With the gruesome beheading of Japanese reporter Kenji Goto a few short days ago, my mind has been focused on the issue of ransoms, kidnappings and terrorism. According to National Public Radio, Japan had reportedly been conducting indirect negotiations with kidnappers through ISIS ?militants in Syria.
“We don’t negotiate with terrorists” is a phrase we hear often in the United States. It represents the stance our government takes when faced with kidnappings and other threats of that nature. With the somewhat recent rise of Islamic terrorism, this policy and practice has been thrust into the spotlight and its merits have been called into question.
The rationale behind the policy is simple. If we reward a certain type of behavior, we without a doubt increase the chances of that behavior continuing into the future. If our government pays ransom to kidnappers, then those kidnappers will undoubtedly do it again.
And so, we choose not to engage. We choose to sacrifice today for the greater good later on. That sounds nice on paper, but is there more to it?
Those who would prefer we negotiate — and there is a growing number who do — certainly think so. They often concede that though it might encourage unwanted behavior in the future, it may save a life right now — and that has infinite value.
The waters are even murkier when you bring private action into the mix. If the government cannot negotiate with terrorists, what about individual people or groups? If individuals raise the money themselves, would it be legal for them to take their ?own steps?
One can easily imagine how the phenomenon of crowdfunding could be deployed to achieve these aims.
But where would that leave us? Raising money on social network platforms to hand over to murderers and thugs certainly doesn’t sound like a good idea. But then again, desperate times call for desperate measures — and we are certainly facing desperate times.
At the end of an NPR broadcast I heard the other day, a caller gave an interesting take on this very issue. He wondered about the endgame. In his mind, if we are confident we are going to defeat terrorism eventually, then it shouldn’t matter if we give in to them now. If the end result will be the same regardless, why not try and save as many lives as we can?
I think he raises an interesting and appropriate point. If we are going to fight this war, this battle, physically and ideologically for the foreseeable future and beyond, then I think it reasonable that we allow our ransom and kidnapping policies to evolve. If this is truly the dawn of a new era and the dawn of a new type of warfare, then we need to reconsider the rules of the game.
On the other hand, if we are confident we are going to win, and win as quickly as possible, then I say we give no quarter. I would personally prefer to wage every kind of battle against such heinous groups — including the courage not to bow for anyone or anything.
Harsh? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely.
cgerst@indiana.edu
