In October 2012, US Under Secretary of State for terrorism and financial intelligence, David Cohen, delivered a talk at Chatham House in London on the growing trend of ‘kidnapping for ransom’ (KfR). This monetary-driven form of terrorism, led by al-Qaeda and similar groups, seeks to use kidnapping and ransoms as a means of generating revenue to support further terrorist activities. In this regard, the extremist militant groups to which the world has become so accustomed, have also developed into organised criminal cartels with a strategic business mission: to make money through kidnapping.
This new funding model has developed, in part, because the al-Qaeda core is no longer in a position to provide funding to its affiliates. This is the result of the effective application of pressure on that core by governments, which has ‘contributed to a general weakening of the hierarchical relationship between the core and the affiliates.’ This success, however, has proven to be a double-edged sword: it has led to the creation of terrorist cells (modelled after the core mission of al-Qaeda) that have to seek their own sources of funding and develop their own violent methodologies.
Some experts have drawn parallels with the methods employed by Somali pirates, who are known to divide the people it abducts into categories (mainly determined by nationality) based on what they are ‘worth.’
Further experts, however, argue that the motivation of terrorist groups may not be solely monetary. In Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, kidnapping also has a political dimension, though ‘it is very difficult to bracket whether KfR groups are political or not: they can be so much part of the fabric of communities in places where criminality and corruption are rife.’
These complexities in turn make it difficult to design strategic responses to KfR. For example, one expert has claimed that ‘it is unrealistic to eliminate KfR. It has been a violent and illegal source of monetary means among gangs and criminals since the time of Julius Caesar (who was abducted), or even earlier; and, if the global economic situation continues as it is, kidnapping will remain prevalent due to the widening gap between rich and poor.’ Relevant empirical research would appear to back-up this assertion, showing that KfR mostly happens in poorer and conflict-afflicted countries.
The victims
The victims of KfR are strategically targeted in order to maximise the financial gain that can be extorted from governments, companies or the individual’s family. Those regularly targeted include; wealthy locals, local journalists, fixers, foreign workers such as media correspondents, aid workers, diplomats, tourists and corporate employees.
Ransoms appear to be getting higher and higher, and the more lucrative the exercise the more it will act as a spur and an example to other factions and disaffected individuals. Thus every ransom that is paid encourages further abductions. If one government pays but another does not, then the faction is likely to kidnap more victims from the country whose government chooses to pay ransoms.
During his talk at Chatham House, Mr Cohen gave the example of a European company that had been asked to pay a substantial annual fee to a certain terrorist cell in order to ensure that the cell would not target its employees. Again, this shows the increasing ‘professionalization’ of KfR schemes, and how the line between terrorist groups and ‘traditional’ organised crime syndicates is becoming increasingly blurred.
What response?
It is clear that the growing threat of KfR needs to be met with a concerted and coherent international foreign policy response. Future responses must include more research into the psychology and motivations of the groups involved, and a universally applied code of practice to be followed by all governments and organisations that find themselves the victim of such extortion.
To date, six recommendations for governments have been put forward and can be read in full detail in the Human Rights Foreign Policy Report: Combatting and Contending with Kidnap for Ransom:
- Better support for victims and their families;
- Improved training for those working in high risk areas;
- Better and more coherent negotiation strategies;
- KfR in Colombia: are there examples to be learned from how the Colombian Government dealt with this issue?
- The commercial insurance sector and KfR; and
- Responsibility to protect: KfR a risk factor for mass atrocity crimes.
When formulating their responses, governments must base domestic and international policy on international human rights law. Preventing and contending with KfR is a human issue with raw realpolitik circumstances and outcomes. The complex issues that lie at the centre of such a global transnational crime are, at heart, human rights issues, and to address them, states must share and draw upon relevant experiences and policies.
Image: “Personnel from RFA Fort Victoria Board a Boat Suspected of Use by Pirates Near Somalia” by UK Ministry of Defence, licensed under CC CY-NC 2.0.
Share this Post
