Does paying ransom to a foreign kidnapper free one American but put more at risk?
Not any easy question. But if you're someone like Nancy Curtis of Cambridge, Mass., you were never too interested in that debate. You wanted to save your son, Theo Padnos, who was taken hostage by al-Qaida in Syria in 2012.
For years the U.S. government has insisted that paying off kidnappers encourages more kidnapping and helps fund the bad guys. American officials not only refused to negotiate with hostage-takers, they sometimes threatened to prosecute family members for trying to rescue their loved one.
While nothing can guarantee the safety of all Americans, a change in approach announced last week by President Barack Obama should make some terrible situations more manageable for families, and maybe more hopeful. At a price.
Obama said the government will stick to its "no concessions" policy and won't pay ransom to terrorist groups holding hostages, but officials will support families in their own efforts to secure a captive's release. Families won't be threatened with prosecution, government representatives will be allowed to communicate with the hostage takers and, overall, families will be kept in the loop and treated better--as if they're on the same team as their government, not a nuisance or threat to policy objectives.
If you detect a basic contradiction in the new American approach, well, that's because it's plainly there: The government won't negotiate with kidnappers . . . but it will assist families that want to pay ransoms. If the bad guys are listening, they may be revising upward their next-quarter revenue projections.
In theory, Obama's approach adds a second layer of contradiction: If the government supports a family's quest to save a kidnap victim but won't pay the ransom, where does the money come from? Do only those with access to wealth get reunited with their loved one? Are poor families supposed to launch a fundraiser?
When Nancy Curtis' son, writer Theo Padnos, was abducted, she was on her own until a contact at the Red Cross tipped her off to the existence of another quietly suffering family whose son, journalist James Foley, also was a hostage in Syria. At the time, according to a detailed account of five American hostages in the current New Yorker magazine, "U.S. government policy was to keep information about hostages strictly secret, for privacy reasons."
The Curtis and Foley families joined forces with others, and eventually Padnos was released by his captors. Sadly, Foley and two other hostages held by Islamic State, Steven Sotloff and Peter Kassig, were murdered. A fifth, Kayla Mueller, also died in captivity.
There's no question these are boom times for kidnapping. Islamic State continues its barbarism, finding new and even more repulsive ways to murder hostages. European countries apparently will pay ransoms. Currently 31 Americans are held overseas, some taken by drug cartels or criminals.
The U.S. government shouldn't, and apparently won't, change its policy on paying ransom. The prospect of mining the U.S. Treasury probably would spur more kidnappings. It seems humane, though, to signal to families that the government won't ignore their pleas for help.
Editorial on 06/27/2015