英国卫报:绑架为何成了一门生意(13)（在线收听）

“The market is now too inflated,” one experienced security consultant told me.

一位经验丰富的安全顾问告诉我：“现在绑架的赎金太高。”

“Governments have deep pockets and are basically unable to do what a traditional K&R consultant would do,

“政府财力雄厚，基本上无法做传统的绑架和赎金保险顾问会做的事情，

which is to put up resistance, to claim an inability to pay, to bargain, to try and disincentivise the crime.”

也就是抵抗，声称无力支付，讨价还价，试图抑制犯罪”。

Such arguments may seem self-serving, but there is evidence to support them.

这样的论点似乎是自私的，但有证据支持它们。

In one case, a New York Times journalist who was captured in Afghanistan in 2008 tried to argue with his captors,

在一个案例中，2008年在阿富汗被捕的《纽约时报》记者试图与绑架者争辩，

who were demanding $25m and the release of 15 prisoners. He told them they were out of touch.

他们要求2500万美元和释放15名囚犯。他告诉他们，他们失去了联系。

They countered that the French had recently paid $38m for the release of an aid worker,

他们反驳说，法国最近支付3800万美元解救了一名援助工作者，

and that an Italian journalist had been ransomed for $15m and the release of several prisoners.

一名意大利记者被赎回，代价是支付1500万美元，还有释放几名囚犯。

Quickly capitulating to high ransom demands – as some European and Asian governments have done –

迅速向高额赎金要求投降——就像一些欧洲和亚洲国家政府所做的那样——

makes kidnapping more attractive and lucrative around the world.

使得绑架在世界范围内更具吸引力和利润。

While governments might make a distinction between proscribed and criminal groups, kidnappers don’t.

虽然政府可能会对被禁组织和犯罪集团做出区分，但绑架者不会。

And so the markets are inextricably linked.

因此，这些市场是不可分割地联系在一起的。

So what should governments do? If the goal is to bring the hostages home safely

那么政府应该做些什么呢？如果目标是把人质安全带回家，

while reducing the threat of future kidnapping and minimise the money flowing to terrorist groups,

同时降低人们未来被绑架的威胁、将流向恐怖组织的资金降至最低的话，

then there are legitimate questions about whether the no-concessions policy is achieving the desired result.

那么，关于“不让步”政策是否取得了预期结果的合理问题就出现了。

First, a series of studies carried out in recent years provide little evidence that kidnapping victims are targeted according to nationality.

首先，近年来进行的一系列研究几乎没有证据表明绑匪是根据国籍确定的受害者。

Thus refusing to pay ransom does not appear to reduce the incidence of the crime,

因此，拒绝支付赎金似乎并没有减少犯罪的发生，

but does greatly increase the likelihood that the victim will be killed.

但会大大增加受害者被杀的可能性。

Perversely, in the current environment, it may actually increase the money flowing to terrorists,

反常的是，在当前环境下，它实际上可能增加流向恐怖分子的资金，

because kidnappers can execute their British and American hostages,

原因就是，英美两国采取不让步政策，这导致两国的人质没有什么价值，

who because of the no-concessions policy have little value,

所以绑匪可以处死他们的英国和美国人质，

as means of putting pressure on the European countries that pay multi-million-dollar ransoms.

将此作为对支付数百万美元赎金的欧洲国家施加压力的手段。

This is why the problem must be defined differently and more narrowly.

这就是为什么要对这个问题做出不同和更狭义的定义。

How can western countries work together not to stop ransom payments to terrorist kidnappers – which is an unattainable goal –

西方国家如何能齐心协力，不停止向恐怖主义绑架者支付赎金——这是一个无法达到的目标——

but rather to minimise their size? Clearly, the K&R industry has a key role to play.

而是将它们的规模最小化？显然，绑架和赎金行业将扮演一个关键角色。