Skip to main content

Fred Burton is a former U.S. special agent and vice-president of intelligence at Stratfor

Following the murder of Canadian John Ridsdel this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reaffirmed Ottawa's position that Canada will not make ransom payments to terrorists.

But having worked numerous hostage cases over my many years as a special agent with the U.S. Department of State, I can tell you the question of what governments can and will do to bring hostages home is not as clear-cut as the statements of leaders such as Mr. Trudeau.

Story continues below advertisement

The rationale behind such a line in the sand – that paying ransoms only begets more hostage-taking: Militant groups will be more likely to target victims from countries willing to pay ransoms.

While seemingly sound in principle, the theory does not always play out that way in reality. As we have seen, militant group Abu Sayyaf seized two Canadians (along with two non-Canadians) despite Ottawa's very vocal and longstanding unwillingness to pay ransoms. It is simply unrealistic to expect terrorists to be significantly deterred by the policies of a potential hostage's home government when a kidnapping opportunity arises on the group's home turf.

In part this is because even though governments have been unwilling to pay ransoms, family members and employers – which sometimes take out kidnap and ransom insurance policies on their high-risk travellers – are often willing to pay to secure the safe release of their loved ones or workers.

In this case, however, no one apparently stepped up to meet Abu Sayyaf's ransom demands, and the group followed through on its threat to murder a hostage if it was not paid. In light of the killing, his fellow Canadian hostage is in a very precarious position, perhaps forcing the Canadian government to try a new approach.

Ottawa's unwillingness to pay ransoms does not mean there are no other options to recover the hostages. As John le Carré wrote in A Perfect Spy, "in every operation, there is an above the line and a below the line. Above the line is what you do by the book. Below the line is how you do the job."

Even though the Canadian government is going "by the book" publicly in reiterating its position regarding ransoms, much more is likely happening below the line that could change this situation.

Ultimately, however, the governments of host nations are responsible for safeguarding travellers – in this case, the Philippines. The threat posed by Abu Sayyaf is hardly new, though the group took a 15-year hiatus between murdering kidnapped Western nationals.

Story continues below advertisement

The Canadian military, security and intelligence services will need to press their counterparts in Manila for greater tactical co-operation and intelligence exchange, both to safeguard the lives of the remaining hostages and to ensure these situations are not repeated. All options should be on the table, including a variety of hostage rescue scenarios, negotiations and military operations with other capable forces in the region, specifically Australian and U.S. forces.

While many of these scenarios are likely to put the remaining Canadian hostage in great danger, Abu Sayyaf itself has shown that its Western hostages are already in great danger. For the most part, Canada's hands are tied, and it is Manila that will choose the way forward, though hopefully in close co-ordination with Canada and its partners.

And unfortunately, my experience has shown that once the threat has escalated to this point, there are rarely good outcomes – only bad options.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies