Article content continued

Or, take the waters of Southeast Asia. Reuters reports that the United States has given $200 million in military aid over the last decade to shore up the navies of the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia because it isn’t entirely willing to abide militant and pirate groups (or China) there.

Other hotspots identified by the world kidnapping report are beset by challenges that Western governments can help states address: more development assistance and support for the rule of law might eventually curtail kidnapping in Nigeria, for example; support for transparency and anti-corruption efforts could do something similar in Mexico.

These strategies and others have at least three advantages over a “we won’t pay” strategy. First, they don’t depend on sacrificing individual hostages’ lives. Second, they may offer local communities opportunities for peace, security, justice, democracy or economic growth. And third, they may reduce domestic kidnappings too. (Locals faced an almost 10-times greater risk than foreign nationals last year, according to NYA International.)

Still, every strategy is fraught. Mediation can result in war criminals getting amnesty. Military aid can lead to human rights abuses. Support for rule of law can be in vain. Sustainable development can be, well, not quite that. Governments also have the ability to do multiple things at once, of course – they can deny ransom money while giving aid money.

But if Western governments want to prevent future kidnappings, their options aren’t limited to a precariously trust-dependent policy of refusing to assist with ransoms, all of them, no matter what, who, where, or how much. There is no clear and cruel choice between one life now and many lives later. Governments should be so lucky. They have a great number of options, and whatever they choose, much can go wrong.

ShannonGormley is an Ottawa Citizen global affairs columnist and freelance journalist.