Pirates? Try the Pompey-the-Great solution?

[Viggen]

Piracy, it seems, has always been with us, and still is. Or, at least, as we've seen this last week, there are still people we don't like doing nasty things on the high seas with tragic consequences. Exactly who is to count as a "pirate" as such will always remain a matter of opinion and dispute. for 'pirates' are no more objectively defined than 'terrorists'. To most of the world, after all, Sir Francis Drake was a dreadful pirate, to the British he still somehow manages to qualify as an 'explorer'...

 

...opinion at the Times Online Blog of Mary Beard

[sylla]

Piracy, it seems, has always been with us, and still is. Or, at least, as we've seen this last week, there are still people we don't like doing nasty things on the high seas with tragic consequences. Exactly who is to count as a "pirate" as such will always remain a matter of opinion and dispute. for 'pirates' are no more objectively defined than 'terrorists'. To most of the world, after all, Sir Francis Drake was a dreadful pirate, to the British he still somehow manages to qualify as an 'explorer'...

 

...opinion at the Times Online Blog of Mary Beard

The problem in defining "terrorism" is not so much semantic ("The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments") as administrative. Essentially, all the persons/groups that use force/violence consider that they are entitled to do it so. Consequently, the "terrorist" is always the other side, never oneself.

 

On the other hand, "piracy" is a rather objectively defined term: "robbery committed at sea". Sir Francis Drake was an officially sanctioned pirate (by Britain) ie, a corsair, and a dreadful one indeed. He was also an outstanding explorer; both activities are not mutually exclusive.

[Northern Neil]

We Brits are very realistic when it comes to appraising Francis Drake, and are fully aware that he was as nasty a piece of work as you can get, even though he was sanctioned by the crown. When the British Royal Family changed dynasties, James I ordered all piratical activity to cease. Walter Raleigh ignored this, and was executed to smooth over relations between England and Spain. I must say, these Somali pirates seem a rather tame lot, speaking in relative terms of course Thats unless I've missed something. They appear to treat their captives well, and I have not heard any news stories of them comitting gratuitous murder or torture. I would love to hear ' Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum' shouted in an African accent...

Edited April 14, 2009 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

Given how much money the somal's have earned from ransoms, I daresay you could translate their recent conversations into something similar.

 

The problem with these Somali pirates are that they're not organised or in one place, thus in modern terms are difficult to target by conventional action. Since any bozo could sail out, board a vessel, point an easily obtained AK47 and say "Gimme a million dollars ha-ha-harrr", there's precious little disctinction between ordinary citizens and those willing to conduct these crimes.

 

Occupying Somalia en masse in order to impose martial law and prevent such piracy is something I expect the US military dreads - it's a daunting prospect as the anarchistic somali's live in a very big area and weaponry is available for the asking. The only viable long term solution is to police the sea and thats got risks attacjhed to it too as the US military already know and something we shall soon see illustrated before long.

 

It's a question of how extreme the allied peace-keepers want to get over this. The US want to protect their own (naturally) but they don't want another Mogadishu.

[Northern Neil]

Given how much money the somal's have earned from ransoms, I daresay you could translate their recent conversations into something similar.

 

The problem with these Somali pirates are that they're not organised or in one place, thus in modern terms are difficult to target by conventional action. Since any bozo could sail out, board a vessel, point an easily obtained AK47 and say "Gimme a million dollars ha-ha-harrr", there's precious little disctinction between ordinary citizens and those willing to conduct these crimes.

 

Occupying Somalia en masse in order to impose martial law and prevent such piracy is something I expect the US military dreads - it's a daunting prospect as the anarchistic somali's live in a very big area and weaponry is available for the asking. The only viable long term solution is to police the sea and thats got risks attacjhed to it too as the US military already know and something we shall soon see illustrated before long.

 

It's a question of how extreme the allied peace-keepers want to get over this. The US want to protect their own (naturally) but they don't want another Mogadishu.

Maybe the West should've allowed the Islamic government there to prevail. At least they might have unified the country, and Oi tell 'ee, me shiverin' matey, the offer of international aid may have prompted such a government to clamp down on the pirates themselves.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

An alternative to Pompey's solution was developed in response to the German U-Boat attacks: convoys. Here's an argument for reviving that tactic.

[Kosmo]

1. Prosecution. No country wants somali pirates in their penal system so only a few were prosecuted, mostly in Kenya.

2. The fleets deployed there can not control ships so the pirates have the initiative.

If these legal problems are resolved an old fashion blockade would keep pirate mother-ships from operating in blue waters.

[sylla]

Ms. Beard's article and most of what I have heard and read in the media regarding the ongoing piracy acts in the Horn of Africa seem to have been gross oversimplifications of an extremely complex situation.

The range of affected vessels has been truly global: Germany, France, Russia, Ukrania, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea (BOTH!), Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and of course US, among others.

Somalia is not only a failed state on active chronic civil war, but it's also disputed among many quasi-states (like Somaliland, Puntsland and so on).

At this very moment, the precise identity and number of the pirates is still unclear, the same as their sponsors and their relationship with the local authorities and population; then, it's hard to define who should be targeted by the retaliation measures.

MPC is right, a convoy strategy is evidently required; but at the end of the day, the real threat is not military but administrative; how and by whom should the criminals be punished?

An international intervention will be most likely required; however, the United Nations have been traditionally pretty ineffectual dealing with this kind of situations.

Under any potential scenario that I can imagine, this problem will in all likelihood worsen the already low life conditions of the Somalian population.

 

Now, the rather obvious differences between the current Somalian piracy and the Pompey's war of 67 BC can't be stressed enough; Cilicia was then nominally ruled by a client puppet king of the residual Seleucid Syrian kingdom, so it was essentially a Roman territory. No country or authority would have disputed Rome's right to punish its brigands within its own territory, even if someone might have had the strength to try.

[caesar novus]

Exactly who is to count as a "pirate" as such will always remain a matter of opinion and dispute. for 'pirates' are no more objectively defined than 'terrorists'.

Old topic, but I couldn't resist posting the fascinating author interview video for new book "The Pirates of Somalia: Inside Their Hidden World" at http://www.booktv.org/Watch/12740/After+Words+Jay+Bahadur+The+Pirates+of+Somalia+Inside+Their+Hidden+World+hosted+by+Clifford+May+Foundation+for+Defense+of+Democracies.aspx . A Canadian journalist saw a pirate hut marked on google maps, and emailed a Somali web address about how to visit. Incredibly this naive and dangerous approach worked out

 

They start by framing the piracy 20 years ago as self defense against French, Spanish, SKorean, and Taiwanese fishing boats poaching Somali lobster grounds. However the foreigners mounted AA guns on their fisherboats and became untouchable. An endless tangle of insurance and union issues prevent this defense on bigger ships (but I think if they tried it a few times the problem would go away).

 

Anyway, the piracy doesn't get started again until Somali expatriates get entrepreneurial. With knowledge and money gained in the west, they started kidnapping the big ships. No westerners involved, just the part time Somali expatriates. Maybe selling crafts to you in a modern city one moment, then calling in to the pirates that they see western news saying ship crews hide in ship safe-rooms and financing them some explosives to blast them out.

 

The author says it should be easy to solve by funding simple land based police posts, with a bounty put on pirates heads. The local people hate them because they constantly spend their time and money on drugs, women, and other non islamic things. Talks about how Somalia isn't really a failed state... I am oversimplifying just to give a concise sampling.

Edited September 10, 2011 by caesar novus

[caldrail]

Maybe the West should've allowed the Islamic government there to prevail. At least they might have unified the country, and Oi tell 'ee, me shiverin' matey, the offer of international aid may have prompted such a government to clamp down on the pirates themselves.

Unlikely. Islam might seem like a monolithic faith to us westerners, but it isn't - they have no unified organisation at all and note there is no equivalent of a christian pope. Given the events of the last few months it ought to be obvious how disunited (and exploited) Islam actually is. There have been individuals since the rise of fundamentalism that have tried to galvanise islamic populations to 'jihad' against their chosen enemy but note also that by and large the majority of moslems aren't interested in an anti-western 'Islamade' however much they may sympathise with the grievances that inspired it. The problem cases are usually extremist minorities.