Hostages and limits on negotiation

By Paul Reynolds World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

The demand by al-Qaeda in North Africa over the release of the hostage Edwin Dyer, whom it says it has murdered, was one impossible for the British government to accept.

Edwin Dyer was in a group of hostages, some of whom were freed

It was a political demand. The al-Qaeda faction wanted Abu Qatada, an al-Qaeda suspect held in Britain and awaiting deportation to Jordan, to be freed.

The British government has - and has had for a long time - a policy of not making political concessions or paying a ransom.

To have freed a prisoner it has declared to be dangerous would have undermined its whole anti-terrorist strategy.

In this case, both the British government and the kidnappers - known as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb - acknowledged that there were negotiations or at least contacts.

In a statement on 20 May extending their deadline, the group referred to a request from the "British negotiator" for the extension.

The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has referred to the "strenuous efforts of the UK team in the UK and Mali, with valuable help from international partners."

Given the positions of each side, this was always likely to have a tragic end.

It was not always so. In 1970, when Leila Khaled of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine tried to hijack an El Al plane and ended up in British custody, the British conservative government released her as part of a prisoner exchange.

Change of tack

It was Mrs Thatcher who fundamentally changed the attitude of the British government and her influence is still felt in current policy.

It was evident during the long years when Terry Waite and other hostages were held in Lebanon.

Terry Waite and others were released after US-Iranian negotiations

The British government tried to downplay the issue, arguing that the more it was played up, the more valuable the hostages and the more outrageous the kidnappers' demands would become.

In the event, unseen factors were at work and the hostages were freed as a result of negotiations between the Americans and the Iranians, thereby showing that this is sometimes a very murky business indeed.

If demands are made of a third party, the prospects for release can be very much complicated. This is seen in the ongoing case of five British hostages held in Iraq. They were captured in 2007 by a Shia group wanting the release of a militia leader. The fate of that militia leader is in the hands of the Iraqi government and will determine theirs.

Lure of money

However, the reaction of governments to hostage-taking is not always so clear-cut. Nor is the position of the kidnappers either, because, despite their declarations, money is often of interest to them.

It has taken some hits in the last year. It is on the defensive and seeking resources Dr J Peter Pham on al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb

Edwin Dyer was part of a group of hostages and a number of them have been freed amid reports that ransoms were paid.

In April, the al-Qaeda group released two Canadian diplomats and two European tourists, a German and a Swiss.

Dr J Peter Pham, an Africa watcher at James Madison University, told the Canadian magazine Macleans that the al-Qaeda cell in North Africa was short of money.

"It has taken some hits in the last year. It is on the defensive and seeking resources," he said. He suspected that money might have been paid for the tourists, which unofficially also covered the diplomats.

That was done, according to this theory, because the Canadian government refused to negotiate and in fact it said later that it had paid no ransom.

Maintaining stance

The al-Qaeda group might have had another interest in getting money. It is reported that it bought the hostages from local tribesmen in the desert.

Last year it freed two Austrian tourists. In their case, the original demand had concerned al-Qaeda prisoners in Algeria and Tunisia, but in the end no reciprocal releases were made, so it has been assumed that a ransom was paid.

Ransom demands are easier to meet because the relatives of the hostages can take a role in offering the necessary money. In this way, governments can maintain their no-negotiations stance while perhaps guiding the relatives towards those negotiating on behalf of the hostages.

And when serious money is at stake - as in the cases of the ships hijacked by Somali pirates - big companies are very ready to pay up.

[email protected]

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version