The age-old dilemma over whether to give in to hostage takers has been thrust into the spotlight with the release of Filippino Angelo de la Cruz, which was conditional on a pull-out from Iraq by Filippino troops, and the subsequent kidnap of Indian, Kenyan and Egyptian nationals working for a Kuwaiti firm (sorry no cite).
Is it likely the success over de la Cruz emboldened kidnappers to take the six?
Philippines president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is being praised in many quarters for doing her utmost to save a national, but has she inadvertantly sentenced others to die at the hands of kidnappers who now have renewed confidence in their bargaining power?
What do we think? Overall, good move or bad?
One rule we should all be following is to not negotiate with people that take hostages. Each time you give in you give them more power and encourage them to do it again. I think that is self-evident.
Chamerlin thought appeasement would work in the late 30’s. It didn’t!
Giving in to the hostage takers demands, merely emboldens them to take more hostages andmake more demands to achieve their objectives, currentlly, to rid Muslim countries of foriegners.
Bullies understand a forceful response. Giving in once, leads to more concessions, ad infinitum.
Now they have taken six more innocent hostages, next time twelve?
What new demands will they make?