The "No Ransom" Policy

The parents of Kayla Mueller, the American hostage killed recently while being held by ISIS, have accused the U.S. Government of putting policy ahead of U.S. citizen's lives. The policy they are referring to is; not paying ransoms to terrorists for hostages. The U.S. Government did not agree to the ransom demands of the group for her release. The suggestion here is that had a ransom been paid the terrorists would have released their captive. The implication however, is that governments are responsible for the plight of any citizen captured by a terrorist group. In this particular case she traveled to the region on her own to support the relief efforts there. 

It is possible that paying a ransom might have secured her release. However, the funding provided by ransom payments goes on to fund further terrorist activities that jeopardise the lives of thousands and whole communities. The funding being provided to ISIS by supporters and ransoms has gone a long to expand and embolden its operations. The U.S. Government has said it is committed to halting any further progress by the group. 

Paying ransom for kidnap victims very rarely resolves the problem. The more success the kidnappers have in extorting money the more likely they are to continue to attempt to take hostages. This proved to be the case with pirates in the Horn of Africa. It wasn't until they were hunted down that there was a reduction in piracy. It might be suggested that paying ransoms puts all other foreigners in the region at risk. However, it can't be denied that ransom payments have led to the release of hostages in some cases. 

Traveling to war zones to help the embattled is very commendable but also fraught with danger. For individuals who go on their own the lack of any security apparatus further increases the risk. There are only so many precautions an individual can take. So when individuals choose to take on these risks who is responsible for their safety? Governments have a duty to all their citizens who find themselves in trouble while abroad. But how far does that duty extend? When a private citizen travels into a war torn region on their own who is ultimately responsible for their safety?