As we speak (I write and you read – assuming some currency), Japan is likely gathering up a $200M ransom to pay ISIS in exchange for two of its citizens who have found their way to Syria. And by “found their way to Syria”, I largely mean, “went”. Still, this reminds me of scenarios that have played out publicly in recent times and that were also written about recently. Many governments, those in Europe and elsewhere, routinely pay for the release of their people to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet, others, like the United States hold fast to the tagline, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists.” This is on its face false (consider the economics and bartering around hostages swaps), and does not require much wordsmithing or redefinition; but in the specific instance of paying ransoms to ISIS to prevent beheadings, perhaps they have held true. But why?
As a parent, would you hold such a hardline? Afterall, paying a ransom for your child is likely to finance other crimes, possibly even compounded crimes like more kidnappings for more ransoms – if only the world could be lucky as to have such one hit wonders. So, unless that argument is false to you on the micro and individual level, and you would pay for your child, what is the difference on the macro and governmental level? Should governments not pay ransoms, and then stipulate that their citizens refrain from being the “storm chasers” of terrorism?
This appears to be even more a matter of ego than principle, because what sum is more important than preservation of innocent human life? Is it the sum of monies being requested? Is it plausible that United States, Israel, or German governments would refrain from paying a ransom of $1 per hostage to guarantee their freedoms? Is $1 too much to pay, or is life cheaper on balance? That seems unlikely to be the case. That is too ridiculous to be the case. Therefore, if you would pay $1 to have them come home, the argument stops being about values and starts being about value. Somewhere between $1 and $200M (or whatever the asking price) is the tipping point, because the governments would likely pay the $1 or $10 or even $1K for a release. Moreover, the life in question would almost certainly determine the extent of principled treatment and economic flexibility. Japan appears to be leaning towards the payment, as would a country like Switzerland which seems to pay tens of millions per annum to secure the release of its citizens.
What would you do?
INENARRABLE 
You do ask the provocative questions. I am sure that if the detained person were a family member, I would pay if I could.
Wouldnt we all.. Some people would rather pay for their principles with the blood of others, while naturally trumpeting how it’s for everybody’s good..
Imagine the amount of destruction $200M can bankroll. If Japan pays the ransom it will surely end in more lives lost than saved, and will also motivate terrorists to target Japanese citizens. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-citizens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html
Thanks for your comment. It can certainly bankroll tons of destruction. I even went so far as to suggest a compounding effect. But what could be done to stymie the kidnappings? That should be addressed and is not being discussed in earnest. Which of these high profile kidnap victims truly needed to be present where they were? That doesn’t mean that there’d be no ransoms, but they’re not ransoming Syrians so there’s something to be said for a western civilian absence. Additionally your argument implies that these men are not worth the money. Is that what you mean to say? Irreversibly, they are scheduled to die tomorrow night. The consequences of a $200M spend are not irreversible, especially relative to total terrorist spend. Would you not pay the random for your loved ones, or are other peoples’ lives nourishing our ideals?
I think the way to stymie the kidnappings is to not pay ransoms. If you read that NYT article it suggests that the terrorists kind of fell into the kidnappings initially with no plan, but that once they realized the money they could make doing it it became a large part of their operation. Furthermore, by the U.S. not paying ransoms while European countries would, the terrorists would pass over US citizens for citizens from countries who pay ransoms as the kidnappings was purely a money making operation. Lastly, I don’t think you can put a price on people’s lives, but anyone going into that part of the world knows the risks and should not expect someone to pay a ransom for them. They are going into a war zone and should treat it as such.
I understand your logic for the most part, but it ignores the fact that kidnappings are two-pronged: financial, and philosophical. Empirically, recently and historically, US citizens have been kidnapped and murdered. To believe or even suggest that there is no political gain, or the perception of gain by the attackers free of economics, is misguided and quite dangerous. The issue is philosophically divisive in the “west” and in the US, which is a part of their ambition if we assume intent, or the result even if “serendipitous”. The NYT article tells us what we already know: the terrorists are getting the money.
We need a more upstream solution than simply not paying. There should be prohibitions on movement of the few people who insist on government regulation since they don’t seem to be able to regulate themselves. In fact, I would even take it a step further: have the rescued kidnapee (assuming that they were so lucky) reimburse the government for the cost of their extraction up to some capped number, say $1M. Or perhaps they can find an insurance policy specific to a ransom and recovery, and travel without such a policy will result in prison time and a fine. I agree with you on the war zone comment, but again the response to the issue comes too far downstream.
If such a cap (and consequences) were known it would be interesting to see what would happen to kidnappings. This would be tantamount to putting a price on human life because we would be saying that we will pay terrorists up to this much, but not beyond. Granted, but that would have the benefit of stopping ballooning requests, though it accrues some of the disadvantages I’ve previously mentioned. There are lots of ways to think about this that are probably more effective than waiting until citizens end up kneeling in an orange jumpsuit saying their prayers.. I’ve discussed journalism in a previous blog in this context – how much are we willing to pay for our news, and how much are these people really even contributing to it (other than by becoming it)?