The final seven months of John Ridsdel’s life were sporadically documented via video camera, but the spine-chilling home videos were not of the sort that we’re accustomed to.
In Sept. 2015, Ridsdel, two of his Canadian compatriots and a Filipino woman were kidnapped by Islamic terror group Abu Sayyaf, an affiliate of Al-Qaida.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed reports Monday that Ridsdel had been executed by his captors after ransom demands were not met and an alternative solution had not been reached.
With Ridsdel’s tragic execution, we are forced to address an issue that has resurfaced time and time again.
When, if ever, is it an acceptable practice for governments to offer concessions to terrorists?
At face value, the answer is never. Yielding to terrorists’ demands sets a dangerous precedent that kidnapping can successfully be used to attain one’s will.
The Ridsdel tragedy could be evidence of this very fact. In 2002, the Bush administration arranged a $300,000 ransom payment to a purported Abu Sayyaf affiliate in exchange for two American hostages.
Bush wasn’t the only offender. According to the New York Times, Al-Qaida has raked in over $125 million from European governments, and ransom demands are on the rise as a direct result.
Still, we shouldn’t recognize the idea of communicating with captors as taboo, as is becoming the norm.
As Slate pointed out, “Not making concessions to terrorists has become not negotiating with terrorists, which has become not communicating with terrorists.” As policy becomes narrower in its interpretation, the families of hostages are left between a rock and a hard place.
The Obama administration’s actions regarding terrorist negotiations have been mostly pragmatic, if inconsistent.
The parents of the executed journalist James Foley claimed they were threatened with prosecution if they attempted to pay their son’s ransom in 2014, but journalist Peter Theo Curtis’ family was allowed to do so.
In June 2015, the administration announced families would be allowed to explore negotiation with the captors of loved ones.
If the White House wishes to preserve a policy prohibiting negotiation between the government and terrorists, so be it.
Doing so is probably in the best interest of national security. But, as Obama pointed out, we “must do better” for families who are left with no other option.
Unlike large scale payments from European nations, isolated payments from hostages’s families won’t create a market for kidnappings.
Families don’t have access to the wealth of resources that nations do.
There’s no easy course of action in a hostage situation.
We should be careful to condemn any and all interaction with terrorists and realize that, at times, guarded negotiation can be a good thing.
dkilcull@indiana.edu
@daniel_kilc
