The atrocious threats levelled by Islamic State against the kidnapped security consultant David Haines should be a matter of grave anxiety not only for his anguished family but for all those concerned with the defence of western values. The Islamic State (formerly Isis) has demonstrated its ruthlessness in the decapitation of the two American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. No one would wish a similar fate on Mr Haines or any of the more than 20 prisoners being held by the group. Many will understandably question why Britain, unlike other European countries, does not allow or facilitate the payment of ransom to terrorists.
The British government’s position is uncomfortable but clear: paying for the freedom of a captive actively raises the chances of others being seized. It helps to create a sinister market in which westerners can only lose. Those states that do pay ransoms, France, Italy, Germany and Spain, have all been involved in such payments under various guises. It has not bought them immunity from future kidnappings. On the contrary they have made their citizens part of the morally repugnant accounting system of terrorist groups; paid-for hostages contribute to their cash flow.
A New York Times investigation recently found that al-Qaeda and its affiliates had harvested at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008. In Iraq and Syria the whole nature of terrorism has been changed by the ransom business to such a degree that gangs seize westerners with the sole purpose of selling them on to the Islamic State.
None of this is reassuring for British or American hostages. A refusal to strike a deal can be seen by friends and families as the wilful neglect of a citizen. The government’s obligation to the safety and welfare of its citizens has, however, to be framed in different terms. They have to make the public commitment to hunt down those who have seized aid workers or journalists and punish them. If possible, they also have to free the hostages. They should not be rewarding the terrorists with huge amounts of cash.
David Cameron certainly faces some of his most personally difficult decisions as the hunt for the British hostage intensifies over the coming weeks. Satellite technology, the skills of the special forces and the tracking expertise of GCHQ do, however, make it possible to locate captives. The prisoners of Islamic State are probably in Raqqa province in eastern Syria. Yet they could well be dispersed, moved frequently. The failed US rescue attempt in Raqqa in early July highlighted the problems of releasing them by force. The government has to weigh carefully the chances and risks of securing their freedom.
Advertisement
The jihadists consider their hostages to be not only money earners but a deterrent to western action. They should be disabused of this. The Islamic State is a phantom state that manufactures nothing but fear. It is this fear that has to be confronted if the group is to be broken. Nato leaders have the firepower to strike their command centres, which have been identified by western intelligence agencies. Destroy the group’s chain of command and you not only eradicate a global menace, but also cut back its ability to act as a hostage taker.
Last year Mr Cameron placed criticism of ransom payments on the agenda of the G8 countries. European nations, many of them Nato members, have pressed ahead with payments anyway. They should be reminded of promises made and broken. Only a united western front has a hope of stopping the scourge of this violent, self-proclaimed caliphate. It must start with the basic shared concern for our citizens currently in the hands of jihadists. Yet it cannot end there. This is not the moment to flinch from action.