Is a presidential candidate who was kidnapped while on the campaign trail and then held in captivity for several years entitled to government compensation of $6.8 million? It depends. The July 12 issue of Economist sheds some light (http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/betancourts_demand_compensation)
On the one hand, as victim Ingrid Betancourt said when announcing her claim, the Colombian government refused her transportation via military helicopter and apparently denied her a protective detail. These circumstances could have materially contributed to her vulnerability, placing her at greater risk of harm.
On the other hand, the government maintains it warned her not to venture into the area where the kidnapping took place. Every other politician took such warnings to heart. There is another rejoinder, and one that gained so much popular traction in Colombia that Ms. Betancourt is now rethinking her claim and relabeling it a symbolic gesture. The same Colombian government that she says let her down also rescued her, at considerable risk and expense, including infiltrating Colombia’s FARC rebels. This is why vocal Colombians are fuming, demanding she reimburse the government for the cost of her rescue – instead of looking for a payout.
Which camp is right? There is no question that Betancourt suffered. Did she have some responsibility for her own protection, however? Was she indeed petulant or irresponsible in ignoring government advice that other political candidates heeded when she went into rebel territory as if danger for the common folk would somehow not mean danger for her? Other reports begin to paint an unflattering picture of Betancourt as demanding, condescending, and egoistical, as befitting the well born and pampered. Hostage Keith Stansell, in Out of Captivity, recalls that side of her. He and fellow Americans found her perpetually claiming and taking more than her share of food, clothing, and personal space, compared to other hostages. According to Stansell and his compatriots, Betancourt chafed at being held in the same space as the Americans. So she told guards that the Americans were working for the CIA and had tracking chips embedded in their bodies – all in an effort to have them removed, so that she could have more space to herself. The Americans felt they could have been executed over that maneuver. Meanwhile they noted she formed a romantic liaison with another captive, which may have contributed to the estranged relationship with her husband following her escape from captivity. Finally, in making her claim on Colombia’s treasury, Betancourt apparently made no mention of sharing her million-dollar book deal with Penguin to publish her memoirs.
She does seem to be reconsidering her demands, however. Did the government have and ignore a duty to protect her? Perhaps. One or two courts will decide. The first is the civil court which will allow or reject her claim. The second, court, however is less formal but more influential. It is the court of public opinion now branding her an ingrate and rapidly losing sympathy for an individual who basked in the light of a heroine while exhibiting the cutthroat and self-absorbed behaviors of a poltroon.
- Nick Catrantzos