Pirates Still Hijacking
Looks like a few French and American special forces operations aren’t going to put a stop to Somali piracy:
The latest trophy for the pirates was the M.V. Irene E.M., a Greek-managed bulk carrier sailing from the Middle East to South Asia, said Noel Choong, who heads the International Maritime Bureau’s piracy reporting center in Kuala Lumpur. [...] On Monday, Somali pirates also seized two Egyptian fishing boats in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia’s northern coast, according to Egypt’s Foreign Ministry, which said the boats carried 18 to 24 Egyptians total.
My understanding is that the fishing issue needs to be understood separately from the question of hijacking cargo ships. There’s a genuine issue as to whether or not other countries’ fishing boats have been exploiting the anarchy in Somalia to gain access to Somali fisheries. The whole issue of fishing rights off the coast of Africa is way outside my area of knowledge, but as a general matter the fishing issues seem to fall into a “legitimate grievances” box that the international community ought to be seeking to settle in a reasonable way. That’s the counterpart to cracking down on hostage taking and cargo hijacking.
18 Responses to “Pirates Still Hijacking”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am
I think the Republicans need to propose the U.S. build a wall the length of Somalia’s seashore to prevent entrance to the sea of any of their citizens. If it’ll work for our Mexican immigration problem it’ll work over there. A special tax on anyone working for an hourly wage ought to pay for it.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:53 am
The fisheries problem is twice the headache because now you’re trying to find and control two potentially elusive parties (fishermen and pirates) on a wide open ocean. Absent a dedicated, legit Somali naval presence, I don’t know how that gets done.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:55 am
ah, the fishing rights issue explains one thing i had not understood in the first spate of articles on the freeing of the maersk-alabama captain. i can’t seem to find it, but a pirate source was quoted as saying something like “well, as long as somalia does not have a functioning coast guard, we’re going to keep doing this.”
that struck me as weird or incoherent on first reading. now i see that it is an attempt to use confuse the issue of piracy with the issue of fishing rights, and an attempt by the pirates to take on the mantle of being the legitimate coast guard.
so they do one or two legitimate things (e.g. chase other fishing vessels from their territorial waters), and then go off and do a bit of piracy. and try to run the two activities together, as a lame justification.
yup–these issues are definitely better kept separate.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Considering how much safer it is to be a Somali pirate than an American street-level drug dealer, and how much less opportunity there is in Somalia for legitimate work, I’d say that no amount of killing will deter meaningful amounts of piracy. The few who give it up or die will be replaced easily.
The limiting factors on the Somali side are boats first, weapons second, willing people third. Eliminating opportunity is easier than eliminating any of those three.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
It’s a nice theory that “no amount of killing” will put a stop to it. Based on that, I wonder why the Army of Northern Virginia isn’t still roaming around, and why the 1945 era German army gave up the ghost. After all, simply killing them wouldn’t have any impact, what with their homelands being invaded and all.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
All,
For a better understanding of the impact of illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing on developing nations and sustainable fisheries, I recommend the following document:
Page 7 has a short vignette on the impact of IUU fishing on Somalia. It is interesting that this analysis was done before the piracy story developed, so the “pirates” referred to are actually the IUU fishing vessels.
For more information on the destabilizing effects of IUU fishing in general, I recommend checking the website of the MCS (Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance) Network, an international fisheries enforcement organization. http://www.imcsnet.org
I am not excusing the criminal actions of the somali pirates, but I think people should at least look at them in the context of a failed state whose principal source of protein and economic activity was removed.
Brad
April 14th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I don’t think anything is going to make you go back to fishing the paltry stocks in Somali seas, even with fulls safeguards, once you start developing an appetite for multi-million dollar ransoms.
Simply put, those people who have gotten their nose in the dough, and bough Mercedeses, well, nothing sort of killing them will stop them. The rest of the people is a different problem requiring a different solution.
It is unfortunate but true.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Well, let’s see if we can clarify this fishing issue for the slow-witted. Ah, yes- “Huge international fleets roam the globe decimating fish stocks”. That oughta do it.
So, you take all their fish- which they are powerless to prevent, not having a Coast Guard- and leave the fishermen standing on the beach, surrounded by guys with AK-47s, watching a plush crowd of tankers and cargo ships pass by.
Normally, it would not be hard to connect the dots here, but being Americans, it becomes something that is “outside our expertise” and is probably best understood as the work of Muslim terrorists, the moral turpitude of the poor, or the inscrutable custom of the mysterious east.
Just don’t equate stealing fish with stealing oil.
April 14th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Myles,
Please explain then why the various irregular raiders used by the confederacy stopped after 1865. After all, no amount of farming should have been able to compare with the profits….
April 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am
I think the answer here is to issue Letters of Marque to Somali pirates to go after foreign fishing boats. The rules would be that they can ransom foreign fishermen all they want, but cargo ships are off limits. The international community could even help with fast tracking ransom payments and facilitating hostage returns.
The key here is that it brings the pirates back into the fold. To join the program, they would have to give up information on who they are, how they operate, and where they reside. This data would prove useful should they turn renegade, and would be helpful in cracking down on pirates who would choose not to participate.
If it works, you have the basis of what eventually could become the Somali Navy. The American Navy was founded by privateers after all, so why can’t it happen in Somalia?
April 14th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Is your idiocy an intentional stance or real? The soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia went back to their farms. They had prospects by which to secure a livelihood. Even the German soldiers, despite their devastated country, believed that they would eventually have some opportunity. These groups also had command hierarchies that they respected.
I suppose I should have qualified my statement with, “No amount of killing in which we could possibly indulge will stop the piracy.”
Even then, it is difficult to do that much killing without destroying every single boat they have, which would end the piracy before the killing did.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I disagree. Once you’ve hit it big, there is great incentive to reduce personal risk.
If you eliminate easy recruiting with opportunities for legitimate work, then violence can be effective. Those who’ve made it see no need to risk their lives. Those who have become pirates, and wish to remain pirates until they too hit it big can be killed (or make a lot of money and quit).
April 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Well, it looks like Obama has failed in his first international test after all. Piracy still exists. Newtie and Glenn were right.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Re: So, you take all their fish- which they are powerless to prevent, not having a Coast Guard- and leave the fishermen standing on the beach, surrounded by guys with AK-47s, watching a plush crowd of tankers and cargo ships pass by.
Perhaps if Somalia was temporarily placed under the trusteeship of a benevolent power, that power could restore a functioning infrastructure and basic civil order, as well as protecting the fisheries from foreign depradation. I understand that the Ethiopians tried to do this, but of course the Jihadist yahoos launched a holy war, because God forbid Muslims should ever be ruled by Christians.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
What insanity prompted the Bush administration to call on the Ethiopians to occupy Somalia, and attempt to restore law and order? Religion aside, Ethiopia and Somalia have had a political rivalry for decades since the latter’s independence, complete with territorial disputes (Ogaden) and ideological flip-flops and superpower rivalry.
Asking the Ethiopians to “police” Somalia was the equivalent of pouring gasoline onto smoldering embers.
April 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Re: Asking the Ethiopians to “police” Somalia was the equivalent of pouring gasoline onto smoldering embers.
Yes, Tom. Have you got a better idea? SOMEONE needs to police Somalia, and the Somalis are unable to do it themselves.
Perhaps the Russians…..
April 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
A number of them actually didn’t, Jesse and Frank James being the most famous, but by know means the only ones.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Hector:
Experience shows that the Somalis should be left to police themselves, as they were beginning to do before the Bush administration freaked over the idea of the “Islamic Courts” movement taking hold there, and enforcing Sharia principles on things like theivery and rape (which apparently made Mogadishu safe to walk through without an armed escort).
Most likely, a warlord with a large tribal following will at some point emerge, and convince some of the other tribes to accept his rule. No doubt it will be spectacularly corrupt, violent, and repressive to those who disagree. It will also be better than what exists now.
As to piracy: At present–publicity aside–it has little impact on the world shipping industry. If it begins to have a more significant impact, there are currently enough warships in the region to set up a system of escorted convoys through the area. Since escorted convoys will be the only place where rich targets will be, the pirates can try to attack them (at every conceivable disadvantage), or stay home.