More Piracy Near Somalia

[Entropy]

I suggest you need to revisit this assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's the current reality.

To echo JMA, why?

Well, there are a lot of reasons, but the main one is that No one wants to intervene in Somali because of a little bit of piracy. Stopping piracy at sea isn't really practical and no one wants to play the part of Pompey or O'Bannon.

[carl]

Ken:

It is very true I don't know as much as I like to think I know, but I do know a distinction without a difference; and that is what you have when you put a handful of Coast Guardsmen aboard a Navy ship in order to get around a law. That looks to me like the Navy going after drug smugglers on occasion, disregarding the nuance of course. Considering the Coast Guard helped with Market Time and with the Iraq blockade and the Navy fights pirates and goes after drugs, my unsophisticated judgment is that in certain areas of naval endeavor, one might as well be the other. Don't worry about being nice if you disagree. I'll heal up.

I may not be as ignorant as you think, but then maybe even more than I fear. I asked Entropy the question because I was curious as to why he thought as he did. He answered well. I wondered what type of political constraint he was thinking of. Now I know.

It is indeed one of my great heartbreaks that the governments of the world don't breathlessly follow the SWC to see what Carl's latest pronouncement is so they can then follow the path of enlightenment. But I live in hope that that they will one day come to their senses.

I strongly disagree the navies don't have the capability to stop piracy, nor is piracy comparable to smuggling. Pirates once they take a ship can't help but come out into the open and be easily found. They can't hide. Once found, they can be taken; if anyone cares to do so. Smugglers got to hide all the time. They never announce their presence.

Sorry I don't impress you with my level of understanding. Hard luck that. But I will keep pecking away with my opinions, without foundation though they may be. I do appreciate the political problems, I just think most of them are self imposed limitations prompted by diffidence and political correctness. And I try to read carefully all that you write. It is just that some of it is immaterial and some of it I just disagree with.

In any event, this back and forth is fun.

Here is a link you might be interested in.

http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/chang...acy-46593.html

In it the former head of Shell shipping calls for the rules of engagement to be changed so the navies can get on with it.

[JMA]

It's not an assumption, it's the current reality.

Well, there are a lot of reasons, but the main one is that No one wants to intervene in Somali because of a little bit of piracy. Stopping piracy at sea isn't really practical and no one wants to play the part of Pompey or O'Bannon.

So actually there is no sanctuary. Just that no country (or coalition) has seen fit to seek the obvious land based solution to this problem.

That you don't see the Somali based piracy as a significant problem in the greater scheme of things does not of course mean that it is not a regional problem or a commercial problem or whatever that some other people may take quite seriously.

Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there?

[JMA]

Why is there a moral imperative to help the Libyan rebels and Ouattara's forces, but no moral imperative to help Somalia?

No reason to be confused.

I summarised my position in post #440 of this thread. For more detail read through the applicable threads and all will be revealed.

Note: check the date of the post and realise that that was my position at that moment. Some windows of opportunity subsequently closed and as such I would have moved onto plan B or C or whatever.

As to intervention in Somalia. It is ongoing. African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) has been doing its thing for years now.

... and a quick look at UNSC Resolution 1772 relating to Somalia para 18 is as follows:

“18. Encourages Member States whose naval vessels and military aircraft operate in international waters and airspace adjacent to the coast of Somalia to be vigilant to any incident of piracy therein and to take appropriate action to protect merchant shipping, in particular the transportation of humanitarian aid, against any such act, in line with relevant international law;

...this may have been added to or expanded in subsequent resolutions.

Does this response resolve your confusion over my position?

[M-A Lagrange]

Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there?

Ok JMA,

What would be your recommandations in the actual context with the involvement of Uganda and AU advocating for the effective creation of a East african force?

Do you really think that no African countries could contribute?
And what to do to reinforce involvement of emergenging powers as well as China?

Would the solution go also with a strong reconquest of Somalia by the transitional gov (I cannot find better qualification) or a support of Somaliland as a proxi.

M-A

[Fuchs]

I have a proposal that would quickly solve the piracy problem: The G20 agree to confiscate every ship that was ever freed from pirates' possession and enters their territorial waters (and then do it).

Piracy would end in at most three months to be more relevant than five years ago.

[Ken White]

Carl:

I may not be as ignorant as you think, but then maybe even more than I fear. I asked Entropy the question because I was curious as to why he thought as he did. He answered well. I wondered what type of political constraint he was thinking of. Now I know.

I know you aren't ignorant but I also see you make a lot of apparently ignorant statements that are somewhat naive and / or display a disregard for practicalities as impediments to your worldview (not sure which -- it's not a good medium for nuance...). We all do that but in the case of interventions to improve the human condition here and there, IMO you seem to discard reality for unattainable ideals all too often and you also appear to often ask for military efforts in doing things they cannot do or do not do well. Wishing they could do it your way doesn't change reality...

I suggest that some of the "immaterial" things I write are perhaps lumped into the larger number with which you disagree. I'm incredibly lazy, don't do much unless it seems fairly important.

Not a problem, I can be concise when there's no point in being otherwise. In this case, there is none.

JMA:

Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there?

None. May even do some good, though solutions with a slight chance of political survival to implementation or gain success would seem desirable. YMMV.

[Entropy]

So actually there is no sanctuary. Just that no country (or coalition) has seen fit to seek the obvious land based solution to this problem.

Sanctuary:

1. A Place of safety or refuge.
2. Immunity from arrest.

Yes, it's a sanctuary. Yes we, or even South Africa, could decided to end the sanctuary. That we choose not to doesn't mean it isn't a sanctuary.

That you don't see the Somali based piracy as a significant problem in the greater scheme of things does not of course mean that it is not a regional problem or a commercial problem or whatever that some other people may take quite seriously.

Well, it's not just me. Last time I checked, piracy insurance was about $20k a vessel per voyage. Hardly anyone buys it for their ships. Why do you think that is?

The owners of captured vessels and the employers and governments of the 700+ hostages have specifically asked us not to do anything that might put those people and those ships at harm. Hence we are not landing Marines in Puntland or fast-roping SEALS onto captured ships.

Somali piracy affects perhaps 1-2 tenths of a percent of shipping traffic in this region, a couple thousandths of a percent when considering worldwide traffic. It's not causing any significant disruption in global trade. It's not even affecting regional countries all the much, such as Kenya.

Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there?

No harm at all. I'm simply trying to explain why nations aren't doing more.

[carl]

I have a proposal that would quickly solve the piracy problem: The G20 agree to confiscate every ship that was ever freed from pirates' possession and enters their territorial waters (and then do it).

Fuchs, I don't quite understand what you mean.

Entropy:

Here is a link to a story stating that cruise ship port calls to Kenya are down 90% because of piracy. So in at least that small part of the ship business it is having an effect.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201104050126.html

[Entropy]

Carl,

I'm not claiming piracy is having no effect. Obviously, it is. I'm simply stating that the effect is relatively small which makes it much more difficult to justify dangerous and expensive "solutions" to the problem.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, I don't quite understand what you mean.

The income source of the pirates is ransom money. Paying ransom to pirates is illegal. Now if paying ransom to pirates would be sanctioned with loss of the ship, nobody would have a motivation to pay ransom for ships any more - only for the crews. Most of the crews being philippinos and other poor countries' people, there would be only marginal revenue potential for the pirates left.

The loss of a ship to pirates would furthermore be permanent and force the ship owners to internalise the costs of countermeasures instead of socialising them. In short; they wouldn't depend on navies for pointless patrolling, but would be willing to accept some appropriate expenditures for security (still orders of magnitude cheaper than naval patrolling).


I basically proposed a non-violent legal strategy against piracy.

[carl]

Fuchs:

So from the owners standpoint the ship just got sunk by a U-boat. That would certainly concentrate the owner's minds, especially the ones with the big ships with expensive cargoes. They would be inclined to take strong action of some kind.

From the pirates standpoint, they just grabbed themselves nothing much and potentially a world of trouble depending on how exercised the owners were. Hmm.

Fuchs, I think you have a good idea there.

[Entropy]

The loss of a ship to pirates would furthermore be permanent and force the ship owners to internalise the costs of countermeasures instead of socialising them. In short; they wouldn't depend on navies for pointless patrolling, but would be willing to accept some appropriate expenditures for security (still orders of magnitude cheaper than naval patrolling).

Except your proposal would have the opposite effect. If shipowners were guaranteed to lose the ship should it ever be captured, then the pressure will only increase on governments to "do something" about the problem to prevent the ships from being captured in the first place.

Secondly, there's no guarantee it would encourage shippers to change behavior to use more "countermeasures" (whatever they are). They can always insure against such a loss (or would you make that illegal too). At most it will simply raising the cost of shipping since the companies will pass the cost of losing those ships onto their customers, thereby socializing the costs.

Not to mention that taking someone's ship by fiat is not legally or constitutionally possible in all countries. Maybe it's different in Germany, but in the US we have something called due process....

[Fuchs]

Except your proposal would have the opposite effect. If shipowners were guaranteed to lose the ship should it ever be captured, then the pressure will only increase on governments to "do something" about the problem to prevent the ships from being captured in the first place.

My proposal implied that the governments already "did something" and the ship owners simply got kicked in their back cushion for trying to socialise the costs of their business.
At the point of the G-20 agreement, the lobbying cause of the ship owners would be lost, and it would be obvious.

Secondly, there's no guarantee it would encourage shippers to change behavior to use more "countermeasures" (whatever they are). They can always insure against such a loss (or would you make that illegal too). At most it will simply raising the cost of shipping since the companies will pass the cost of losing those ships onto their customers, thereby socializing the costs.

I've got no problem with this. If the ship owners are willing to pay the increased insurance tariffs and crews are willing to accept the risk for their pay, then it's apparently economically optimal to accept the risk of piracy. The pirates would still cease activity since they get almost no revenue any more, of course.

You misunderstand the meaning of 'socialising costs'. I already used the correct term; you and I meant internalising costs.
If sending a container over the seas includes a risk and that risk premium is paid by whoever wants the container move, then the cost (risk) is internalised.
If the taxpayer boots the burden it's socialised.

[Entropy]

My proposal implied that the governments already "did something" and the ship owners simply got kicked in their back cushion for trying to socialise the costs of their business.
At the point of the G-20 agreement, the lobbying cause of the ship owners would be lost, and it would be obvious.

Well, ok, but that seems about as likely as Somalia transforming to a Jeffersonian democracy. Besides, as I also noted, the costs will be socialized regardless - in the form of higher shipping costs if nothing else.

Just saw the second part of your post:

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)? What prevents the pirates from switching to vessels with lucrative cargos which they could then sell? The vessels are still valuable - the pirates could still make money from them by selling to third countries or even as parts/scrap.

There is no reason to believe that your idea would actually cause the pirates to switch to some other profession.

[Fuchs]

NO
It does not get "socialised". It gets "internalised".

To socialise costs means to burden the general population, while to internalise costs means to burden the one who demands the good or service whose creation creates the cost.

[Entropy]

NO
It does not get "socialised". It gets "internalised".

To socialise costs means to burden the general population, while to internalise costs means to burden the one who demands the good or service whose creation creates the cost.

The pirates will still be around, so the Navy will still be around, so there will still be costs that are socialized. BTW, I added to my post above after seeing the second part of your earlier post.

[carl]

One reason Fuchs' idea is a good one is it would knock the structure from beneath the status quo. Quo no mo. (I couldn't resist) Things would change.

If the pirates did take an especially valuable ship and cargo, a big new tanker fully laden for example, the owners would have quite an incentive to take it back, with or without help or approval from govs.

[Entropy]

If the pirates did take an especially valuable ship and cargo, a big new tanker fully laden for example, the owners would have quite an incentive to take it back, with or without help or approval from govs.

Well great, more work for PMC's operating with no oversight in a country with weak governance! What could go wrong?

Doesn't sound much like a "non-violent legal strategy against piracy" to me.

[motorfirebox]

Well... the strategy itself doesn't involve the use of violence, and it probably is one of the least violent (in terms of overall casualties) solutions proposed.

I think the only real stumbling block--the same stumbling block that applies to almost every strategy proposed--is that it requires real effort and expenditure of political capital. The recent slaying of four Americans by pirates didn't make the front page for more than a day or two. It doesn't seem like there's much will to do anything besides send in more naval craft for more patrolling.