You are here:   Dialogue > The Terrorist Threat to Business
 

In a particular case, which I can't go into for legal reasons, that is progressing through the system now, I'm impressed by how seriously they're taking it. I'm not a member of the scientific community, but my belief is that things have improved dramatically because the perpetrators of violence against academics, scientists and others now realise that the consequences will be very unpleasant indeed if they are caught and found guilty. A lot of these people are misguided, they are not prepared for the idea that if they attack laboratories or scientists' homes or whatever they could serve very long jail sentences.

MB: That's certainly right, in that particular case. Of course the police in Spain or Northern Ireland would say in no circumstances should you pay protection money and all the rest of it, but because the terrorism is in a place where everybody's extended family lives, you are just going to quietly pay because they'll start killing every member of your family if they have to. Whatever is the official line, something else will be happening, for the sake of a quiet life - the emphasis on "life".

These big corporations taking on huge risk insurance for things like the eventuality of kidnapping or ransoming, they'd just essentially prefer to pay up. And it's my understanding that in the case of the Somali pirates I was writing about for Standpoint [November], most people would pay up as well. Because these are very unstable places, with, shall we say, not the best trained armed forces or policemen in the world, one of the biggest risks to the hostages in a lot of the cases I've looked at is that, other than the point when people are kidnapped, it's when the authorities mount a rescue operation they're likely to catch a bullet.

That's just a fact of life in those parts of the world. So the freeing of Ingrid Betancourt after a very long period as a hostage of FARC was not really typical. The Colombians mounted an incredibly complicated and sophisticated rescue operation. Companies have to consult professional security firms, of which there are a lot made up of former intelligence or military personnel, who would strengthen their security protection. They would probably advise them to use non-foreign workers in key places to take out at least one of the key claims that the terrorists would be making. The insurance even covers media management of the relatives of the hostages, lest they screw up negotiations. So you can do that, and where it's feasible you can try and rescue people - but with all those caveats about what might happen to the hostages.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Riaz Ahmad
December 26th, 2008
5:12 PM
Luke Johnson, I agree with you fully, but as usual, the dissection and analysis is always one sided with pre-assumed moral high ground. I agree that the curse of terrorism is a menace; this brutality has got to be stopped by all means necessary. Although I agree with your remarks: 'The challenge is, are you willing to stand up for political and moral principles'. This is the crux of the matter and this is where the west defends free speech only when it is convenient. Freedom of speech is a most valued tenet of western liberalism and I fully believe in it. On the other hand, Prophet and the Quran are likewise to the devout Muslims. If these two central tenets are brought in to collision, we are sowing the seeds of brutal conflict between two different people. Al-Jazeera was bombed and its journalists killed both in Afghanistan and in Iraq for broadcasting unedited raw footage of events. Blair and Bush discussed the bombing of the head office of Al-Jazeera in Doha. While western media embedded it self to broadcast sanitised version of truth, Al-Jazeera was telling the truth. No one in the west defended free speech when Al-Jazeera was subjected to state terror.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.