Both Oars In One Man’s Ransom is Another Man’s Bondage

Apr 24, 2009

While at Brown University in the mid-eighties, I heard G. Gordon Liddy speak. It was a set up: an unbending conservative against a frothing crowd of liberals. But given Mr. Liddy’s resolve, it was still a fair fight.  Afterall, who can hold a candle to a man who can actually hold a candle to his hand and not cry out?  During the Q&A, the topic turned to dealing with kidnappers and terrorists. Mr. Liddy stated that he would never pay a ransom or negotiate with kidnappers even if they were holding his son. He was adamant that not paying was the only real deterrent. His selfless declaration came to mind when I heard the news about the Somali pirates taking a U.S. captain hostage.

Later, when I heard that three of the four pirates holding Captain Philips had been shot and the fourth was in custody, I, like many, felt relief and pride in the Navy SEALs. It seemed like the world was back to normal. Killing is seldom black and white; but, given the imminent threat on the life of Captain Philips and the many failed attempts to gain the pirates’ surrender, the use of deadly force appeared to be justified.  

However, I was a bit uneasy with the press’s disimpassioned reporting of the perfect headshots that dispatched the pirates from this life.  All human beings are family to someone. A point made more poignant by the surviving pirate’s mother’s plea for the release of her teenage son. Victims abound in a chaotic and violent world.

I was even more concerned by those who claimed, “This will make the pirates think twice.” Killing one person to make another person think twice, like the death penalty, has proven ineffective even in normal situations, let alone in situations as dire as Somalia. Regardless of how many are shot, the desperation in Somalia promises an endless supply of young pawns that the head guys, who actually collect the ransoms, can send out to sea. Killing one is unlikely to deter the next.

Using death as a deterrent is also morally wrong. The only morally acceptable reason for a sniper to fire is to save an innocent life, not to make a statement. Ultimate force should be avoided, as it was in this case, until no other solution presents itself. Killing begets killing. I learned this from a multi-war vet while a cadet at Culver Military Academy, not a peace activist. You can bet the SEALs know better than anyone that killing as a deterrent is as useless as it is wrong.  

I am not endorsing Mr. Liddy’s crazed political tactics or using killing as a deterrent.  Clearly both are wrong. But, Mr. Liddy is right: paying ransoms is ultimately wrong, too.  It seems especially wrong when the motivation is not to save lives, but that it’s more economic to pay the ransom than risk the loss of the ship and cargo and cheaper than sending the necessary military force to bring an end to the lawlessness that produces Somali pirates.

Allowing crime to continue because it is cheaper than stopping it is pragmatism at its worse. It ignores the fact that ransoms fund terror and corruption.  The warlords use their ill-gotten profits from those who can afford to buy their freedom to enslave those who cannot.  Each purchase of freedom strengthens their hold on the innocent in their communities who cannot flee their grasp.  This is how one man’s ransom ultimately becomes a thousand other men, women and children’s bondage.

Paying ransoms almost invariably ensures that more ships and hostages will be taken.  When crime pays, it continues. When it pays really well, it increases. Numerous articles point out that the millions of dollars collected by Somali pirates in the past decade have helped the pirates upgrade their ships and firepower.  Dot maps show that the pirates’ reach has doubled from 200 miles to over 400 miles off shore. As in any business, profits have allowed this industry to thrive and go high tech. Ransoms exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

I admit to not fully understanding Mr. Liddy’s point until a few years ago when I found myself in a chaotic country being thrown into deeper chaos by kidnapping. From 2000 to 2006, kidnapping in Haiti escalated from a rarity to a near daily occurrence. Rich and poor, foreign and locals were being held for ransoms ranging from a few dollars to hundreds of thousands.  Nobody could blame those who paid for the release of their loved ones, but it was clear that doing so only led to more being taken. I found myself telling my family and organization, “Don’t pay for me. I will talk my way out.”

I am sure if I am ever kidnapped, I will want my freedom more than anything—but I hope not enough to fund the daily subjugation of the poor by corruption. The answer to piracy is not ransoms. It is increased military forces on the seas and more aid to stave the poverty and chaos in Somalia itself which produces these pirates and gives them a safe haven to hide.  

|