Bad news about Mali hostage

[marko]

my question is this , if a country was to pay ransom, wouldnt that increase the number of kidnappings? it is sad that this man was killed, true. but, if we chose to go into places that we know are a bit doggie for the adventure, then we must also accept the risk and except the fact we might not make it out of there alive. as for me ,i understand and am debating if he risk is worth the reward. i think it is

[priffe]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L6169976.htm

"Dozens killed, 20 soldiers missing"

Regarding ransoms
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L4512141.htm

"The 53-member African Union adopted a resolution against ransom payments at a summit in Sirte, in Libya. Some countries worry ransoms paid to hostage-takers in Somalia and the northern Sahara could fall into the hands of al Qaeda and its allies.
"The (AU) vigorously condemns the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups to secure the freedom of hostages ... (and) asks the international community to criminalise the payment of ransoms to terrorist groups," said the resolution."

[donncha]

BBC NEWS | Africa | Al-Qaeda 'releases Swiss hostage'

[priffe]

For the first time in a while, noone is kept hostage in the desert.

UPDATE 3-Swiss hostage held by al Qaeda in Sahara freed-Mali | News by Country | Reuters

"This release brings to an end the process of returning the foreign hostages held in the Sahel-Sahara region to their families," according to a government statement read on state radio on Sunday.

The statement thanked the Swiss government for its understanding and patience and noted efforts by community leaders in Mali's remote north but gave no details on how or why the Swiss was freed.

Greiner will meet Mali's president on Monday before returning home, a security source told Reuters.

Swiss radio reported that Greiner was in good health, but was exhausted and it was not sure when he would return to Switzerland.

"The official line is that no ransom was paid and his release was secured solely through negotiations," Swiss radio reported on Sunday.

[priffe]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/CHI327625.htm
Al Qaeda's North African wing was paid a 3 million euros ($4.17 million) ransom for the release of Swiss hostage Werner Greiner, an Algerian newspaper said on Monday.
"The money was transferred a few days ago and was handed to a Tuareg middleman in northern Niger, the Arabic language daily El Khabar added, quoting an unnamed security source."
"The West is a hypocrite. It wants to fight terrorism but it pays ransoms to free its hostages. This is not the best way to combat Al Qaeda,"

[Matt Roach]

I am sure that everyone on this board will be rightly thankful that the Swiss hostage has now been released.

Since this situation has been favourably resolved we need to ask some difficult questions:

1. does the payment of a ransom by European governments secure the release of hostages taken in the Sahara?
2. does the payment of this ransom increase the risk for other travellers in the area
3. does this payment then create further "terror" / political instability beyond the area where the hostage was taken (ie are the funds used to develop an insurgency culture)

The (anecdotal) evidence suggests that Edwin Dyer was killed as a result of the British government's refusal to pay a ransom and release a named terrorist suspect. It seems that all other western hostages taken in the region over the last few years (a mix of Swiss, Germans, French and Italians) have been released as a result of ransom payments in the range of €3-€5m, without the need to release certain political / terrorist prisoners, despite this being stated in the original demands. This suggests to me that money, rather than political / ideological / religious views is the primary motivator of hostage taking, and that political demands originally made by the hostage takers will be relaxed or accomodated if the money is forthcoming.

Does this potentially increase the payoff for future kidnappers? Clearly the answer to this has to be yes, but in my view, this risk can be reduced, not by restricting ransom payments, but rather by either investing in local security forces or promoting political automonomy (ie taureg regions in Mali) to reduce the risk of hostage taking.

Given that each of us generally buys an expensive travel insurance policy, you have to question whether the cost of purchasing a hostage's release is really significantly more than a medical repatriation from the Sahara with a broken neck. I suggest the cost is relatively similar, and therefore financial considerations should not dictate the decision to pay ransoms.

Whilst ransom payments to Somalian pirates have clearly increased the general wealth of the Somalian coastal community, it would be difficult to suggest the same has occured in Mali, Niger or Tunisia. Therefore I remain to be convinced of a causal link between ranson payments and the development of future terrorist / insurgent cells in the Sahara.

There have also been some earlier threads were it has been questioned whether the Algerian authorities were involved in some of the kidnappings earlier this decade, on the basis they must have been aware of large movements of kidnappers or hostages through their territory. Whilst this does sound plausible, perhaps we should remember the situation where the Chadian / JEM rebels managed to get to Omdurman in Khartoum in a bunch of 4x4s without being noticed. This suggests to me that it is entirely plausible for groups of kidnappers to operate independently in the desert without wider support and thus remain outside a larger organised group.

I am interested in alternative views on this.

[Roman]

Matt,

It takes little convincing that terrorism of this kind is just like any other capitalist venture, only less legitimate. Ideology is useful insofar as the selection of the business model is concerned, but not essential. And the dilemma how to react to kidnapping is not new, neither is the range of options faced by the two parties. What is changing is perhaps our perception of justified risk versus anticipated reward and the way such risk is underwritten by different political systems.

If there were no single individual or government willing to pay a penny in ransom, there would be no kidnappings, only murders. But kidnapping for ransom has been around for millenia, so the British government's refusal to pay any ransom money is a rather disingenous effort to convince the world of it's high moral stance and an attempt to persuade British nationals not to engage, for health and safety reasons, in anything even remotely risky. BTW, Richard the Lionheart would be still languishing in captivity after the Third Crusade if England did not pay his personal enemy, Leopold of Austria, the sum of £60,000 for his release.

What seems a particularly perfidious aspect of the kidnapping business is the role of intermediaries. These guys are not highway robbers, they are dressed in pinstripe suits, run respectable law offices in the City and are far from engaging in any illicit business. But it's them who laugh all the way to the bank every time a ransom note is posted somewhere in the world.

Should we blame them? After all they pay taxes and contribute to the wealth of this country, while other governments cough up the money

Read/listen to these:

BBC NEWS | Africa | How do you pay a pirate's ransom?
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/...0604-1040a.mp3

[priffe]

No reason to in any way condone piracy or kidbnappings.
No, it is not just another line of business.
And no, piracy and kidnappings is not a way of generating wealth or development.

The Brits are damn right in refusing to pay any ransom. Problem is that it is futile unless EU gets together with a common policy of refusing to pay. Until that happens, Brits would be well advised to stay away from the danger zone.

Until we get the inside story, I don't think we can know much about the alleged involvement of Algerian military in what is going on in the desert, only speculate. And whether the kidnappers are only motivated by money, who knows.
I read that four men have now been arrested for the killing of an American in Nouakchott last month. The alleged Al Qaeda members are said to have come from Mali. Was it a planned assasination or an attempt at kidnapping gone awry? Who knows.

Another coming development. The recent revolt by the muslim uighurs in western China give ideological motivation for the so inclined to start kidnapping Chinese in the Maghreb. I wonder how the Chinese government will respond? They have already issued a warning to Chinese citizens on foreign soil -
albawaba.com middle east news information::China warns Chinese in Algeria of al Qaeda threat
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6704812.ece
"Al-Qaeda has issued its first threat against China with a vow to attack Chinese workers in North Africa in retaliation for Beijing’s treatment of Muslim Uighurs."

[Chris Scott]

News associated with the area.
http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/sct_n/

I would agree these Sahara kidnappings are not 'just another line of business' in the way of Somali pirates or even Yemen (until recently, that is).

Ch

[Roman]

Hi all,

Another interesting analysis of the subject: a Radio 4 report "The kidnap threat to Britons abroad"

The Report

[Chris Scott]

Maghreb News

2009-11-05 The al-Qaeda emir responsible for executing British hostage Edwin Dyer last May was gravely injured in a clash with Algerian troops in Adrar, El Khabar and Journal Tahalil reported on Wednesday (November 4th). Hamid Essouffi, aka Abdel Hamid Abou Zeid, leads the "Taregh ibn Ziyad" brigade. The katibate is one of four such brigades operating in al-Qaeda's Southern Zone, the Sahara-Sahel region stretching from northeast Mauritania to Somalia. Essouffi allegedly ordered the beheading last September of 11 Mauritanian soldiers kidnapped in Aklet Tourine.

[Ulrich]

Hello,

2 interviews with Jeremy Keenan on YouTube.

Amy goodman talks to british anthropologist Jeremy Keenan about the kidnapping of 32 european tourists in the algerian sahara back in february 2003. The hostage taking was widely blamed on Islamic militants thought to be affiliated with al-Qaeda, but Keenan argues that the Bush administration and the Algerian government were the ones responsible

Oh, good old Jeremy!

YouTube - Algerian Authorities Kidnapped EuropeanTourists in 2003 P1

YouTube - Algerian Authorities Kidnapped European tourists in 2003 P2

Regards

Ulrich

[Richard Washington]

Thanks for pointing this interview out Ulrich. They are always interesting to hear.

One point of frustration is how poor the line of questioning is. Keenan presents his story as pure fact. I would have been asking him what evidence he had to support his story.

One important contradiction from Keenan is that in Part 2 Keenan argues that Algeria kidnapped the 32 tourists in order to prove to America that Algeria had a problem that America should help with. In Part 2 Keenan argues that it was the Americans that set about organising the kidnapping. It is not clear to me whether Keenan thinks it was the Algerians or whether he thinks it was the Americans. He doesn't exactly say it was both of them. He trades them off against each other.

There was, to be sure, a lot going on behind the scenes in the kidnapping of the 32. But I think it is the evidence in support of these theories that should get air time. That's the only way more clarity will emerge. Stories without evidence are just free to get wilder by the day.

[Roman]

Richard,

I appreciate your concerns, but what kind of eveidence should we expect in a matter such as this? Would a signed confession from the perpetrators be more credible than JK's concusions based on the info from people speaking to him in private? Are JK's findings generally ureliable/disputable ?

[Chris Scott]

...Are JK's findings generally ureliable/disputable ?

Many genuine Saharan experts seems to think so. A recent paper he wrote for MENAS on, AFAIR, the Austrian situation (just before the execution of Edwin Dyer) being a good case to point.

I rather like this prescient quote from Time mag about a less controversial earlier book of his:
But to see it, you have to look past the marks of an outsider, the signature of one who likes to say, all too often, "Jeremy Keenan was here."
time.com/time/pacific

and as priffe notes elsewhere on the HUBB:

... Keenan speculates wildly and assumes the part of spokesman for Africa and he does give the impression of someone who's lost it.

"Just because I don't have any evidence doesn't mean there is no involvement".
Not the words you want to hear from a scholar...

Ch