Questionable policy

President Barack Obama defended his policy of not negotiating with the so-called Islamic State (IS) in the aftermath of the killing of Kayla Mueller, an aid worker who had been held captive by this terrorist group, arguing the traditional point that negotiating with hostage takers would only encourage and fund their acts of terrorism.

In Mueller’s case, the ransom demanded, presumably negotiable, was $7 million. Paying it was hastily readily rejected by the US.

This was not the first time that the US or other Western nation rejects negotiating with terrorist organisations for the release of their citizens.

IS already killed many of their prisoners and one wonders whether the policy of not negotiating with it would actually discourage it from taking other hostages if the opportunity presents itself.

The victims of this “blind” policy of not talking with hostage takers and their relatives would probably differ with it on two counts: one, they pay with their blood for it, and two, because this policy has proved to be a failure, as it did not succeed in deterring hostage taking. 

When a homegrown gang or a criminal organisation kidnaps people on the territory of any Western country and demand ransom for their release, the local enforcement authorities and the relatives of the captives do not hesitate to negotiate with the kidnappers for their safe return.

The logic of not negotiating with hostage takers does not seem to apply when people are held captives on their national soil.

How, then, is it different when foreign agents take hostages abroad?

Saving the life of hostages should take precedence over all other policy considerations, especially when the futility of not doing so has been proven time and again.

Mueller’s life should sure have been more important than the $7 million demanded by her captors and should have outweighed the policy considerations for refusing to negotiate.

It would be more humane to put premium on saving lives than on questionable grand policy considerations.

As for the submission that giving in to terrorists would encourage more hostage taking, the answer could be simple: nationals of targeted countries should refrain from setting foot on territories where terrorists are roaming. 

As for the argument that paying ransoms would fill the coffers of terrorist and end up financing their operations, it must be said that such groups, like IS, for example, depend on more than one source to finance their actions and payment of ransom could be only one of the ways.

All in all, the policy regarding negotiations with terrorists when human life is at stake appears questionable, to say the least.