More Piracy Near Somalia

[carl]

Entropy:

There is plenty going wrong right now.

There wouldn't be just PMCs. The Ukraine might decide it needs to station a naval squadron in the area, Eritrea and Somaliland might suddenly sprout altruistically minded navies. Things would change, but mainly out at sea. The owners are interested in the ships and cargo. You can't drag the ship inland.

I still like that idea.

[Fuchs]

What prevents the pirates from simply increasing the ransom fees on the people to cover the lost revenue from the vessels (and historically, this was a major source of pirate income)?

The exact same thing that keeps them from increasing the ransom fees right now. It doesn't happen right now, so why should it happen in a more problematic environment? Makes no sense.

What prevents the pirates from switching to vessels with lucrative cargos which they could then sell?

That's damn hard. You need an entirely different backoffice to pull this off, and it could be countered by many means (mostly police).
Moreover, they would need to ship almost all goods with the captured ship, and that's not going to work.

The vessels are still valuable - the pirates could still make money from them by selling to third countries or even as parts/scrap.

The ships are useless, for they will be confiscated on next use in a G20 country port. It's doubtful that the relatively few scrapping locations (mostly Eastern Bangladesh) could not be kept from accepting stolen ships.

The pirates will still be around, so the Navy will still be around, so there will still be costs that are socialized.

No, I am actually someone who can say "no" to a military mission opportunity. The recall of the fleets is thus part of my proposal. They are not essential for the strategy.



My proposal would destroy the business model of the pirates. It's unlikely that they can easily switch to another business model - they would most likely already diversify right now if they could.

[JMA]

My proposal would destroy the business model of the pirates. It's unlikely that they can easily switch to another business model - they would most likely already diversify right now if they could.

This idea is worth consideration at a political level. But while the G20 dither over this plan for the next 5-10 years I suggest some "military-style" contingency plans get worked through

In keeping with my philosophy I would tend to go after the "people" rather than the "things". Where is the head of the snake in all of this?

From the British Forces News I get it that there are currently 53 ships in the hands of the pirates together with 800 crew and passengers and costing the shipping industry GB£7.5billion per year.

There are a lot of options here.

[Entropy]

The exact same thing that keeps them from increasing the ransom fees right now. It doesn't happen right now, so why should it happen in a more problematic environment? Makes no sense.

Actually, ransoms are increasing. Average ransoms have increased from $500k in 2005 to $5.4 million last year.

That's damn hard. You need an entirely different backoffice to pull this off, and it could be countered by many means (mostly police).
Moreover, they would need to ship almost all goods with the captured ship, and that's not going to work.

That's already happening too - they are targeting ships they think will pay the best which appears to be oil tankers. If you change the conditions (ie. no ransoms on ships), then they could go after ships that have lots of people to ransom, or valuable cargo to ransom, or go after ships the pirates themselves can use.

The ships are useless, for they will be confiscated on next use in a G20 country port. It's doubtful that the relatively few scrapping locations (mostly Eastern Bangladesh) could not be kept from accepting stolen ships.

Well, that's only if your plan actually got implemented. As I noted before, easier said than done. The notion that the US government, for example, could confiscate private property simply because it was the victim of criminal action is a tenuous one at best. Similar things have occurred during the course of the drug war, but those actions haven't had much effect on that problem. Certainly there would be a legal challenge to any such seizure at the very least. I can't speak for other countries.

No, I am actually someone who can say "no" to a military mission opportunity. The recall of the fleets is thus part of my proposal. They are not essential for the strategy.

Well, if your proposal doesn't stop the piracy, then the fleets would stay and there would be pressure put on governments to do the very military missions you wish to avoid.

My proposal would destroy the business model of the pirates. It's unlikely that they can easily switch to another business model - they would most likely already diversify right now if they could.

No, it would alter the business model, not destroy it (even if the scheme could be implemented, which doubtful). There already exist several instances where people were ransomed, not the ships. If you manage to take ships out of the equation economically, there are other revenue streams (people and cargo) than can be ransomed. What do you plan to do about that?

There are a couple of thousand years of history to examine with regard to piracy and a few methods that are proven to work. Paying ransoms is often the best policy until the pirates get too big for their britches - even the Romans understood this.

[carl]

Actually, ransoms are increasing. Average ransoms have increased from $500k in 2005 to $5.4 million last year.

I think Fuchs was talking about ransoms for people not ships. Sad to say most people don't care about Filipino crewman.

If the pirates did take a ship with the specific idea of grabbing people to ransom, they would likely target a ship full of westerners, say a cruise ship. If they did that, I can't think of a quicker way to get the various navies to do something drastic.

[motorfirebox]

Does this response resolve your confusion over my position?

No. Your response addresses strategies. I'm asking about the moral imperative that is claimed to exist in some situations but not others.

[JMA]

No. Your response addresses strategies. I'm asking about the moral imperative that is claimed to exist in some situations but not others.

Then I suggest you find someone who has expressed such moral ambiguity and take it up with them.

[JMA]

Paying ransom to pirates is illegal.

Interesting. By which law is this?

[JMA]

Maybe it's different in Germany, but in the US we have something called due process....

There is only one response to a statement like that and it is... Guantanamo.

[Entropy]

There is only one response to a statement like that and it is... Guantanamo.

Well played sir.

[motorfirebox]

Then I suggest you find someone who has expressed such moral ambiguity and take it up with them.

Okay, I give up.

[M-A Lagrange]

Fuch, Carl,

The idea of confiscating the ships is not that bad but concerning Carl points about somali pirates incapacity to sell the cargo, I do have some doubts.

First because somali pirates do work in connection with somali business men who have the capacity to trade most of the cargos.
The high ranson we all hear about are concerning a very limited number of ships being attacked. Most of the attacks are done on small ships which are basically fishing ships from neigbouring countries or small size cargo ship.
Secondly, part from oil and heavy weapons, somali have connections and legal business in Kenya and Ethiopia which give them the capacity to sell almost anything legaly (borders are porous).

But there is here may be an idea as a strict blocus over somalia.

[carl]

Here is a link to an Information Dissemination piece describing recent naval actions against the pirates.

http://www.informationdissemination....#disqus_thread

The author states "...but it does sound to me that NATO has been conducting some form of shore blockade on a specific pirate group."

[carl]

M-A: Good points ref the ability to do the old fashioned pirate business of steal and sell.

[carl]

You guys are probably already doing so but check out Galrahn's latest twitter posts about all this. Apparently the pirates have decided to provoke India.

http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/a...416?edition=af

[JMA]

You guys are probably already doing so but check out Galrahn's latest twitter posts about all this. Apparently the pirates have decided to provoke India.

http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/a...416?edition=af

Hopefully it will encourage the Indian government to authorise their forces to take the action against pirates ashore. This may well be the turning point where the pirates have pushed their luck too far.

[Fuchs]

Interesting. By which law is this?

I read it's part of international law, but much of that is customary and I don't know which exact rule says it.

--------

It's easy in any country to write a law that whoever pays ransom to pirates is a pirates supporter and his ship (or the ship insured by him) will be confiscated. That's possible in every legal system. Likewise, it's quite easy to write into law that any ship observed to have been released from pirate control has to be considered freed with a ransom. It's really obvious enough.

----------

There are of course always people who prefer inaction because every change is outside of their comfort zone. That's the kind of people who are responsible for us still discussing Somali pirates years after the issue became relevant.

We could have passed by three known pirate hot spot villages and could have destroyed all boats there in a drive-by shooting with a simple corvette - years ago.

We could have ringed them with craters from JDAMs and dropped leaflets on them that net time it will be a filled circle, not a ring.

We could have sunk a few captured ships and told them clearly that their business is over.

We could have mercilessly raided every captured ship - that's what thousands of civilian, paramilitary and military special forces trained for for decades, after all.

We could have intercepted and raided every boat that moved farther than 50 nm.

We could have raided their villages (two or three years ago there were three well-identified hot spot villages) and taken away all weapons, boats and every luxury.

We could have arranged that the Kenyan villas of the pirate leaders burn down.


Instead, we chose the most primitive, most stupid, least effective, most expensive, least imaginative and most reflexive (NON-)solution: Patrol the seas with warships and tolerate ransom payments.
It's almost as if the insurance industry's lobbyists would run our governments.


@Entropy; "due process"?
* Guantanamo
* Patriot Act
* death penalty for mentally ill
* three strikes rule
* death penalty for innocents who happened to be too poor to afford a decent lawyer
* death penalty for foreigners who were denied their privilege to contact their countries' embassy or consulate early
* regular violation of international law at will

The U.S. is not a country with "due process" in legal matters or a real rule of law. That's just one of many U.S. national myths.

[davidbfpo]

I think the key point in this article: http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/a...416?edition=af

Is this:

India is holding more than 100 pirates it has detained mostly in rescue operations.

Note the article also refers to one Indian naval ship.

[Ken White]

The U.S. is not a country with "due process" in legal matters or a real rule of law. That's just one of many U.S. national myths.

Do so have it -- provided you have enough money...

We have many myths, 'tis true. Seems to be a human proclivity, though, as many nations have a few...

Other than that, good post.

[JMA]

I think the key point in this article: http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/a...416?edition=af

Is this:

Note the article also refers to one Indian naval ship.

From the same article. Isn't this interesting thinking:

"India hasn't only declared war against us, but also it has risked the lives of many hostages," he (the pirate) said.

Yes, how dare the Indian navy be used to protect Indian shipping from the legitimate and understandable attentions of these Somali pirates. And yes they would be quite within their rights to shoot Indian and other hostages if the 100 odd pirates in Indian custody are not immediately released. (For our US friends here this is sarcasm)

I hope the Indians see this as crossing a line and get suitably angry enough to take some action on their own.

...now I wait to see how long it will be before someone suggests that a hostage/pirate swap is a good idea.