Should America Pay Ransom For Its Citizens Held As Hostages By Terrorist?

Terrorism and the Issue of Ransom

Terrorism has been the most frightening human act, owing to its pervasiveness. Terrorism is described as an organization that uses violence to intimidate the government or community in order to accomplish political, social, or ideological goals. Terrorism has gained significant ground in instilling terror in society and, as a result, suppressing their freedom of travel. The hostage situation remains one of the most worrying problems facing the country in terms of terrorism. The most successful way to free the captives seems to be to pay a ransom. Hostages held by terror groups put the government in a dilemma on whether to stick to the set policies or act in accordance to terrorist demands. Therefore, the issue of giving ransom to save the hostages has always been controversial. This is because the government might resist negotiating, but the family of the victims might come out to save their loved through negotiations. This paper, therefore, will focus on factors limiting the use government from paying ransom for its citizens. Also, it is equally important to consider the importance of paying ransom to save the hostage.

The Ethical Standpoint - No Ransom Payment

The U.S government should not pay ransom for its citizen held hostage this is because the ransom paid does not in any way guarantee the safety of the remaining citizens in the country. The government that pays ransom to terrorist puts their citizens and other people at a greater risk (Singer). Refusing to pay the ransom, therefore, should be considered the most ethical practice by the incumbent government. In that respect, the United Nation Security Council in its capacity to mitigate payment of ransom made a declaration in the 2013 G-8 summit opposing the payment of ransom (Singer). The most important factor to consider this issue of ransom payment is the sole purpose of the funds. No relevant terms that can justify the proper use of the fund rather than facilitate and initiate terror attacks.

Encouraging Terrorism through Ransom Payment

Paying incentives and ransom to the terror groups encourages and accumulates terror activities rather than mitigating them. Paying ransom is more of condemning the American citizens to future captivities since terror groups have realized kidnapping as a source of funding their activities. Whether the business is done by the state or the individual in pursuit of saving the hostages, the results are more terrorism (Miller). In this argument, the U.S government’s position is that it does not negotiate with the terrorist groups. The U.S government has adopted the no payment of ransom policy that has resulted to some hostages being killed by the terrorists. This, in turn, leads to massive criticism to the administration but then this is the policy the U.S government does not seem to have a retreat. For instance, after the death of James Foley a journalist killed by the Islamic State, the family of the victim felt that the Obama administration didn’t do enough to save Foley since it refused the negotiation process (Naylor).

Financial Implications - Supporting Terror Groups

The money paid as ransom will see the terror groups become more superior in the future since these funds end up strengthening their accounts. According to New York Times, the revenue collected by Al Qaeda and its affiliates since 2008 are approximate $ 125 million (Gonchar). Therefore the significant use of these funds is to support the militia groups and most importantly to increase their overall strength. The countries and family members giving ransom as the way to rescue the victim could be one of the leading causes of unending terrorism. Releasing jailed terrorist as part of negotiation deal is another form of negotiation does not involve money but it is another significant threat to the national security.

Alternative Perspectives and the Argument for Negotiation

However, some analysts argue that the U.S should reconsider and restructure the terrorism policies to allow negotiation for the sake of the victim’s family. This is because the move to deny kidnappers ransom does not deter them from kidnapping (Naylor). Also, the U.S government might be in this war alone as some countries hold talks and negotiation in pursuit of releasing the hostages. Also if the U.S government bails out some banks, it does not seem right not to bail its citizen from terror groups. For instance, France has paid $ 58 million since 2008 for the release of French citizens (Singer). This is the most exorbitant ransom paid by one nation since 2008.

Conclusion

Every government should adhere to no payment of ransom policy to mitigate the increased terror superiority. No payment of ransom by the government should, therefore, be considered as the most ethical principle to be followed. This policy should not be underscored in whatever cost as minimizes the strength of terror groups by denying them funding. Despite some failure to rescue the hostages, I think the government should stick to the raids rather than negotiating with the terrorist. Other countries should also adhere to this policy so as the U.S victims do not feel disadvantaged compared to those in European countries.

Works Cited

Gonchar, Michael. “Should Countries Pay Ransoms to Free Hostages Held by Terrorists?” 9 December 2014. the new york times. 2 March 2017 .

Miller, Aaron David. “Should U.S. pay ransoms?” 10 February 2015. CNN. 1 March 2017 .

Naylor, Brian. “Should The U.S. Pay Ransom For ISIS Hostage.” 19 September 2014. npr. 1 March 2017 .

Singer, Peter. “The Ransom Dilemma: Why Governments Should Never Pay ISIS to Release Prisoners.” 14 December 2014. haaretz. 1 March 2017 .