Radically inverted logic

Two Spanish aid workers who had been kidnapped in Mali by Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb members were freed earlier this week after more than 9 months in capture.

Immediately after some details about the negotiation with the kidnappers were released, French President Nicolas Sarkozy criticized the Spanish negotiators, as they seemingly paid a ransom and released an imprisoned terrorist, maybe the mastermind behind many more kidnappings, in exchange for the lives of those two people. Although the French Foreign Minister pressed personally for the liberation of four terrorists in 2009 to save the life of a French national, allegedly a spy, France chose a different path when confronted with a similar dilemma in 2010: Paris, probably pushed to do so by the Algerian secret services, sent elite army units to Mauritania to try to liberate a kidnapped French engineer, Michel Germaneau, who was ultimately killed by the islamists in retaliation for the six dead left after the combined Franco-Mauritanian raid.

Is Sarkozy right to criticize the Spanish negotiators? Have they been too soft? Will this have consequences, i.e. further kidnappings? Our Western mind tends to think so: nobody wants seeing people die, but we might be tempted to assume that accepting some of the conditions imposed by the kidnappers, including the release of a dangerous terrorist, might be counterproductive and make things even more dangerous for Westerners working or helping people in those countries. It could fuel further kidnappings, further unrest. We can also tend to think that those same Al-Qaeda men will have second thoughts about kidnapping or assaulting a French national, as they already saw how Paris answers to that. Of course, in the light of recent events, they might now be tempted to kidnap Spanish nationals and wait for a hefty ransom to come.

However, this is just how our Western logic operates: we should learn to see more than that. Sarkozy should go just one step further to see how things can turn against him quickly and easily. We are not talking about men in a conventional negotiation setting, where rational logic rules: we are talking about religious fanatics, brainwashed people who have next to nothing to lose. People ready and willing to die for their cause, their hate, expecting a better life on the other side. And this changes everything.

France's violent response may well mean that these islamists now hate, more than ever before, French nationals and everything smelling of French laicism (including the recent law banning Islamic face veils from public areas). Maybe they won't kidnap any Frenchmen because they know they will not get much of a ransom, but rather plan bombings to kill people or hurt French interests, a beloved Al-Qaeda tactic which coud be much more deadly. 

Maybe they will try to kidnap Spanish citizens again, who knows. However, their 'spiritual' leaders will not have the same leverage again, they will not be able to justify their actions against Spaniards with hate, this hate that fuels Al-Qaeda terrorism. Spain came up as more tolerant country, willing to negotiate and surrender a dangerous prisoner, caring about the lives of the two kidnapped human beings at all times, even knowing the political and diplomatic consequences such moves could have.

We could even link this episode with the more recent events in Afghanistan, where two Spanish soldiers and their interpreter were killed by an Afghan driver. Shouldn't it be interpreted in the light of what Sarkozy said? Doesn't that attest that Spain is seen as a weaker country among Islamic radicals? Not necessarily: this attack is just an extreme demonstration of dissent in a war-like context, of hate against someone seen as an invader in your home country. The fact that the victims were Spanish is secondary: what matters is that they were Westerners in Afghanistan, and this alone creates resent among a portion of the Afghan population. The same resent French retaliation can cause among Maghrebi islamists. And we see the consequences resent can have.

Western leaders should learn that dealing with Al-Qaeda is not like dealing with a traditional hostile foe. Rational logic is not what fuels its members: hate and fanaticism do. And even though there are lots of examples of evil states and leaders, all those people have much to lose: many privileges, many riches, many valued lives (even if just the ones of those on top) that Western nations use as leverage in negotiations or retaliations. Not with Al-Qaeda. Just think about their iconic leader, Osama Bin Laden: if his actions were purely rational in a Western classical way, wouldn't he rather be living in a big mansion, filled with concubines, in Saudi Arabia?

Rational logic does not match well with fanaticism, and Western leaders and diplomats are just starting to grasp it, even if some seem to be readier than others.