The demands by terrorists for ransoms in return for kidnapped hostages continues and growsand it is a brave (some would say heartless) government that chooses non-payment over the lives of its citizens.
This week’s $200 million demand in return for the lives of two Japanese citizens perhaps represents a change of tactics from ISIS — the group that now rules over large parts of Syria and Iraq — as they realize that, with the notable exceptions of the U.S. and the UK, the willingness of Western nations to resist making some form of payment in the face of YouTube videos of their citizens begging for their lives is weak.
Is an unwavering resistance towards ransom payments a constructive position to take? Is offering no hope of some form of negotiated settlement in the best interest of a nation’s citizens? Or would it in fact make more sense to take a flexible approach that operates on a “case-by-case” basis, engages in negotiation, and considers all possible options including ransom?
–
Stomach-churning (and illegal, in most jurisdictions) as it may be to finance designated terrorists, in recent months, citizens of France, Germany, Denmark, and Italy have returned safely home. Citizens of the UK and the U.S. have not.
The point blank refusal to pay ransoms is wrong-headed. A more nuanced approach that leaves all options, including payment, open for negotiation is much more likely to result in success.
