A Response to 'Saving Lives'
“Even if he had to pay an extra $200 million, it was a price he should have paid.” With this statement, lower Jiwon Sung in an Op-Ed “Saving Lives” last week affirmed her staunch solidarity with a style of foreign policy most reminiscent of Premier Neville Chamberlain’s in the late 30s: that is, a roll-over, anything goes policy that ends in money lost, a country whipped and no lives saved. She reaches the conclusion that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was irresponsible in his handling of the hostage crisis because he and his government were, “incessantly trying to figure out whether the video was real or not.” She claims Abe has a “hidden military agenda.”
On authenticity. Authenticity of hostage videos, to say the least, is important. Money sent to free captives that are in no real danger simply fuels the machine of hate and extremism that is ISIS. Such money essentially becomes funding, legitimizing the group and doing nothing to tame their aggressive expansion in the Middle East. That aside, to say that the Japanese government spent an “obsessive amount of time” on confirming the authenticity of the video is misled. From day one, Abe indicated that he was using many of the diplomatic channels available to respond to the crisis. Confirmation of authenticity was a trifle matter, taken care of in hours, days. We know that it took only ten hours for Abe to confirm the second video was authentic.
ISIS’ goal, at its core, is to be recognized as its power and to extend its influence as much as possible.
At this point, it is important to note that Abe’s government did everything it could to prevent both Yukawa and Goto, the two hostages taken by ISIS, from going back to Syria after their initial return. The question “who will take responsibility if the government does not?” is easily answered by a refrain of libertarian dogma, “they will, they will.” Yet, Sung insists that to have the hostages returned safely is to the country’s benefit at any cost.
What is the country’s benefit? How can these goals be reached? Sung notes many times that “ISIS’ goals have not changed,” that “negotiating with terrorists is different than negotiating with other countries” because “in terrorist negotiations, the country’s benefit should be of utmost priority.” Negotiating with terrorists is different from negotiating with other countries. This is not, however, because of some change in country’s priorities. In fact, the change is essentially that ISIS is a group of amateurs compared to long histories of diplomatic tradition that exist in many countries on the world stage today. An organization bred from hatred using twisted religious dogma as its vessel will never perfect the intricacies of international relations that exist today. Even if the $200 million had been paid, it is more likely than not that neither prisoner would have been released, especially considering ISIS’ erratic strategy in this particular situation. Their goals are not at all clear—money? Prisoner exchange? Legitimacy? A rallying cry?
On the other hand, a country’s benefit—in this case Japan—is nowhere near as ambiguous. Getting its nationals back is a benefit to Japan. Not financing terrorists is a benefit to Japan. The first goal, given ISIS’ ridiculous strategy, would most likely have been futile. The second was still possible. Japan’s act of courage in not paying ransom is laudable in two ways. First, it stymies the system that has caused journalists to be seen as bounties in Syria, or “walking bags of money” according to the New York Times. There is a reason that glimpses into the Islamic State such as that offered by the Vice documentary “The Islamic State” are so valuable.
Journalists have found ISIS to be increasingly impenetrable, and not at all worth the risk and danger to life. To date, more than 70 journalists have been videoed being killed and millions have been paid in ransom. Thus, journalists shy away from the area entirely, with good reason. However, actions like those of Japan take away incentive for ISIS to put hostages up for ransom and then gruesomely kill them on camera. The cost of notoriety will be too much to balance the small gains in publicity. Thus, not only is a key source of ISIS’ income diminished, journalists will also steadily move back into covering the area, without the fear of being seen on their knees on a montage back home. Inefficient mechanisms die out; so will the hostage taking by ISIS.
The second reason Japan should be applauded is that its staunch opposition to appeasement will resound with its citizens, preventing further sympathizers from wanting to join. There is only so much revoking passports and visas can do, and what these cannot do, Japan will accomplish with its position on the international stage. By showing ISIS for the gruesome monsters it is, Japan prevents further defection and weakens the Islamist cause.
What exactly is this “Islamist cause?” Sung claims that terrorist groups will never stop striving for their deprived goals. Yet, we see that terrorists will stop, when their leaders have been starved and their cause whittled to nothing. ISIS’ goal, at its core, is to be recognized as its power and to extend its influence as much as possible. Yet, by killing a Jordanian pilot, it further distanced itself from its neighbors, and if it continues to make blunders, its influence will reach nowhere, let alone far and wide. Thus, Japan must bide its time until ISIS’ mistakes become its own downfall. This biding of time must not be, as Sung suggests, negotiation. Negotiation simply feeds into ISIS’ desire for legitimacy, and from what we have seen, ISIS is impatient. The only way to win this war is for Japan to continue providing non-military aid to the best of its ability and prevent, as best as it can, its nationals from going as journalists until it is clear that it is safe for nationals to visit.
Sung’s claims that Abe is simply using this to advance his military policies detract from the discussion in that denouncing Japan’s involvement in helping its allies win a war that has affected its nationals is simply a statement of support of Japan’s continual neutering and emasculation on the world stage. Of course, Japan cannot be trusted with great military power due to its failure to recognize its war crimes in the past. It is paramount, however, to understand that Abe wishes to restore military ability not through some sick colonial lust, but rather to protect our people at home and abroad. Especially in the modern political climate, such ability to defend oneself is invaluable.
“Abe, because of your reckless decision to take part in unwinnable war, this knife will not only slaughter Kenji but will also carry on and cause carnage wherever your people are found. So let the nightmare for Japan begin.” These were the statements made by Jihadi John in the video beheading of Goto. Japan will wait, until that same knife turns around and leaves Jihadi John bleeding. ISIS may think this is a new era. ISIS may assert that this is the era of the reign of the Islamic State. Let them talk. Japan does not negotiate with terrorists. Neither should the world.