Most Western governments have a strict policy of not negotiating with terrorists. And while some European governments have at different times entered into financial negotiations with extremist groups and terrorists, the US is particularly firm on the stance that it will not pay ransom to terrorist groups for the release of kidnapped American citizens.
This stance was put to the test back in 2012 when James Wright Foley, an American journalist who was working in Syria, was kidnapped by the Islamic State (Isis). A few months after the kidnapping, Isis demanded a ransom of €100m from the US government for the release of Foley – a demand that was rejected by the Barack Obama administration.
And then in August 2014, the unthinkable happened. After having sent one final e-mail demanding the ransom payment and threatening to kill Foley if the money was not paid, Isis decapitated Foley in full view of the world. Foley was the first American citizen to be killed by Isis.
The video of his brutal murder was uploaded on the internet, sparking outrage by Americans who accused the Obama administration of being heartless for maintaining the no-concessions stance. Even as he would later outline other non-financial interventions that the government had made, Obama defended the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.
Viewed from an emotional perspective, the no-concessions policy of the US government is cruel. To allow someone to die such a brutal death when the country has the financial means to pay the terrorists seems heartless.
Human life, we believe, is more important than money. It is more important than everything. But viewed from a practical perspective, the policy is justified and, in fact, correct. Paying ransom to terrorist groups would achieve two devastating outcomes.
Firstly, it would create incentives for US citizens to be kidnapped. Secondly, the payment of these ransoms would fund terrorist organisations whose activities are responsible for economic and political devastation in many parts of the world – as well as the incalculable costs to human life.
The recent public violence that gripped SA was done under the ostensible reason of challenging the arrest of former president Jacob Zuma. I say ostensible because while that may have been the initial reason for the riots, it became noticeably clear that there was more to the violence than Zuma’s incarceration.
The riots were an intersection of poverty, unemployment, lockdown fatigue and myriad other structural issues. But those steering the #FreeZuma campaign are adamant that the violence will continue until the former president is freed. They have even submitted demands to President Cyril Ramaphosa to this effect.
Like terrorists who kidnap American citizens for ransom, instigators of the riots are effectively stating that unless we release a man convicted of a crime, they will destroy our economy, starve our communities and burn down the country.
It may appear that if we want to save the country, our only choice is to free Zuma. But if we do that, we might as well accede that we no longer have a constitutional democracy. We might as well accede that Zuma and his supporters are the law – that they are in control of our lives and of the very future of this country.
This is not just lawlessness – it is effectively terrorism. Terrorists are not just foreign extremist groups like Isis and Al-Shabaab. Any grouping that engages in the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims, such as demanding the release of a convicted criminal or the country will burn, is a terrorist group.
We must never negotiate with terrorists.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.