Pirates yet again with an American ship

smigaldi said:
The problem is that there are non SZ people who like to discuss political issues outside of the SZ. Other than that I agree with you. When I see problems peeking up in HT with politics it comes from those that usually are not SZ participants and are almost always people who proclaim that they are here on PoA to NOT discuss politics.
Click to expand...
I, for one, do not say anything remotely political in a thread that hasn't already gone that way. OTOH, I do not believe that those on the other end of the political spectrum should go unchallenged.

I wouldn't shed a tear if the politics stayed out of this forum...but the MC has made it as clear as a summer morning in west Texas that they're not going to make the place apolitical.
 
steingar said:
Once again simple approaches are not always effective in a complex world.
Click to expand...

I agree. I always wonder how much experience the "blow them away" people have in dealing with complex problems. Obviously not a whole lot. Things in the real world are not that simple.
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Those were my thoughts, as well. I'm sure Henning will know better than me, but my memory is also telling me that there have been weird developments in American prize law in the past that don't really give an incentive for taking prizes, even if they were to be had. I might be competely wrong on that, but there's a bell ringing faintly in that regard.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the US is a signatory of a mid-1800s international agreement banning Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The last war where US Navy ships and crews could earn prize money was the Spanish American War. When war was declared, US destroyer skippers "beat feet" out of harbor to try to scarf up Spanish merchantmen.

There's really only one cure for what's happening off Somalia: Remove the economic incentive. *No* country should be allowed to pay ransom. Captured vessels are boarded and re-taken, regardless of threats against hostages. The survivors of slain hostages should be indemnified with money equivalent to ten years' pay, and ship's crews who fight off pirate attacks should receive a bonus.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
IIRC, the US is a signatory of a mid-1800s international agreement banning Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The last war where US Navy ships and crews could earn prize money was the Spanish American War. When war was declared, US destroyer skippers "beat feet" out of harbor to try to scarf up Spanish merchantmen.

There's really only one cure for what's happening off Somalia: Remove the economic incentive. *No* country should be allowed to pay ransom. Captured vessels are boarded and re-taken, regardless of threats against hostages. The survivors of slain hostages should be indemnified with money equivalent to ten years' pay, and ship's crews who fight off pirate attacks should receive a bonus.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

That's not an unreasonable approach, but I see a couple problems with it. First, does it remove the economic incentive, or just increase the cost of doing business? Second, saying that the ships/crews couldn't be ransomed - wouldn't that mean that they start going around Africa instead of through the Suez, and would the increased costs/delays there be greater than the costs created by piracy?

Piracy is really more of an economic game than anything else - the costs to reduce/eliminate it are generally greater than the costs it creates. So you lose bigger in your efforts to eliminate it, which are doomed to failure anyway.
 
Sometimes, doing the right thing, might cost more. Too bad we live in a world where few recognize that.
 
jesse said:
Sometimes, doing the right thing, might cost more. Too bad we live in a world where few recognize that.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when it comes to affairs of states and nations, there has to be a cost-benefit analysis - we have limited resources, and we have to apply them where they'll do the most good.

It is what it is.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Unfortunately, when it comes to affairs of states and nations, there has to be a cost-benefit analysis - we have limited resources, and we have to apply them where they'll do the most good.

It is what it is.
Click to expand...

Precisely. And there's the law of unintended consequences, as well: Is "the right thing" still the "right thing" when doing it significantly increases, say, the consumer cost of diapers?

Somebody touched on this already, but this problem is neither new nor particularly significant. Merchant vessels have been dealing with and prepared for this issue since... well... since there have been merchant vessels. And while these incidents have been highly reported -- and even a bit spectacular, in a way -- and while I'm sure the simplistic tack of just saying "kill 'em all!" might make some feel better, just a casual examination of history tells us that this is a complex problem that is not going to go away simply as a result of increasingly arming boats or sinking a mother ship here and there.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Somebody touched on this already, but this problem is neither new nor particularly significant. Merchant vessels have been dealing with and prepared for this issue since... well... since there have been merchant vessels. And while these incidents have been highly reported -- and even a bit spectacular, in a way -- and while I'm sure the simplistic tack of just saying "kill 'em all!" might make some feel better, just a casual examination of history tells us that this is a complex problem that is not going to go away simply as a result of increasingly arming boats or sinking a mother ship here and there.
Click to expand...

Jefferson to Adams: "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur
 
dmccormack said:
Jefferson to Adams: "I acknolege [sic] I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur
Click to expand...

The sentiment is interesting, but the Second Barbary War, however, doesn't come close to providing a valid or legitimate situation from which to draw any lessons. First, piracy in the southern Mediterranean of that time was essentially a state-sponsored activity. Were that the case today, that would change dramatically the diplomatic and economic options available to the United States and European nations. Unfortunately, the states in question here are essentially failed; they have even less resources at their disposal to affect any change in the situation than we do.

Secondly, piracy in that region was entirely commonplace in that region at that time. In comparison, piracy -- even in the seemingly chaotic Horn of Africa region -- is still (again, comparatively) exceedingly rare.

Overall, the two situations just don't match up: the Second Barbary War was more an economic and diplomatic struggle between Britain and the United States and the Ottoman Empire. The situation we're seeing today is more akin, as somebody else already mentioned, to ca. 18th-century piracy in the Caribbean; the underlying goals of the pirates are solely criminal, rather than (at least partly) political.
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
That's not an unreasonable approach, but I see a couple problems with it. First, does it remove the economic incentive, or just increase the cost of doing business?
Click to expand...

The Somalian piracy has been, so far, the outright capture of ships and the sailing of them into coastal waters. There were probably few cases where the ships didn't get off a mayday. A merchant ship 300 miles out will probably take at least 20 hours to reach the coast...enough time, I think, to run an intercept. Put up some maritime surveillance aircraft, and you'll be able to quickly notice if a ship makes an abrupt turn towards shore. Put a few warships off the common pirate ports, and you should be able to intercept practically everything.

So by stopping and re-taking the ships and hostages, you remove the opportunity for the pirates to demand ransom. The other factor is perhaps more fundamental: Pirates stop coming home. Cause and effect becomes pretty clear.

Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Second, saying that the ships/crews couldn't be ransomed - wouldn't that mean that they start going around Africa instead of through the Suez, and would the increased costs/delays there be greater than the costs created by piracy?
Click to expand...

I don't think the shipping lines will avoid the area any more than they do now. Again, we're talking about a very low percentage of ships actually being attacked.

Unfortunately, this does take a level of ruthlessness that modern politicians tend to shy away from....

It'll be interesting to find out what led the crew of the American ship to fight back. If the pirates were Muslims, it's quite possible the crew felt they were going to be killed anyway.

Ron Wanttaja
 
tdager said:
Henning...I meant REALLY arm the ships. No more "prohibitions" (nod, nod, wink, wink) on firearms. Security contingents on all vessels passing through these areas and HEAVY WEAPONS capability, at least 50cal and RPG's for the crews.

I am sorry folks, but read the articles and do some research, we are dealing with people where "talk" and threats of "going to jail" mean NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING.

This is the real world where talk and diplomacy are laughed at and seen as weakness. All the huffing and puffing and rhetoric does nothing....kill the pirates and this will stop. Otherwise it will simply continue.
Click to expand...

Anthony said:
^^^^^^^^


Agree with the above. Arm a few vessels and make them look unarmed and easy prey. Pirates attack a few of these and get blown out of the water, they will think twice about attacking any ship again. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

jmaynard said:
Amen. This is the only way to solve the problem. Wipe them from the face of the earth without mercy.
Click to expand...

Look, in order for it to be effective, you'll need to nuke Africa. Killing them does not deter the next batch. These are people who have no options that don't include dying. Again, these are not the worst of the pirates. When the bad pirates hit the first indication is that a vessel failed to make its position report to the office. There are no negotiations, there are no hostages. If we start killing off the Somalis at this level, they will graduate to the next. If you want to deal with it, just catch and release them so they spend money time and effort to no gainful result. Then if you want to track them down ashore and kill them, whatever. Just keep the link between Pirate and Ship as "no profit" rather than death. Death doesn't scare them. Their family starving scares them.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Look, in order for it to be effective, you'll need to nuke Africa. Killing them does not deter the next batch. These are people who have no options that don't include dying.
Click to expand...



It worked with the Pirates out of Tripoli. If they know they won't succeed, they will stop trying. Even if they don't fear death. No money = no more attacks. If they think they'll be facing U.S. Marines instead of cowering seaman they'll stop.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Death doesn't scare them. Their family starving scares them.
Click to expand...

Good point. The possibility -- even the likelihood -- of death is already part of the calculus for them, and upping that likelihood somewhat wouldn't change anything.

Anthony said:
It worked with the Pirates out of Tripoli. If they know they won't succeed, they will stop trying. Even if the don't fear death. No money = no more attacks. If they think they'll be facing U.S. Marines instead of cowering seaman they'll stop.
Click to expand...

Once again, that was an entirely different (and much simpler) situation, with a different motivation behind the pirates' actions. Apples, oranges.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Review your history - armed merchant ships haven't stopped pirates in the past.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect. Armed merchant ships have not stopped piracy in general, however they have most definitely stopped individual pirates and attacks.
 
In a place like Somalia it could be the only going concern. Like someone said, kill one and another takes his place. In the meantime the seamen operating in the area are still more likely to die in an auto crash.
 
Ddayle said:
While piracy may never be eliminated, i cannothelp but believe that sinking the 'motherships' that the smaller boats use would go a long way toward lowering the threat . DaveR
Click to expand...

Hate to say it, but you'd be wrong. It would just lead to the theft of another mothership. This is no different than any other crime of commerce (one based in a need for money), the only way to eliminate it is to eliminate the profit or the need that caused it.
 
Anthony said:
It worked with the Pirates out of Tripoli. If they know they won't succeed, they will stop trying. Even if they don't fear death. No money = no more attacks. If they think they'll be facing U.S. Marines instead of cowering seaman they'll stop.
Click to expand...

That didn't hold true in Somalia Round I.
 
Henning said:
That's incorrect. Armed merchant ships have not stopped piracy in general, however they have most definitely stopped individual pirates and attacks.
Click to expand...

Sorry - should have specified "in general."
 
Anthony said:
And why was that? Because Clinton turned tail and ran instead of providing the necessary military support required. We were a paper tiger just like we are now and they know it. Look for Carter style hostage taking in our future.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the politics, I'd point more towards desperation as Henning has discussed. I myself have no experience with desperation - but I do know that it will drive people to do things that might not make sense to those of us who aren't starving.

Just picture closing time at a college bar....
 
^^^^^^^

Desperation sucks and I feel for those people. I don't know what else can be done for them. Desperation does not give one license to murder, steal or make other's lives miserable. They need to find another way or be exterminated. Its that simple.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Leaving aside the politics, I'd point more towards desperation as Henning has discussed. I myself have no experience with desperation - but I do know that it will drive people to do things that might not make sense to those of us who aren't starving.

Just picture closing time at a college bar....
Click to expand...

That's about the size of it... Military-only kinds of solutions only go so far when you're talking about a populace that's starving.
 
smigaldi said:
Piracy has been going on since shortly after there boats were invented. I am not aware of any period in history that was devoid of pirates.
Click to expand...
Hell, it's been going on a lot longer than that; just under another name. Think "highway robbery!"
 
dmccormack said:
Puh-leeze.

The Somali pirates are "just trying to get by..."?
Click to expand...

Well the fact alone that we're talking about Somali pirates and not Kenyan pirates, for example, should tell you something right there.
 
Just deleted a post after it was reported for crossing the political line. Please listen to those urging non-political discussion of the issue lest we have to close/delete the thread.
 
One of the things not discussed too often about the Somali pirates is that to many they are heroes. Since Somali has not had a real government in about 20 years one of the things that has not been defended are their fishing rights and protecting their waters. I am not saying the ship in question has done this but many documented cases of commercial fishing in the Somali territorial waters and dumping of waste has been occurring. A lot of the pirates are acting as a defacto Coast Guard force. There are probably also some opportunists here as well.
 
smigaldi said:
One of the things not discussed too often about the Somali pirates is that to many they are heroes. Since Somali has not had a real government in about 20 years one of the things that has not been defended are their fishing rights and protecting their waters. I am not saying the ship in question has done this but many documented cases of commercial fishing in the Somali territorial waters and dumping of waste has been occurring. A lot of the pirates are acting as a defacto Coast Guard force. There are probably also some opportunists here as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the coastal rights issues, but I think one could make a pretty convincing argument that, overall, the single biggest factor contributing to this phenomenon is the lack of any real functioning government in Somalia.
 
How about a rethink. I think it's granted that the attacks are all about economics, and not about politics. Say the various companies are paying $1B/yr in ransom payments (for sake of argument; how far is that figure off the mark?). What would happen if instead $2B was sent to aid those families in Somalia, including those of the pirates WITH THE CONTINGENCY that, should the attacks not stop, no money would be sent. I fully admit that this would still be paying a ransom. My thought, though, is that those NOT related to the pirates who are suddenly getting a benefit from this would try to act, in their own self-interest, to stop the pirates should they express an interest in resuming attacks.

Now, I realize that there are a LOT of logistical problems with this, starting with the lack of an effective communication system, through the lack of an effective distribution system, to the big doozy, lack of an effective government. But a couple billion seems like it ought to be able to correct some of that!

The funding could come from the same companies that are currently paying the ransoms. If successful, it "should' decrease the cost of shipping. If unsuccessful, we can go back to one of the OTHER unsuccessful methods we've tried over the centuries!

Just a thought!

Edit:

You may have heard that they're demanding a ransom for the return of the captain, after he escaped and was recaptured. Shame the Navy couldn't just blow the lifeboat out of the water after he was away!
 
gprellwitz said:
Just a thought!
Click to expand...
It is a thought and one that is to be considered. But one of the big problems I see right away is how to you ensure that the money actually goes to helping people and is not diverted to build up the war lords who are probably behind a lot of this to begin with?
 
dmccormack said:
Might have something to do with the chaos caused by invasion by a force hell-bent on conquest....

But that's not the same as "Mister, can you spare a dime...?"
Click to expand...

Oh no, I'm not chalking it up entirely to the fact that they're starving and destitute, but I think that's pretty undeniably a factor... Comfortable, well-fed people just don't go trying to hijack ships.

Like I just said in my last post, the lack of any meaningful government order is probably the biggest factor; the resulting tribal warfare and Ethiopian-fed insurgency all contribute to a "survive by any means necessary" sort of chaos. It's a giant mess that, to be sure, can't be chalked up to any one main cause -- just as it's unlikely to be solved by any one measure.
 
smigaldi said:
It is a thought and one that is to be considered. But one of the big problems I see right away is how to you ensure that the money actually goes to helping people and is not diverted to build up the war lords who are probably behind a lot of this to begin with?
Click to expand...

Fully agreed. As I said, the problems definitely include lack of distribution infrastructure and lack of a stable government. And no matter what side of the political spectrum you reside on, I think we can agree that the US and other "industrialized" nations don't have a great record in trying to set up governmental infrastructures in other countries.
 
gprellwitz said:
How about a rethink. I think it's granted that the attacks are all about economics, and not about politics. Say the various companies are paying $1B/yr in ransom payments (for sake of argument; how far is that figure off the mark?). What would happen if instead $2B was sent to aid those families in Somalia, including those of the pirates WITH THE CONTINGENCY that, should the attacks not stop, no money would be sent. I fully admit that this would still be paying a ransom. My thought, though, is that those NOT related to the pirates who are suddenly getting a benefit from this would try to act, in their own self-interest, to stop the pirates should they express an interest in resuming attacks.

Now, I realize that there are a LOT of logistical problems with this, starting with the lack of an effective communication system, through the lack of an effective distribution system, to the big doozy, lack of an effective government. But a couple billion seems like it ought to be able to correct some of that!

The funding could come from the same companies that are currently paying the ransoms. If successful, it "should' decrease the cost of shipping. If unsuccessful, we can go back to one of the OTHER unsuccessful methods we've tried over the centuries!

Just a thought!

Edit:

You may have heard that they're demanding a ransom for the return of the captain, after he escaped and was recaptured. Shame the Navy couldn't just blow the lifeboat out of the water after he was away!
Click to expand...

I think it's an interesting idea, but you hit on the biggest problem: The lack of government. Without some kind of real authority there, it seems likely to result in a bunch of already-fighting tribes to just fight over the money some more.

gprellwitz said:
Fully agreed. As I said, the problems definitely include lack of distribution infrastructure and lack of a stable government. And no matter what side of the political spectrum you reside on, I think we can agree that the US and other "industrialized" nations don't have a great record in trying to set up governmental infrastructures in other countries.
Click to expand...

And there's the other half of the problem. Trying to "make" a government somewhere is a tricky endeavor, with a low likelihood of success.

Overall... The whole thing just sucks. :(
 
dmccormack said:
Right.

Seems like some folks need to do some research on the British East India Company...
Click to expand...

A British East Indiaman was to the 18th and early 19th centuries what a cruiser-class vessel was to WWII. No pirate in the 1940's would mess with a PT boat, much less a CA or CL, and no pirate of the 18th century would mess with a 40+ gun vessel that could have easily taken its place in the line.

Further, the East India Company was a few steps beyond Blackwater in its time - it literally ran countries.

So comparing private shipping today to the East India Company the colonial period isn't a really good comparison to make.
 
gprellwitz said:
How about a rethink. I think it's granted that the attacks are all about economics, and not about politics. Say the various companies are paying $1B/yr in ransom payments (for sake of argument; how far is that figure off the mark?). What would happen if instead $2B was sent to aid those families in Somalia, including those of the pirates WITH THE CONTINGENCY that, should the attacks not stop, no money would be sent. I fully admit that this would still be paying a ransom. My thought, though, is that those NOT related to the pirates who are suddenly getting a benefit from this would try to act, in their own self-interest, to stop the pirates should they express an interest in resuming attacks.

Now, I realize that there are a LOT of logistical problems with this, starting with the lack of an effective communication system, through the lack of an effective distribution system, to the big doozy, lack of an effective government. But a couple billion seems like it ought to be able to correct some of that!

The funding could come from the same companies that are currently paying the ransoms. If successful, it "should' decrease the cost of shipping. If unsuccessful, we can go back to one of the OTHER unsuccessful methods we've tried over the centuries!

Just a thought!

Edit:

You may have heard that they're demanding a ransom for the return of the captain, after he escaped and was recaptured. Shame the Navy couldn't just blow the lifeboat out of the water after he was away!
Click to expand...

It's a thought, and it's a good thought. A lot of powers throughout history have paid not to be attacked. But, if you're losing $1B through the attacks and would have to spend $10B to *maybe* eradicate the attacks, if you can resolve the problem through spending $2B in bribes, that makes economic sense. Of course, there are other reasons not to do it (i.e., every pirate in the world lining up for a bribe), but the idea has merit.

Anyway, the Romans did it, the Brits did it, and so forth.
 
smigaldi said:
It is a thought and one that is to be considered. But one of the big problems I see right away is how to you ensure that the money actually goes to helping people and is not diverted to build up the war lords who are probably behind a lot of this to begin with?
Click to expand...

If it stops the attacks, who cares?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top