France: New law forces people taken hostage to pay release costs

France has introduced a law obliging citizens who are taken hostage in countries declared to be dangerous to pay back some or all of the cost of their release operations. Confusion reigns as to which hostages would be exempted.

The new law, called The State Exterior Action Act imposes “The reimbursement of all or part of the costs incurred by release operations [..upon all French citizens who..] enter dangerous zones in the absence of legitimate reasons after having received warnings on the risks involved” according to online French news site Rue89. It was introduced in order to “Instill a sense of responsibility in French nationals.” Voted unanimously by the ruling UMP party and the Nouveau Centre party, it did not receive the support of the Socialists, who abstained citing what they called the vague definition of “Legitimate reasons.” There is in effect a certain amount of confusion concerning who will have to pay and who will be exempted. It is not yet clear for example which journalists and NGO workers may be exempted for professional reasons. Martine Gauffeny, General Secretary of the association ‘Hostages of the World’ claims that it is difficult to know who will have to pay. She claims that the law has its origins in events which took place last year, when civilians would ignore government warnings not to enter the Gulf of Aden on their own boats. The Lemaçon family was amongst them. The couple and their 3-year old son were taken hostage on their boat by pirates off the coast of Somalia after ignoring official warnings to steer clear of the area, including one issued by a French naval frigate on patrol there. Mr Lemaçon was killed by a stray bullet fired by a French commando during the operation which was mounted to rescue them. “We consider that to be the element which started the ball rolling” she said “This affair perfectly fits the provisions of the law and they would have had to pay the cost of the operation to free them.” Only one of the French hostages currently being held around the world would clearly be exempted from the law. He is French intelligence agent Denis Allex, who is being held by the Shebab militia in Somalia. Also, Florence Aubenas and Georges Malbrunot, two well-known French journalists held captive for several months in Iraq in 2005, would probably have been exempted too had the law existed at that time. French Foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has stated that journalists and humanitarian workers would not be concerned by the measure, but no professional category is mentioned in the text of the law. Socialist Deputy Hervé Féron reminded parliament of this omission in a speech, which he published in his political blog. He says that “There is something suspect underneath the anodyne appearance of the text…within which may be found serious consequences for democracy and press freedom.” Martine Gauffeny evokes the case of Hervé Ghesquière and Stéphane Taponnier, two French TV journalists who were taken hostage in Afghanistan over 6 months ago whilst they were on their way to a meeting with a Taliban group. They had been informed by the army that they were in a dangerous area but they it is believed that they thought they were safe because they had a local interpreter and were on their way to a meeting with the Taliban. They are thought to have been kidnapped by a rival Taliban group. According to Gauffeny, “Their legitimacy depends on the judges. How far will they go in interpreting the law? And when is a person judged to be a journalist? We often give advice to freelancers or student journalists who go to these areas without press accreditation.” The government has said it will exonerate a list of professions submitted by M Féron, including “Journalists and their staff and others involved in their work, humanitarian personnel, researchers and academics.” This is not enough for Gauffeny, who insists that the law will only protect those people mandated by large organizations such as the UN or the Red Cross. Whatever the final version of the law once, or if, it is amended, it would probably be safe to assume that the possibility of being obliged to repay the government ransoms that are said to be regularly paid by France for the release of its citizens will not be envisaged.