Adam Sage
The Times
July 31, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6734053.ece
The French commandos swoop into action, shooting dead the kidnappers and bundling the hostages into a helicopter. But the smiles of the former captives fade as their liberators deliver a nasty shock: the bill.
That could be the scene after Bernard Kouchner, the Foreign Minister, introduced a law enabling officials to take legal action against kidnap victims deemed to have ignored official advice against travelling to dangerous places.
The legislation follows criticism over the burden to taxpayers from missions to free French hostages in countries such as Iraq, Somalia and Pakistan.
“If people get themselves into difficulty and the State has to intervene, putting the lives of its own agents in danger, then it is legitimate in principle to be able to recover the money,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman told The Times. “This is meant to be dissuasive. We’re concerned about public finances but we’re more concerned about the safety of French citizens.”
The controversy echoes the row in Britain after the the SAS rescued Norman Kember, the peace activist held in Iraq, in 2006. When he initially omitted to thank publicly the SAS, who had freed him and two Canadian hostages, army officers queued up to criticised his apparent ingratitude.
Diplomats said that the cost of operations, often involving navy vessels, air force helicopters, commandos, secret service agents and covert deals with corrupt officials and kidnappers, could run to millions of euros.
Under the legislation, submitted to the Cabinet this month, the State will be entitled to recover “all or part of the expenses ... for rescue operations abroad for people who have deliberately exposed themselves to risks which they could not ignore”.
The authorities will be able to take action against travel agents, shipping companies and insurance companies accused of encouraging journeys to areas deemed hazardous.
Regions considered dangerous are published on the Foreign Ministry website in a regularly updated list. Travellers are at present advised against visiting countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and parts of Peru, Tanzania, Colombia, Sudan and Venezuela.
The ministry said that had the law been in force it would have taken action against tour operators who continued flying to Bangkok after the airport was closed by demonstrations last year.
It cost the Government hundreds of thousands of euros to charter aircraft to bring home tourists.
Officials will also be likely to sue travellers captured by pirates off Somalia under Mr Kouchner’s plan. The French military has intervened three times to free French vessels held by pirates in the past year.
The ministry said that journalists taken hostage would be protected from prosecution but aid workers who ignored official warnings could face legal action if they were judged to have behaved irresponsibly. The Government has agreed to limit the amount that it can recover.
A ministry spokesman said that the cost of ransom would not be included. The French authorities, who officially do not pay ransoms, are believed to have paid €8 million (£7 million) to release Florence Aubenas, a journalist held in Iraq for 157 days in 2005. They are reported to have paid €2 million to Somali pirates who kidnapped 30 crew members on a French yacht last year.
Switzerland and Germany have similar laws, enabling Berlin to recover €12,600 from a hostage in Colombia.
A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman said that there were no plans to relay the costs of resolving a hostage crisis or emergency rescue to the individual involved.
“Our priority is preserving life and saving the hostage,” the spokesman said. Passing on the cost “is not an idea we are currently looking at”.
Jaeger
The article about the American hikers detained in Iran made me think of this article that I read last week. What do you think ? Do you agree that people who deliberately ignore their government's warnings about visiting some places should participate in the cost of the rescue operation?
1This is interesting, but I think it would get really tricky. A peace activist clearly could be charged under the bill, but what about someone who goes to a dangerous country for work? Are all jobs equal; would all people who travel to dangerous countries as missionaries for their church be covered - all religions?
--------------------------
2Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
Generally, I think it's a fair measure. It's judging the situations that I see as potential trouble.
--------------------------
3Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
Stephley, I think this law would apply to hikers like these Americans who went to a war zone at the border of a known enemy of the US. The same logic goes for a French tourist who went to the Baluchistan province in Pakistan because apparently, he thought this was a good time to see it !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major_ethnic_groups_of_Pakistan_in_198...
4I wonder if they will get picky...okay they are cool-let's save them...wait they can't pay us...no assets so leave them there...okay they can afford a half-hearted attempt so we'll do that...we could hold them until they paid...wait that is ransom.
To a degree...those hiking near Iran simply had a "come get me tag" on their shirt. Perhaps they should pay for their short-sightedness. If they were there for a reason other than just plan bad decision...perhaps the half-hearted attempt. They should pay. This could get expensive.
**************************************************************************************
5A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
Winston Churchill
I agree with Steph that it would be hard to judge the situations and determine who pays and who doesn't.
If someone puts theirself at risk by going on vacation to a place that the government has issued travel warnings about, should the government attempt rescuing them in the first place?
6From what I've read about the hikers in Iran, it sounds like they should be charged for whatever the government has to put out to get them out. Where would the journalists in North Korea fall?
If nothing else, I think there'd have to be a panel to evaluate the cases.
--------------------------
7Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
Bernard Kouchner seems like a cool guy - what do you think of him Tulipe?
--------------------------
8Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
We're talking about regular citizens like you and me who decide to go ON VACATION in these dangerous places of the world that are either torn apart by war or politically very unstable. We're not talking about journalists who do their job (and a very courageous and useful job at that) or diplomats who represent their own country. It's as if instead of going to the Riviera, I decided to travel to Kandahar in Afghanistan because I think the mountains must be so beautiful over there.
I guess the government would still rescue everyone, as they should, but there should be a financial contribution from those who acted so carelessly. Like a fixed rate : "Ok, if you want to go to the Swat valley, be my guest, but just so you know, if something goes wrong and we have to get you back from the Taliban, there'll be consequences for you when you get home".
In the end, I think this would serve much more as a deterrent than as a punishment.
9I can see tht's the intent of the bill - but here, I can see people claiming their vacations were cultural exchanges and fighting charges. And I can see someone with a blog arguing that they went as a reporter. It would deter some people - but I can see big arguments.
--------------------------
10Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
Bernard Kouchner is originally a doctor. He's renowned for creating two of the most famous humanitarian groups in France (and perhaps in the world of relief work) : Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without borders) and Médecins du Monde (Doctors of the World). He created the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’, differing from the Red Cross tradition, in 1968 in Biafra.
Instead of remaining politically neutral, Kouchner said back then that "[They] had to make a noise to proclaim that the Nigerians were killing children and attacking civilians". He thought that relief workers should not sit around while people got slaughtered and instead of only cure those who needed help, they should also denounce the political realities which are going on around them. Kouchner use the example of WWII, when the Red Cross never said anything about the genocide.
He - as minister of Health under President Mitterrand - was also one of the few people in France who denounced the Somalian famine and the need for rich countries to send food and do something. In a famous photo with him carrying a bag of rice http://myhero.com/images/guest/g11420/hero11934/g11420_u8763_Kouchner_in... , he launched a mediatic operation called "Rice for Somalia", for which every school children brought to school one or several kilos of rice to be sent to Somalia. I think the total amounted to about 5000 tons of rice.
He's regularly among the most beloved political figures in France although he was widely criticized for his support to the Iraq war in 2003 and for becoming a minister under Sarkozy (right-wing) when he used to be from the left of the political spectre.
11"curing".
12"uses"
Sorry.
I've seen him in two interviews and he seems like a reasonable guy.
--------------------------
13Health Surtax: “No, it’s not punishing the rich. If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community."
Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.