Skip to main content
editorial

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks as he meets with French President Francois Hollande (not pictured) for a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Summit at Shima, Mie prefecture, on May 26, 2016. AFP PHOTO / STEPHANE DE SAKUTINSTEPHANE DE SAKUTIN/AFP/Getty ImagesSTEPHANE DE SAKUTIN/AFP / Getty Images

Justin Trudeau's argument that Canada and its G7 allies should never pay ransoms to kidnappers is completely persuasive at the philosophical level. All of the leaders assembled in Japan outwardly agree with the position he advanced at the G7 summit this week, simply because it is so clearly the right thing to say: Governments shouldn't put themselves in a vulnerable position where they agree to fund criminal gangs and terrorist organizations, while placing their citizens abroad in a state of jeopardy.

The fact that Canada's PM feels obliged to make the case against ransoms is a reminder of the wide discrepancy between principled arguments and pragmatic behaviour when kidnapping is involved. The United Nations Security Council has consistently urged governments not to pay out money to opportunistic kidnappers, since doing so risks funding terrorism. But kidnappings continue for a host of reasons – we will not eradicate kidnapping any more than we can eliminate terrorism – and the kidnapped are real, flesh and blood people. That's why, among our G7 partners, France, Italy, Japan and Germany are widely thought to have followed a policy of making payments to free citizens.

Three years ago, G7 leaders stated that they "unequivocally" rejected the payment of ransoms to terrorists – because it was the right thing to say. Yet here they are in 2016 with Mr. Trudeau leading the charge against the very same age-old problem. Obviously there remains plenty of room for political equivocation on such an emotionally wrought, high-stakes tactic. A government is unlikely to be congratulated for its moral toughness when one of its citizens is executed in a far-off jungle.

There's an argument to be made that the cost of ransoms has increased, and the incentive to kidnap with it, as some governments have been persuaded to pay for their nationals' release. Perhaps if kidnappers can be made to believe they have no hope of ever being paid, no hostages will be taken. It sounds logical, but it contains an element of wishful thinking, given that kidnappers have their own means of applying pressure. They can kill people, and they do.

It can't hurt for Mr. Trudeau and the other G7 leaders to present a united front on kidnapping, if only as the starting-point for real-world negotiating – why show your hand before you have to? But a blanket commitment to never pay a ransom, ever? It's a rock-hard position that is too easy to argue, and too hard to justify.

Interact with The Globe