for the release of 10 more hostages. Four hours later, it landed at Stansted, a commercial airport 50 km northeast of London.

Though Britain is a logical destination for hijackers seeking asylum, it is also home of the Special Air Services, a commando unit trained to deal with hijackings. Stansted happens to be where the SAS regularly trains, which is why hijacked craft are often diverted there. The Ariana flight was parked at the end of a runway and immediately surrounded by security forces, including SAS commandos. Only the most optimistic hijacker could have envisioned a clean getaway.

It never came to that, for the hijackers showed no interest in getting away, or for that matter, getting anything. "We were as curious as everyone else at their lack of clear-cut demands," said David Stevens, chief constable of the Essex County police, which handled the negotiations. Details of those talks have been kept under wraps. Nine passengers were released; four members of the crew, including the pilot, managed to climb down a rope from the cockpit, angering the hijackers and leading to the expulsion of the steward and a break in negotiations. But by early Thursday morning, passengers started exiting the plane's rear staircase, captured on live, night-vision video as ethereal yellow ectoplasms, robes whirling in the pre-dawn chill. They came out in two batches, and authorities announced it would take days of debriefings to sort the guilty from the innocent. (They did say they had recovered four handguns, five knives, two detonators, two grenades and a set of brass knuckles.)

Back in Afghanistan, the hijacking threw the Taliban government into a quandary. Kabul's reaction was to say it would not negotiate with the hijackers. Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar told Time: "We trust the British government to take any action they deem fit," which sounded like an invitation for a commando raid. His government, however, had a very different reaction when an Indian Airlines flight was hijacked to Afghanistan last December. In that case, the Taliban demanded that India negotiate with the hijackers, who demanded the release of jailed Islamic militants, and refused New Delhi's request to allow Indian commandos to storm the plane. When the hijackers secured the release of three militants, the Taliban allowed them to leave the aircraft and disappear.

The Taliban desire an opposite resolution in London, and are demanding that the plane, the hijackers and all the passengers be returned--especially those who might be making a bid for freedom. T. Sreedhar, an Afghanistan expert at New Delhi's Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, says the Ariana incident is an international embarrassment for Mullah Omar and his regime. "In the eyes of ordinary Afghans," Sreedhar says, "the Taliban authorities stand discredited." The final passengers of Ariana's 727 had a long and unusual flight from rigorous Kabul to their last stop: Stansted's Hilton Hotel. It's no wonder many don't want to get on the flight back home.

Reported by Jeff McAllister/London, Yuri Zarakhovich/Moscow, Maseeh Rahman/New Delhi and Rahimullah Yusufzai/Peshawar

Write to TIME at

This edition's table of contents
TIME Asia home


Quick Scroll: More stories from TIME, Asiaweek and CNN


U.S. secretary of state says China should be 'tolerant'

Philippine government denies Estrada's claim to presidency

Faith, madness, magic mix at sacred Hindu festival

Land mine explosion kills 11 Sri Lankan soldiers

Japan claims StarLink found in U.S. corn sample

Thai party announces first coalition partner


COVER: President Joseph Estrada gives in to the chanting crowds on the streets of Manila and agrees to make room for his Vice President

THAILAND: Twin teenage warriors turn themselves in to Bangkok officials

CHINA: Despite official vilification, hip Chinese dig Lamaist culture

PHOTO ESSAY: Estrada Calls Snap Election

WEB-ONLY INTERVIEW: Jimmy Lai on feeling lucky -- and why he's committed to the island state


COVER: The DoCoMo generation - Japan's leading mobile phone company goes global

Bandwidth Boom: Racing to wire - how underseas cable systems may yet fall short

TAIWAN: Party intrigues add to Chen Shui-bian's woes

JAPAN: Japan's ruling party crushes a rebel at a cost

SINGAPORE: Singaporeans need to have more babies. But success breeds selfishness

Launch CNN's Desktop Ticker and get the latest news, delivered right on your desktop!

Today on CNN

Back to the top   © 2000 Time Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.