This is a comment on the BBC article BBC News - Mali conflict: French ransom cash 'funded militants' that Priffe posted above.
The aricle is of interest because if one is kidnapped in the Sahara then one's fate is determined more by the governments at home than by AQIM. As we know, there is a greater probability of being freed if one is Italian or Spanish, for example, than British or French. The attitude of one's own government to the ransom demands is therefore key to controlling how things are likely to turn out.
The article has, as its leader "A former US ambassador to Mali has told the BBC that France paid ransom money to free hostages and the funds ended up bolstering Islamist groups it is now fighting."
This thread on the Hubb is reaching 68 000 views. Let's be conservative and say that 1000 unique people have read the thread. I would wager that at least 90% of those people will know that European governments pay ransom money. The only reason this is news is because the former US ambassador has said it. Unfortunately the article stops short of any interesting analysis. This is fairly normal for the mainstream media like BBC.
The interesting detail about the article is that the French are reported as having paid $17m to free 3 hostages. There are still several French citizens from the Arlit kidnapping still being held - four I think. Their names are Daniel Larribe, Thierry Dole, Marc Feret and Pierre Legrand. So why has the French government not paid for these 4? Elsewhere it is reported that the ransom for these 4 is 90m euros. The difference between $17m and 90m euros is not large to a government looking to end an awful chapter such as this. So why not pay? One reason which applies currently is that ransom money would essentially mean arming those who are now fighting other French nationals in Mali. And the consequence is therefore that as long as French troops are in Mali, those who are held in captivity cannot be freed on AQIM's terms. The only way is by force.
|