Only realistic way to protect Aid Workers is to refuse to negotiate for them. Along with a strict policy of hunting down the kidnappers. Basically you make it graphically clear that touching an Aid Worker comes under Very Bad Idea.

Leigh - that is one approach. Although some would argue that it's a hard bitten one :-) The main difficulty is being able to locate the kidnappers in a reasonably efficient way (time-wise). Hence, it would very helpful if these NGO's would give their volunteers personal alarms that could be activated in an emergency, and would use GPS tracking to give their position.

In reality, it plays out in a different way. Let me give you one recent example. Two medical aid workers were abducted from a remote camp. They worked for a major NGO. They were kidnapped by a hostile group who used elaborate methods to conceal their location. The precautions taken to provide security for the NGO workers were poor - so it was very easy for the kidnappers to walk in and take someone. The NGO put out press releases complaining about the attack on their staff (though naturally no word about the lack of safety precautions). After that, the NGO went silent. The two hostages were in captivity for about 9 months and lost so much weight they looked like refugees when recovered. It is unknown if they were physically or sexually abused during captivity. They were freed because a large sum of money was paid (roughly $1 million apiece). The NGO made a press statement saying that they had paid no ransom. This was splitting hairs - since most likely they secured the help of independent private donors to give the money for the ransom. The two volunteers were eventually released.

It is particularly frustrating that the people paying these ransoms are offering such high prices. There is no "set rate" for the price of a human being - except what the market will bear. Unfortunately, for aid workers it's around $1 million per head, give or take (and that is after a lot of negotiations).

This is the way that things currently take place ... generally speaking. But it doesn't work for victims who work for small NGO's, or journalists from small media companies (or third world countries) ... they cannot pay. So their captivity can be long, gruesome, and may not end in freedom.

Pete

Teslinhiker - I have used Sat phones myself. The rates for intl. calls are quite expensive. But they are good in the sense that calls from remote continents back to home base (USA or UK) are quite clear.

There are also companies that offer "apps" for local cell phones - with the intention of sending out an alert that people have a crisis.

Both of these technologies fail during a violent kidnapping. The kidnappers are rough, they move fast, the victims are banged up, and their phones are confiscated. Kidnappers always remember to take their victims phones during the early moments of an abduction. So the phone link to the victim is lost almost immediately. However, a small secret GPS tracker might escape their attention for a while longer.

Pete

That sounds good in theory, but probably won't work so well in practice. These days the terrorist types aren't stupid, since so many of their buddies have been tracked by their cell phones and blown up. One would expect the first thing any terrorist with half a brain would do is thoroughly search hostages and get rid of any such devices.

ASKAR - no doubt they will. it's a battle of wits out there. but not one that you want to lose. captivity at the hands of these perpetrators is getting less and less enjoyable.

it's hard to find the kidnappers. they don't make the mistake of leaving cell phone calls that can be easily located. so if the victims cannot be tracked, then the solution is either to ransom them to freedom, or see them undergo a very lengthy captivity. In Mexico now, 60% of kidnapping victims are killed after the ransom is paid. it's a tough business.

Pete

Pete, that was sort of my point, actually. We now have a textbook example of natural selection, since we have by now killed off most all the dumb terrorists. The ones who remain are unlikely to be fooled by any tracking device, no matter how cleverly hidden or disguised.

In fact, widespread use of such devices could easily be used against hostages. After capture, strip them to the skin, and dress them in nondescript local attire (to attract less attention when you move them). Then put all their clothes and belongings in a small duffel bag. Hide the duffel on a chicken bus or other common local transport headed in the opposite way from which you are headed. By the time anyone realizes the tracking device is no longer with the hostages, you and your captives are long, long gone.

"We now have a textbook example of natural selection, since we have by now killed off most all the dumb terrorists. The ones who remain are unlikely to be fooled by any tracking device, no matter how cleverly hidden or disguised. "

very glad you said that.
because I have been thinking exactly the same thing lately.
Due to all the actions that have been taken in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan - we have effectively created a new generation of terrorists who are immune to our tactics. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in charge of US policies. Like you - just making the observation that unless the enemy is killed 100%, he will emerge stronger. If you add the current situation in Syria into the mix ... there's a red light blinking a warning that whatever organization comes out of this mess will be a really big problem. I have thought for a while that AQ will evolve or blend into some new group. Or maybe they will just be bypassed because they did not keep up.

I'd like to see methods to protect civilians (like aid workers) also evolve. But it's hard to make this happen when the management of these NGO's keeps playing "stupid games". The enemy does not care that these guys are doing 'good things" for the world. They are just an easy source for hostages and money.

So you've given me some homework to do for 2014. Come up with a better tracking device.

Pete

Yes it's a hard bitten one, but that is the position of the British Government and it is one that my wholehearted support. NGO's etc are only of value as hostages if someone considers them valuable.
As for locator beacons: thank you for the aiming point.

Which, unfortunately, is a good reason for preventing the payment of ransoms. No profit.

Robert Pelton's site might be of interest:

http://cafe.comebackalive.com/