Senator Brown versus the Somali Pirates
|
Greens Senator Bob Brown has continued his personal philanthropic crusade after it was revealed this morning he had made a secret donation to free Australian photojournalist Nigel Brennan from captivity in Somalia, just months after going public with his own plea to avoid bankruptcy. In interviews this morning, Senator Brown refused to reveal how much he had paid Somali pirates to free Mr Brennan, the Queenslander who was held in harsh conditions for 462 days after his kidnapping last August. Reports suggest his captors were seeking between $US700,000 and $US1 million for his release alongside Canadian freelancer Amanda Lindhout. Brown was cagey when asked about the specific amount on ABC Hobart: I’m not…I don’t want to talk about that the moment, because the family is all important. As a result, Nigel is free and on his way home. However, Senator Brown’s good mate Dick Smith told ABC TV that Brown had donated a “substantial amount” to assist the ailing journalist and that he had been personally involved in the negotiations. “The family had been raising money by selling things they owned and then they’d obviously contacted Bob Brown…and then they contacted me,” he said. Brown is believed to have taken out a “loan” to make sure the funds were available, however his office refused to confirm either the amount or the lender. Crikey understand the negotiations were conducted in secret and the amounts were not mentioned to avoid tipping the pirates off. Five months ago the Senator went public with his own personal plea for cash after falling $240,000 short following a protracted legal battle with Forestry Tasmania. Under the constitution, bankrupts are banned from serving in Federal Parliament. Brown said he was “inundated” with offers of support, including a $50,000 interest free loan, a $900 stimulus payment, and a cake for a raffle. Former Whitlam and Hawke government minister Tom Uren stumped up $1,000. Crikey contacted Brown’s office this morning to ask whether the June donations had put the Senator in a stronger financial position to save Brennan. Was the general public, who were moved to support Brown over an environmental issue, effectively paying for an international ransom effort? The Senator was tied up in Parliament but collaborator Dick Smith was less reticent. “Not at all. Good on him, he’s a compassionate person. The Brennans couldn’t get any money and Bob came to the rescue.” Mr Smith said a number of Rich Listers, including a prominent Queensland billionaire, had been asked for money by the Brennans but never returned their calls. Brown has a history of wading into good causes with his wallet open. In addition to the Forestry Tasmania case, Brown and Smith joined forces in 2006 to save Recherche Bay in South West Tasmania. Following pleas from Brown, Smith stumped up $1.6 million to buy up areas at risk of development. Smith also offered to contribute cash to avoid Brown’s bankruptcy in June, but said he never heard back from the Senator’s office after pledging his support. “If he’s [Smith] prepared to act as guarantor, that would be terrific,” Senator Brown said at the time. All up, the Forestry Tasmania case is believed to have cost Brown $1 million. Senator Brown promised to get back to Crikey to further explain the state of his finances this afternoon. We will update this story with any other personal mercy missions as they come to hand. |
|
|
|
12 Comments
Whilst I am pleased that Mr. Brennan has been released, paying ransoms to pirates will only encourage them repeat the process. This will place other potential captives at risk. My understanding is that it is government policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists including pirates, and that we do not exceed to ransom demands.
Whilst I understand the desperation of families concerned, paying a ransom will only encourage these bastards to do it again. I understand that countries including Israel and the United States have a policy of no ransom payments. As a member of Parliament Senator Brown is setting a bad example in facilitating a ransom payment, thereby tending to legitimise this undesirable behaviour.
The shipping line regularly pay off the pirates millions for their officers, crew and ships.
NPR’s Planet Money has a good rundown of what was happening from April: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/04/pirates_have_timesheets.html
Sure, Greg, your principles are sound but really, if it were a member of your family, would you really stick to them?
I don’t think you do actually “understand the desperation of families concerned” Mr Angelo. What would you have them do in their desperate state? If not pay the ransom, go commando style and try to get their loved one back? We don’t all have Mr and Mrs Smith skills to fall back on. I challenge your point of view on this because I can imagine for someone in such a position, sitting back and ignoring the one option given to them that involves the possibility to get their husband, wife, child etc back, is quite simply out of the question.
As opposed to trying to reason that this unbelievably unfortunate family and supporters are propagating further abductions by paying ransoms, wouldn’t a better option be to argue against current worldwide government inaction? Inaction that does nothing to positively effect the situation within Somalia that is the sole cause of these abductions? Create some stability that would give the good people of that country other options aside from joining the criminals who take the lions share of the profits of such abhorrent behaviour. The longer the world waits from stopping the problem at its source the more powerful these pirates will get.
I choose to wait until hearing Senator Brown’s explanation of his finances before making comment on his personal involvement.
Greg’s partly right. I’ve read some accounts by the specialist negotiators for these things. There is usually a ransom paid, but hopefully always way below the asking price. If there’s no professional negotiator involved, the ransom paid is often too high. This can extend the whole process, make it more dangerous, and increase the going rate for hostages.
If I were the Australian government I would investigate who are the kidnappers.
I trust Bob Brown.
As a mother, I would do anything, say anything, spend anything to save one of my sons’ lives - anything! I’ve seen the desperation of my mother who lost two of her children, one as a 9 yr old, and my sister at 46 - my mother, although brave, and putting her other children’s feelings before her own, never got over it. That type of agony is awful to watch! I don’t ever want to experience it!
Good on Bob Brown, a man of great compassion and kindness! He’s a very principled person, who doesn’t ‘speak with a forked tongue’. I also admire Dick Smith, and his empathy was his motivation. I understand the Govt’s position, but if they put the family in touch with those who deal with the kidnappers, I certainly would not criticise them for it. If we don’t care for our own, who will? Strangers? I’d encourage the Govt to find out what positive things they can do, in order to stop this from happening again.
I watched Australian Story last night, and the anguish of this young man when he begged his brother for help reduced me to tears. I think the whole family would need counselling after 15 months of pure hell! I’m so happy for both families!
Agreed LIZ45. I understand the principle of ‘not giving in to them’ because it will encourage further hostage taking. I understand up to the point of the hostage being a member of my family,-then the focus is to do anything-ANYTHING to get them returned, including paying a ransom.
I also understand that to go to such countries is a dangerous thing to do,-but as a journalist NOT to go and to leave atrocities unreported to the world?..; they choose take the risks. So? leave them to it?
That is the same as saying that a Doctor working in a plague situation, somehow deserved to get the disease because he/she knew the risks. No ransom there of course, but the principle is the same.
I too wept at hearing this man begging his family to help him, and the anguished apology for causing them trouble.
So Bob Brown assisted financially when he narrowly avoided bankruptcy with public assistance? I had the same first thought as in the article, but flip it around. Does that mean that he should not assist?, or not assist so soon? And when will he be considered to be ‘in the clear’ to assist anyone?
He was helping someone, as he was helped. Pay it forward. OK by me.
The Somali central governement collapsed years ago and warlords have carved it up. Ethiopian troops have controlled the rising islamist movement who it was thought by the US were harbouring Qaeda terrorists.
The Somali government (the bit that functions) has it’s hands full fighting militias in the South of the country, in the North the pirates can do what they wish. This may change and the government will deal with the pirates but not yet.
The reality is that no one will help the hostages, no one, no government, no individuals, just money. It would mean nothing to them to kill the hostages, that is why money is paid. The pirates know this. Anyone would pay rather than risk a loved ones life.
Sure it encourages them to kidnap again but the world is a fiddly political place and individuals who have been kidnapped haven’t got much hope that their governments will deal with it.
It’s all a legacy of having too many troops fighting wars elsewhere.
I don’t see that Bob Brown has to worry about how he spends his money for the rest of his life because he once had help. A seperate issue and mischievous of people to tie them together.
What selfless compassion - so rare in this day and age. Good on Bob Brown - he is an inspiration to many that you don’t have to be self-centred and that there are a few rare honest and compassionate people in public life.
There are a lot of generous ordinary people in this country - and their sacrifices and charity continues day in and day out without any publicity - except for the rare glimpse such as the rapid and enormous wave of donations after the Victorian bushfires.
As for not giving into terrorists - that may work as a government policy - but no family is going to leave any stone unturned wanting to safeguard the life of a loved one.
Thank goodness that there are some people in Australia who have the resources available due to their success and status to be able to lend support to a family in dire need.
ENGINEERINGREALITY - Can’t see the present pretentious childish bunch in the Coalition doing it, can you? I agree with you entirely. I’d do anything as I said - pride wouldn’t enter my head! Good on Dick Smith too! Good and compassionate man also!
Cheers!