More Piracy Near Somalia

[Bill Moore]

We're talking criminals, violent criminals who are having a growing impact on modern economies. There is nothing to negotiate, they have no political agenda and to date their risk as been very limited.

Is there a law of the sea that actually permits killing pirates on the spot? Is there a law that prohibits it?

What are the drawbacks from a more agressive policy?

What other options are feasible?

[motorfirebox]

It's not really accurate to say the pirates have no political agenda. There are numerous quotes from captured Somali pirates in which they say they see themselves as an unofficial Coast Guard. A lot of that is just posturing, but Somalis are aware of the political situation in which they are embroiled, and politics are certainly the driving force behind the rise in piracy. Somalis turn to piracy because they don't have any other good options for survival. Their waters have been emptied of sea life by illegal non-Somali fishing operations and poisoned by illegal non-Somali waste-dumping operations. Whether or not that justifies piracy is arguable, but it's inarguable that if you put people in a desperate situation they will inevitably turn to desperate, and probably violent, measures.

Because the root cause is political, the solution can also be political. The cost effective solution is to simply kill Somali pirates whenever there gets to be too many. Whether that solution--especially that solution alone, with no attempt made to address the root issue--is morally or ethically defensible is, again, arguable.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by motorfirebox,

Because the root cause is political, the solution can also be political. The cost effective solution is to simply kill Somali pirates whenever there gets to be too many. Whether that solution--especially that solution alone, with no attempt made to address the root issue--is morally or ethically defensible is, again, arguable.

I enjoyed your post and while I'm not aware of the allegations you are making I suspect they're all very much true and "contribute" to the raise of piracy.

Political is a hard to define, because war is political, and if we decide to take more draconian measures against the pirates that would obviously be a political decision/solution also. I think I know what you mean, but since there is not an effective State structure to represent Somalia in the modern sense, and the West has demonstrated reluctance for nation building (being reinforced due to Afgahnistan and Iraq), what political solution would you recommend?

I agree that more aggressive is not the solution alone, but at this point based on what I think I know it definitely plays a role to initially suppress this activity. It is also arguable that allows one's citizens to be held hostage by criminals is also immoral. I realize it is more convoluted than that with ships that are frequently flagged by one country and manned by another (or multi-national crews), but regardless those conducted legimate sea trade are innocent victims. If the Somalis attacked those conducting illegal fishing in their waters then that wouldn't be a major global concern. Instead their attacking and kidnapping all ships (are you aware of any exceptions)? Second point, if this goes unchallenged we're going to send a signal to other areas of the world that piracy is a lucrative business. SE Asian nations have done a relatively good job on cracking down and reducing piracy in recent years, but based on the Somali experience they and others may want to relook the risk versus gain equation for conducting this type of activity.

[jmm99]

Actually, they do - 2007 Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations.pdf

from Bill
Is there a law of the sea that actually permits killing pirates on the spot? Is there a law that prohibits it?

Yes, if they resist or flee (Tennessee v Garner probably would allow deadly force); but usually it's Rule of Law (international law enforcement) - see snip attached:

3.5.3 Use of Naval Forces to Repress Piracy

Only warships, military aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on governmental service and authorized to that effect, may seize a pirate ship or aircraft.

3.5.3.1 Seizure of Pirate Vessels and Aircraft

A pirate vessel or aircraft encountered in or over U.S. or international waters may be seized and detained by any of the U.S. vessels or aircraft listed in paragraph 3.5.3. The pirate vessel or aircraft, and all persons on board, should be taken, sent, or directed to the nearest U.S. port or airfield and delivered to U.S. law enforcement authorities for disposition according to U.S. law. Alternatively, higher authority may arrange with another nation to accept and try the pirates and dispose of the pirate vessel or aircraft, since every nation has jurisdiction under international law over any act of piracy.

Now, you will undoubtedly find some historical evidence of pirates being hanged on the spot.

However, the SROEs default to self-defense and seizure:

(5) Piracy. US warships and aircraft have an obligation to repress piracy on or over international waters directed against any vessel, or aircraft, whether US or foreign flagged and are authorized to employ all means necessary to repress piratical acts. For ships and aircraft repressing an act of piracy, the right and obligation of self defense extends to persons, vessels, or aircraft assisted. If a pirate vessel or aircraft fleeing from pursuit proceeds into the territorial sea, archipelagic waters, or superjacent airspace of another country, every effort should be made to obtain the consent of the coastal state prior to continuation of the pursuit.

So, that's present legal reality for US ships.

---------------------------
This is hypothetical.

If the conflict with the pirates were an "armed conflict" (Declaration of War or AUMF), the members of the targeted pirate group could be designated as a "hostile force" (from SROEs):

5. ... i. Hostile Force. Any civilian, paramilitary, or military force or terrorist(s), with or without national designation, that has committed a hostile act, exhibited hostile intent, or has been declared hostile by appropriate US authority.

6. Declaring Forces Hostile. Once a force is declared hostile by appropriate authority, US units need not observe a hostile act or a demonstration of hostile intent before engaging that force. The responsibility for exercising the right and obligation of national self defense and as necessary declaring a force hostile is a matter of the utmost importance. All available intelligence, the status of international relationships, the requirements of international law, an appreciation of the political situation, and the potential consequences for the United States must be carefully weighed. The exercise of the right and obligation of national self-defense by competent authority is separate from and in no way limits the commander’s right and obligation to exercise unit self-defense. The authority to declare a force hostile is limited as amplified in Appendix A of this Enclosure.

Note that, even under the Laws of War, summary executions (e.g., in a field commander's discretion) have been barred since WWI - though trial by military tribunal is still theoretically possible.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Somalis turn to piracy because they don't have any other good options for survival. Their waters have been emptied of sea life by illegal non-Somali fishing operations and poisoned by illegal non-Somali waste-dumping operations. Whether or not that justifies piracy is arguable, but it's inarguable that if you put people in a desperate situation they will inevitably turn to desperate, and probably violent, measures.

Because the root cause is political, the solution can also be political. ...

I think not. I think those that are doing piracy are doing it because it is exciting (always a plus for violent teenager), it is lucrative and it is easier than working. There are lots of poor countries on the ocean that don't have pirates, have been throughout history. There wasn't much piracy off that part of Africa 10 years ago. But now there is. Somebody had an inspiration and it paid off and, man being inclined to adopt good ideas, all the other Somalis in that area imitated. And boy is it paying off. Plus add in that the pirates are...Somalis. They are rather inclined to mayhem.

The cause isn't political, it is criminal. Or I guess you could call it political if the political culture is criminal, which being that part of Africa it probably is. But that is a distinction without a difference. You deal with it like you deal with any criminal, you kill him or frighten him into submission.

Besides, TIA man, TIA.

[motorfirebox]

Those factors are certainly part of it. But they're part of any society. There are several factors that Somalia has which many other societies lack. One is opportunity; the Gulf of Aden is an incredibly target-rich environment. Piracy off the Puntland coast has been an issue for quite a long time, now--it was a problem long before the media caught ahold of it, and it continues to be a problem after the media lost interest. The IUC which arose as a system of government in the early to mid 2000s struggled with piracy and brought incidence of piracy down sharply.

Which leads to another factor that is, if not unique to Somalia, then at least fairly select: Somalia's government has been a hilarious farce, completely lacking anything resembling authority over the state. The one organization that had begun to restore order was crushed by our proxies, the Ethiopians.

Which, in turn, leads to the most salient factor: without a functional state, there's nobody to keep out the fishers and the dumpers. And without that, there is no alternative to piracy available. Sure, there are some, maybe even many, who simply said "Hell with it, why should I work when I can take hostages and get paid for it?" But there are a lot more who said "I'm not making any money fishing, I have to get money somehow, those pirates seem to be doing okay; I think I'll try it myself."

To simply blame Somalis for being Somalian is short-sighted in the extreme. Not that it was ever a paradise, but Somalia is a smoking crater now because of outside intervention. In such a situation, there actually isn't any good alternative to picking up a gun. Frightening criminals into submission is only an option when alternatives to criminality exist.

[carl]

Those factors are certainly part of it. But they're part of any society. There are several factors that Somalia has which many other societies lack. One is opportunity; the Gulf of Aden is an incredibly target-rich environment. Piracy off the Puntland coast has been an issue for quite a long time, now--it was a problem long before the media caught ahold of it, and it continues to be a problem after the media lost interest. The IUC which arose as a system of government in the early to mid 2000s struggled with piracy and brought incidence of piracy down sharply.

Which leads to another factor that is, if not unique to Somalia, then at least fairly select: Somalia's government has been a hilarious farce, completely lacking anything resembling authority over the state. The one organization that had begun to restore order was crushed by our proxies, the Ethiopians.

Which, in turn, leads to the most salient factor: without a functional state, there's nobody to keep out the fishers and the dumpers. And without that, there is no alternative to piracy available. Sure, there are some, maybe even many, who simply said "Hell with it, why should I work when I can take hostages and get paid for it?" But there are a lot more who said "I'm not making any money fishing, I have to get money somehow, those pirates seem to be doing okay; I think I'll try it myself."

To simply blame Somalis for being Somalian is short-sighted in the extreme. Not that it was ever a paradise, but Somalia is a smoking crater now because of outside intervention. In such a situation, there actually isn't any good alternative to picking up a gun. Frightening criminals into submission is only an option when alternatives to criminality exist.

You are very right the Gulf of Aden makes for rich pickings, but I don't see many pirates from the other countries that surround the place. The Straits of Malacca are good pickings. Not much piracy there now, most all the pirates are dead, killed by the tidal wave. But the economic conditions in that area are the same, just the criminals are dead, so no piracy, at least for a while.

If you are talking about al Shabaab as the agent that was going to do us all a big favor by restoring order, you may be interested in this Rueters story about how they grabbed some pirate kings because they weren't happy with their cut of the ransoms.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...71G6KN20110217

Now as for piracy being just retribution for spoiled fishing grounds being exacted by wronged fisherman, they seem to go pretty far out to sea for that. I am not sure the coastal waters of India were their traditional fishing grounds, maybe though.

Ultimately, none of this makes any difference. Their won't be any functional law abiding government there for years to come if ever. Somalia is a smoking crater mostly because Somalis are violent. That isn't going to change either. So we can weep for the Somalis and put up with innocent men who had nothing to do with the thing being kidnapped and killed, and we can pay more and more money to thugs who will continue to kidnap and kill more seamen who are just trying to make a living; or we can take care of the pirates the way pirates have been taken care of throughout history. It is going to come to that anyway. It will be cheaper to just get it over with even if Oprah chides the Navies for not being enlightened.

An addendum: Somaliland seems to run well. We should recognize the place. So not all Somalis are hopeless, just most that don't live in Somaliland.

[motorfirebox]

I was referring to the ICU, not al Shabaab. al Shabaab is a pack of violent terrorists--all that remains after Ethiopia smashed the law and order the ICU was building.

It is ridiculous to hold Somali pirates accountable for straying outside their national waters if the same accountability is not demanded of the fishers and dumpers from other nations.

As for your ideas about the violence inherent in Somalis--unless you're a proponent of the worst sort of eugenics, you have to accept that there are causes for Somali violence that extend beyond Somalis simply being a violent people. I have shown evidence of what that cause is; reject it if you like, but you haven't provided an alternative explanation.

And again, simply killing or arresting them isn't going to work. It didn't work at any other point in history, either--the golden age of western piracy didn't end because all the pirates got blowed up, it ended because conditions changed and improved to make that sort of criminal activity impractical. So in that sense, I completely agree with you: we should take care of Somali pirates the way pirates have been taken care of throughout history.

[carl]

It is ridiculous to hold Somali pirates accountable for straying outside their national waters if the same accountability is not demanded of the fishers and dumpers from other nations.

Actually it isn't so ridiculous. If you physically hold a gun to a man's head and say do this or I will kill you, and on occasion do so just to show that you are serious, that is rather a different matter than poaching. It won't be much consolation to the families of dead and missing seaman to tell them "your loved one doesn't matter, we can't protect him because it wouldn't be fair." Those loved ones probably won't buy that. They probably won't buy the "Those poor fellows don't have any other way to make a living" argument either.

As for your ideas about the violence inherent in Somalis--unless you're a proponent of the worst sort of eugenics, you have to accept that there are causes for Somali violence that extend beyond Somalis simply being a violent people. I have shown evidence of what that cause is; reject it if you like, but you haven't provided an alternative explanation.

I just know what I read and I try to read people who seem to know what they are about. One of those guys is Tom Odom. He wrote about Somalia. He said they don't like anybody else in that region and nobody likes them. There was a reason no roads led in or out of the place. He also advised that the ROE that should have been adopted when we went into that place years ago was this. If somebody is seen with a gun, he is shot. If anybody picks up the gun, he is shot. He said given the character of the place, that is the only thing that would work.

And again, simply killing or arresting them isn't going to work. It didn't work at any other point in history, either--the golden age of western piracy didn't end because all the pirates got blowed up, it ended because conditions changed and improved to make that sort of criminal activity impractical. So in that sense, I completely agree with you: we should take care of Somali pirates the way pirates have been taken care of throughout history.

One of the reasons piracy became impractical was because the Royal Navy or American Navy or somebody's navy came after them and killed them. One of the other reasons was because people in the area knew that if they went pirating a navy of some sort would kill them. That was one of the reasons things were sort of peaceful in the Med when the Romans were around. Their navy hunted pirates down and killed them. The Romans probably weren't inclined to be gentle with pirates. Worked for them.

This is what will be done eventually.

[motorfirebox]

Actually it isn't so ridiculous. If you physically hold a gun to a man's head and say do this or I will kill you, and on occasion do so just to show that you are serious, that is rather a different matter than poaching. It won't be much consolation to the families of dead and missing seaman to tell them "your loved one doesn't matter, we can't protect him because it wouldn't be fair." Those loved ones probably won't buy that. They probably won't buy the "Those poor fellows don't have any other way to make a living" argument either.

You are shifting your goalposts. Your initial comment was about territory--that Somali piracy could not be a response to fishing incursions because Somali pirates operate as far away as the coast of India. As I said, holding that sort of double standard is ridiculous. As for the actual act of piracy, I'm inclined to believe that starving Somali families are similarly disinterested in how the families of their hostages feel. Stealing your food and leaving you to starve to death is only different from shooting you in terms of how long it takes you to die.

I just know what I read and I try to read people who seem to know what they are about. One of those guys is Tom Odom. He wrote about Somalia. He said they don't like anybody else in that region and nobody likes them. There was a reason no roads led in or out of the place. He also advised that the ROE that should have been adopted when we went into that place years ago was this. If somebody is seen with a gun, he is shot. If anybody picks up the gun, he is shot. He said given the character of the place, that is the only thing that would work.

That doesn't at all address why such a state of affairs exists. If you want to believe it exists because Somalis are genetically predisposed to violence, or whatever, well, feel free.

One of the reasons piracy became impractical was because the Royal Navy or American Navy or somebody's navy came after them and killed them. One of the other reasons was because people in the area knew that if they went pirating a navy of some sort would kill them. That was one of the reasons things were sort of peaceful in the Med when the Romans were around. Their navy hunted pirates down and killed them. The Romans probably weren't inclined to be gentle with pirates. Worked for them.

Yes, the presence of law and order does stymie piracy. I don't recall saying otherwise. Of course, you're ignoring or forgetting that those same nations frequently commissioned pirates to strike at their enemies' shipping lanes.

This is what will be done eventually.

I honestly doubt it. I don't think anyone cares enough to make that sort of expenditure.

[JMA]

It is ridiculous to hold Somali pirates accountable for straying outside their national waters if the same accountability is not demanded of the fishers and dumpers from other nations.

But the Somalis are not straying outside their territorial waters to catch fish they are doing so as the foot soldiers of an internationally organised crime syndicate specializing in piracy.

[JMA]

Actually it isn't so ridiculous. If you physically hold a gun to a man's head and say do this or I will kill you, and on occasion do so just to show that you are serious, that is rather a different matter than poaching. It won't be much consolation to the families of dead and missing seaman to tell them "your loved one doesn't matter, we can't protect him because it wouldn't be fair." Those loved ones probably won't buy that. They probably won't buy the "Those poor fellows don't have any other way to make a living" argument either.

Carl, as long as the school of thought, that criminals are excused their actions by their poverty or some claim that their poverty can be blamed on others, has influence then quite frankly you have a snow-balls chance in hell of sorting the problems out.

Take the poppy cultivation in Afghanistan for example. The same woolly thinking has prevailed (and the "yes Sir, no Sir, three bags full Sir" military has blindly followed this insanity).

All that said and as far as the threat of Somali piracy is concerned is it not sickeningly predictable that the ship owners and shipping companies rather than spend to protect their crews they call on their nations and even the (useless) UN to protect their ships.

When can we expect a law suit in the US by a hijacked US crew against their employer (the ship owner) for failing in the duty of care to protect them from the very evident and obvious risk of piracy in that area? Would not the Seaman's Union or equivalent not be the instrument for such a class action suit?

[motorfirebox]

But the Somalis are not straying outside their territorial waters to catch fish they are doing so as the foot soldiers of an internationally organised crime syndicate specializing in piracy.

In this case, it's the same thing through more direct means. The only practical difference is that the illegal fishing trawlers aren't waiting until Somali fishermen have hauled up a netfull of fish to steal them. And then, of course, there's the illegal dumping of waste, which is far crueler, far more callous, and far more deleterious to the health of far more people than high seas hostage-taking ever will be.

Carl, as long as the school of thought, that criminals are excused their actions by their poverty or some claim that their poverty can be blamed on others, has influence then quite frankly you have a snow-balls chance in hell of sorting the problems out.

It's not about excusing actions. It's about recognizing why those actions are taken and addressing the causes.

[JMA]

In this case, it's the same thing through more direct means. The only practical difference is that the illegal fishing trawlers aren't waiting until Somali fishermen have hauled up a netfull of fish to steal them. And then, of course, there's the illegal dumping of waste, which is far crueler, far more callous, and far more deleterious to the health of far more people than high seas hostage-taking ever will be.

And this is unique to Somalia? ... and this justifies the acts of piracy which bring in incomes beyond their wildest dreams as subsistence fishermen?

It's not about excusing actions. It's about recognizing why those actions are taken and addressing the causes.

Well yes... but at the same time dealing with the piracy in the most effective manner... which is not happening.

PS: It would help your argument if these Somali fishermen were targeting the boats that illegally fish in the Somali territorial waters or those that dump their garbage in passing... but they are not.

[Fuchs]

And then, of course, there's the illegal dumping of waste, which is far crueler, far more callous, and far more deleterious to the health of far more people than high seas hostage-taking ever will be.

I'm quite sure that this illegal waste dumping story (I've seen it before) is a hoax.

It sounds a lot like a Rube Goldberg machine solution to a problem.

European are supposedly sending ships through the Suez Canal (fee!), through the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean to dump waste? I'm supposed to believe that?

Hello, we've got an Atlantic Ocean and a pretty large Mediterranean Sea right in front of our harbours!

Moreover, it requires special equipment on aircraft to suppress illegal oil dumping close to our shores (and few European nations afford this equipment). It ought to be much easier (and leave almost no traces) to dump some illegal waste on the high seas at night (dumping oil illegally leaves a trace that identifies the miscreant ship for hours - simple waste dumping does not).

[motorfirebox]

And this is unique to Somalia? ... and this justifies the acts of piracy which bring in incomes beyond their wildest dreams as subsistence fishermen?

Unique? No. Fairly select, though. And certainly the worst example of a trend.

Again, though, I'm not talking about justification. It's not a choice between being okay with piracy or okay with illegal fishing and dumping. I condemn both. I condemn the fishing and dumping more because a) it hurts more people, and b) without it, piracy would go down.

Well yes... but at the same time dealing with the piracy in the most effective manner... which is not happening.

PS: It would help your argument if these Somali fishermen were targeting the boats that illegally fish in the Somali territorial waters or those that dump their garbage in passing... but they are not.

Of course they're not, any more than ye olde tyme privateers hunted the warships of enemy states. Again, it's not nationalism or profit motive.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA,

All that said and as far as the threat of Somali piracy is concerned is it not sickeningly predictable that the ship owners and shipping companies rather than spend to protect their crews they call on their nations and even the (useless) UN to protect their ships.

I have no knowledge in this field, but I recall when I was looking at security jobs in the early 90s, private Maritime Security was a supposedly a rapidly growing school. There were a few private schools training and credentialing private armed security personnel to protect ships from pirates (as you all have noted it is an old problem).

The shipping companies were apparently paying the security personnel back then. What I don't see (doesn't mean it isn't happening) now are these armed private maritime security companies on board ships. What happened? Were they shut down by the UN? Did the liberals take legal action against them? Is this still a legal option?

JMA,

Carl, as long as the school of thought, that criminals are excused their actions by their poverty or some claim that their poverty can be blamed on others, has influence then quite frankly you have a snow-balls chance in hell of sorting the problems out.

Well said, and it goes back to identifying underlyng issues in any conflict. They tend to distract or worse prohibit us from winning the immediate fight. Most underlying issues (assuming they're correct identified in the first place) take years to solve, and once the armed conflict starts governments would probably be better off focusing on attacking the threat directly (in most cases) and then focusing on longer term solutions. Right now we're paralyzing ourselves by feeling sorry for our enemies. That may give some the impression that we have the moral high ground, but not the families that are burying their fallen warriors, not the families who are worried about the status of their family members being held hostage, and not the folks who are beginning to feel the economic impact (on top of everything) of this paralysis that prevents action. Moral high ground needs to be looked at in another light IMO.

[Fuchs]

The UN has no such authority and I don't recall an international shipping treaty of relevance from the last decades.

The corporations which operate these ships have hired cheap Filipino labour in the meantime, and are not intent on paying security professionals if they can have a free ride on ridiculously inefficient naval security efforts.

[motorfirebox]

There actually are PMCs protecting some ships.

[Bill Moore]

motorfirebox, thanks for the link to the article, but what isn't clear to me yet is that it? Case opened and closed, or will there be a painful and expensive investigation that follows? If the companies only had to pay for armed security that wouldn't cost too much even if the security personnel earned a handsome income, but legal fees on the other hand could get out of control.