At least four hostages were released on Monday March 20 by their terrorist captors in the Sahel. An operation that revives the debate on the financing of terrorism, through the payment of ransoms against the release of hostages. Although this deal is unofficial, it spreads a dichotomy in the fight against terrorism. The paradox is that on the one hand, we undertake to fight them, on the other hand we pay them colossal sums with which they use to further strengthen themselves. Why then this fabrication of the great powers consisting in ordering African countries plagued by insecurity not to negotiate with terrorists?
Journalist Olivier Dubois, the American humanitarian worker and two ICRC agents were all released from the hands of their captors on Monday, March 20, in the Sahel where security is badly degraded due to the operations of terrorist groups. Sources claim that the French journalist and the American humanitarian, in violation of all the texts prohibiting the payment of ransom, would have been released for money, a practice that has become the approach of terrorists to make money to finally reinforce. Each ransom payment is a way for these evil forces to organize themselves and prepare for another kidnapping.
These releases on Monday have revived discussions around the payment of ransoms to terrorists in return for freedom for the hostages even if officially the States which maintain this deal with the kidnappers still claim to have paid nothing.
Before that of our colleague, the journalist Olivier Dubois, to which we were nevertheless delighted, France denied having paid anything for the release of Pierre CAMATTE, thus covering itself from any accusation of violation of international texts. opposing the payment of ransoms to terrorists.
On the other hand, the version of the negotiators at the time maintained that France had disbursed money for the release of its national in violation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime provides in its article 5 (para. 1) that each state party must criminalize “the act of agreeing with one or more persons to commit a serious crime for a purpose connected directly or indirectly with obtaining a financial or other material advantage”.
According to a report by the Advisory Committee of the Council
July 2013 Human Rights Council of the United Nations Security Council, the payment of a ransom to terrorists in exchange for the release of their hostages may be contrary to the prohibition of the financing of terrorism set out in the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, which in its article 2 qualifies as an offense the fact of “providing[r] or reunited[r] funds with the intention that they will be used or with the knowledge that they will be used, in whole or in part, to commit… [u]n act which constitutes an offense under and according to the definition of one of the treaties listed in the annex”.
Hostage taking, a lucrative practice for terrorists
This practice, which has become one of the main sources of terrorist financing, is on the rise in the world, but particularly in the Sahel where a large part is under the influence of these obscurantist forces.
According to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of our country, Tiébilé DRAME, hostage taking is the activity by which terrorists make a lot of money alongside drug trafficking operations and other illicit initiatives.
According to Red24 cited in the report, an organization specializing in global security, in 2011, around 30,000 kidnappings for ransom were recorded worldwide. According to global estimates, some 10,000 to 15,000 kidnappings are committed each year, mainly in Latin America.
If the “usually affected countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Colombia continue[aient] to deplore the very high kidnapping rates, this form of criminality [constituait] also a significant and/or growing threat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, the Sahel and Sahara region of North Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, India, China, Yemen and the Philippines “.
It is estimated that “terrorists manage to capture hostages in 80% of cases, and obtain the requested ransom in 70% of cases. In insurgency incidents with hostage taking, terrorists get at least part of what they asked for in 75% of cases”.
Kidnapping for ransom has become a very lucrative business for terrorists and criminal organizations. According to some statistics considered relatively modest, the annual worldwide revenue from kidnappings for ransom exceeds 500 million United States dollars. In the Philippines, for example, between 1993 and 1996, a total sum of US$11 million was paid for the release of more than 600 people, most of them taken hostage by the New People’s Army or the Front Islamic Liberation Moro. After reaching 113 in 1998, the number of recorded kidnapping for ransom cases fell to 50 in 1999 before rising to 99 in 2001.
The proliferation of cases of hostage-taking with demand for ransom shows that the phenomenon constitutes a booming activity for terrorist groups. In addition, hostage-for-ransom is increasingly integrated into the modus operandi of groups involved in acts of piracy throughout the Horn of Africa.
And there are many reports that the ransom money is being used for other terrorist activities. Therefore, it can be assumed that whoever pays a ransom is at least aware that this money will fund further acts of terrorism.
Clearly, the ransoms paid are used to finance other terrorist activities, which increases the activity of these groups, multiplies the number of victims and perpetuates the problem.
France’s dichotomy on negotiations with terrorist leaders
By opting for the release of the hostages, it naturally requires negotiations and discussions with those responsible for the kidnappers. Negotiations that do not offend the French authorities who forbade our country to dialogue with terrorist leaders despite the popular anointing of the conference of understanding and the inclusive national dialogue held under President Ibrahim Boubacar KEITA.
Unequivocally, the conclusions of these meetings had recommended to “negotiate with the belligerents of the center, in this case Ahmadou Koufa”, the head of the katiba Macina, and “the religious extremists of the north, in this case Iyad Ag Ghali” , who has since become the emir of the Support Group for Islam and Muslims (GSIM).
Until the diplomatic quarrel between France and Mali, the former colonial power had shown itself to be firmly opposed to the opening of talks with those it designates as “armed terrorist groups”. “With terrorists, we do not argue. We fight, ”said Emmanuel Macron dryly in a long interview given at the end of November to Jeune Afrique. A summary of the position constantly defended by Paris.
To save the life of one of its nationals, France endorses dialogue, discussions with terrorist leaders, but opposes the approach of our country which seeks to stabilize itself, through agreements with terrorists like Iyad Ag Ghali and Ahmadou Koufa, all Malians.
BY SIKOU BAH