After a long hiatus, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, better known as ISIL or ISIS, released a video Friday depicting the beheading of American aid worker Peter Kassig. ISIS has now beheaded five Western hostages in the past three months: three Americans and two Britons.
As accusations are hurled at the U.S. government for doing little to save these hostages, the White House announced Tuesday that they would be reviewing the protocol for responding when American hostages are taken overseas. However, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest maintained that ransom bargaining would not be considered in any new policies.
“Our views on this are clear, and the president [U.S. President Barack Obama] continues to believe, as previous presidents have concluded, that it’s not in the best interest of American citizens to pay ransoms to any organization, let alone a terrorist organization, that is holding an American hostage,” Earnest said in a Tuesday press conference. “We don’t want to put other American citizens at even greater risk when they’re around the globe.”
Hostages are traditionally taken alongside a ransom, or a certain sum that a hostage’s country must pay for the hostage to be released. While several European countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Spain, have funneled millions of dollars into paying ransoms for hostages, the United States and the United Kingdom adhere firmly to a “no ransoms” policy.
Although this may seem cruel, the rationale is that by paying terrorist groups the inevitably large amounts of money associated with ransoms, governments are acknowledging the legitimacy of terrorists by attempting to negotiate with them, as well as helping to fund them. With a little extra cash, ISIS could grow at an even more rapid rate than it currently is, all at the expense of the country that paid them a ransom.
“The U.S. government, as a matter of longstanding policy, does not grant concessions to hostage takers, for a very important reason — granting such concessions would put all American citizens overseas at greater risk for kidnapping,” said Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the National Security Council, in an emailed statement to The New York Times. “Furthermore, paying ransoms would only sustain the very same terrorist organizations that we are working to destroy.”
Such statements are easy for officials to say while sitting at their desks in Washington, D.C., but for the families of those held hostage, it’s difficult to stand by as loved ones are being tortured by terrorist groups. It is completely understandable that the families of those who were beheaded are devastated – and subsequently angry – that their family member was sacrificed for the “greater good” of the nation, but those who go into high-risk zones go willingly, aware of the possibility of being captured.
Although it’s unfair to say the government is doing nothing to save these people, the reality that the United States does not pay ransoms gives the impression that as a country, we don’t value the singularity of a human life. Yet, paying certain amounts of money for lives puts a price on human beings, which can’t be good for humanity as a whole.
The United States has paid a form of ransom only once before, in the Iran-Contra affair during the administration of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. In order to free seven hostages, the U.S. government sent weapons to Iran in what amounted to trading arms for lives. The whole affair was meant to be secret, and Reagan’s foreign policy suffered from immense scrutiny once made public.
Giving money – or weapons – to the enemy contradicts the United States’ dedication to stopping terrorist groups from expanding. ISIS is already expanding, and funneling more money into their cause would ultimately cost more human loss than that of the hostages. Although no human life should be valued over another, the United States and the United Kingdom are correct in sticking to their no hostage principle.