More Piracy Near Somalia

[tequila]

Now there is a philosophy to build an enduring legal tradition upon-if it doesn't hurt me or mine, it's ok.

Isn't this the traditional rationale for any good empire?

Not that the Somalis are exactly empire-building here.

I think the clear answer is that Puntland is being hurt because you have criminal entrepeneurs who are clearly using violent means to acquire capital that cannot be controlled or taxed by the state. Eventually they are inviting in foreign intervention if the problem grows worse.

[carl]

Tequila:

Hmm. Let me refine that a little.

Now there is a philosophy upon which to build an enduring legal tradition-if it doesn't immediately hurt me or mine, it's ok.

[motorfirebox]

Heh, I thought that statement might stir up some commentary.

There is some confusion, though. I'm not saying "Why should we bother trying to stop piracy?" Rather, I'm saying "Why is stopping piracy the first step to creating a stable Somali state?" Why should the piracy problem be tackled first, over all other issues? It seems to me that the reason people are advocating tackling piracy first is exactly what carl said: that "if it doesn't hurt me or mine, it's okay". Non-pirate-related issues in Somalia don't hurt "me or mine", so there's no interest in solving them. If we can't be bothered to view as important those issues which don't directly affect us and ours, why should Somalia?

It doesn't seem to me that piracy is the primary issue causing strife in Somalia. It seems pretty clear, actually, that it's the other way around: the strife allows and possibly even encourages the pirates to prosper. Solving the piracy won't, in any apparent way, address the strife. So why tackle it first?

[carl]

Let's see, how did we end up here?

(Ok. Motorfirebox asked what are the pirates doing that harms the society of Somalia, which implied that if what they did did not harm the society of Somalia it was ok. Then I thought that was a flawed position so I tried to illustrate it by making a sarcastic comment about how that was a grand idea upon which to build an enduring legal traditions. Then Motorfirebox engages in a bit of sophistry and attributes what he said to me in order to conflate self-defense with aggression. Is that right? Yea, that's right. Then MFB decides that rewarding pirates with aid because then they will stop pirating is a good idea. Oh yea, suddenly Somalia is a country again.)

I have no idea how we got here.

[motorfirebox]

We got here through my insistence that Somalia deserves to have its problems taken seriously. I was able to turn your words into what I have to say was a pretty awesome counterargument, yes, but the point stands with or without your inadvertent contribution.

[carl]

A sarcastic comment concerning something MFB said transmogrifies itself into my words. Geesh, no wonder you were able to make a pretty awesome counterargument.

This is great fun of course but as we are playing around, more innocent sailors, poor men from poor countries are being threatened with death and kidnapping. And the Indians may be getting ready to make a strike, which given the way things go on the subcontinent and environs (read the end game in Sri Lanka) could be quite shocking to western sensibilities. The Indian Navy alas, is probably not concerned with root causes.

[motorfirebox]

I'm aware you were being sarcastic, carl. That's kind of my point: we both agree that "if it doesn't hurt me or mine, it must be okay" isn't a good basis for an enduring legal tradition. Thing is, the idea that piracy is the most important Somali-related problem can be directly attributed to that very paradigm. It's pretty hard to argue that piracy is the worst thing happening in the region; our attempts to stop it has only to do with our own needs and desires. Given your advocacy that the US should be the world's policeman, it seems counterintuitive that you would also be in favor of focusing the majority of our efforts in Somalia on directly combating piracy, since the concept of policing is very much a legal tradition--and, as I said, both of us agree that shortsighted selfishness is not a good thing to base a legal tradition on.

[carl]

Well Mr. MFB, I would say that to the victims of the pirates, poor men almost all, some of them very poor, piracy is the most important thing happening on the seas from close inshore to hundreds and hundreds of miles out. Attempts to stop it are probably pretty congruent with their needs and desires. That is a guess though, I don't believe the Red Cross has paid a visit to their places of confinement to check up on them and ask.

Your last sentence is a model of the sophist's art. Let's see we're going to be policing except policing isn't really good policing because police should know collaring criminals is really short sighted selfishness.

Tell me, what would you say to families of the Thai fishermen who died of neglect in the hands of the pirates when they ask why chasing down and finishing the yuts who killed their men isn't the way to go?

[Dayuhan]

There is some confusion, though. I'm not saying "Why should we bother trying to stop piracy?" Rather, I'm saying "Why is stopping piracy the first step to creating a stable Somali state?

We can't create a stable Somali state, any more than we can create a stable Afghan state. We can bleed ourselves into the ground trying, but we cannot create a stable state in an unstable society. At best we can convince all the actors involved that the cost of attacking us, our assets, or our allies is higher than the gain.

"If it doesn't hurt me or mine, it must be okay" may not be an adequate basis for a legal system, but it's not a half bad start to foreign policy. Things that don't hurt me or mine may not be "ok" in any abstract sense, but that doesn't make them any of my business.

The talk of how "the strife" causes piracy, or illegal dumping or fishing cause piracy, needs to be tempered by an occasional reality check. These things may have helped start piracy, but what sustains it is the money. Even if there was no strife and there were fish to catch and jobs ashore, now that people have gotten used to the money the piracy will continue: nobody is going to get the kind of money fishing or farming that piracy yields. Once people get used to high-profit, consequence-free crime (the people making the profit are not facing consequences) only physical force will stop them from pursuing crime. It won't stop until cost exceeds benefit, and since benefit is very substantial, the cost will have to be even more substantial.

If hungry people take to crime, it's reasonable to say that hunger caused the entry into crime. It is not reasonable to assume that giving those people food will get them to cease the criminal activity. If the crime is profitable, consequence-free, and gets them not only food, but nice guns, designer shades, cars, girls, etc, they won't trade that in for anything that gets them less, unless the consequences of the crime become too risky to face.

PS [edit, for Carl): I have no objection at all to targeting pirates, but I'd also say there has to be some effort put into targeting the people receiving, handling, and spending the money. They will always be able to hire more young guys with guns. Consequences have to be applied up and down the food chain, and the closer to the top they go the more influence they will have.

[motorfirebox]

Well Mr. MFB, I would say that to the victims of the pirates, poor men almost all, some of them very poor, piracy is the most important thing happening on the seas from close inshore to hundreds and hundreds of miles out. Attempts to stop it are probably pretty congruent with their needs and desires. That is a guess though, I don't believe the Red Cross has paid a visit to their places of confinement to check up on them and ask.

That's just good (well, less-bad) luck on the part of the victims. They happened to get caught up in a crime that has a wider economic impact. We didn't send pirates to the Straits of Malacca, after all. If any families of Thai fishermen care to question me, I'll tell them the truth: the US isn't in the region on their behalf.

Your last sentence is a model of the sophist's art. Let's see we're going to be policing except policing isn't really good policing because police should know collaring criminals is really short sighted selfishness.

If it's sophistry to recognize that a legal structure is comprised of more than police work, or that a society is comprised of more than a legal structure, then yes--I'm guilty as charged.

These things may have helped start piracy, but what sustains it is the money. Even if there was no strife and there were fish to catch and jobs ashore, now that people have gotten used to the money the piracy will continue: nobody is going to get the kind of money fishing or farming that piracy yields. Once people get used to high-profit, consequence-free crime (the people making the profit are not facing consequences) only physical force will stop them from pursuing crime. It won't stop until cost exceeds benefit, and since benefit is very substantial, the cost will have to be even more substantial.

Sure. But jobs and money often bring social stability and law, because when people have something to lose they want to protect it. And law will quickly bring an end to piracy.

[Dayuhan]

Sure. But jobs and money often bring social stability and law, because when people have something to lose they want to protect it. And law will quickly bring an end to piracy.

Do jobs and money bring social stability and law, or is it the other way round?

What people have to lose in this case is the large income provided by piracy... and you're right, they want to protect it. They will protect it, too, if they can. Very unlikely that any legal activity is going to bring in as much money, or that any locally generated law is going to interfere with that kind of money making. The first reaction of local law is probably going to be to want a piece of the action... unless the action gets risky, which brings you back to where you started.

[motorfirebox]

Do jobs and money bring social stability and law, or is it the other way round?

Not sure it's an either/or. Seems likely that it can work either way, with each reinforcing the other.

What people have to lose in this case is the large income provided by piracy... and you're right, they want to protect it. They will protect it, too, if they can. Very unlikely that any legal activity is going to bring in as much money, or that any locally generated law is going to interfere with that kind of money making. The first reaction of local law is probably going to be to want a piece of the action... unless the action gets risky, which brings you back to where you started.

For a while, yeah. But piracy is going to be an issue on some timeline no matter what. We can beat it down now and see a resurgence in a year or two or five, or we can work to contain it and also work to remove the root cause. It seems unlikely that we can do both, or I might advocate that.

Because the money is not the only thing sustaining this activity. If it were just money, then we'd see people from every corner of the globe, first world certainly included, engaging in this sort of piracy. I don't know about you, but my projects don't net hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each. I know a lot of other people who don't see that kind of money, either.

[Stan]

Because the money is not the only thing sustaining this activity. If it were just money, then we'd see people from every corner of the globe, first world certainly included, engaging in this sort of piracy.

Sorry, but I don't follow you here. What else is there if money is not the only thing driving/sustaining piracy ?

Honest question with no sarcasm

[carl]

That's just good (well, less-bad) luck on the part of the victims. They happened to get caught up in a crime that has a wider economic impact. We didn't send pirates to the Straits of Malacca, after all. If any families of Thai fishermen care to question me, I'll tell them the truth: the US isn't in the region on their behalf.

I am at a loss for words on this one. It sort of reminds me of a slang term gangbangers have for innocents who get cut down in drive by shootings. The yuts call them "mushrooms" because they just pop up and get in the way of bullets meant for rivals. Not really very important are the mushrooms to the valiant street warriors. Nor very important are the mariners in comparison to the pursuit of social justice in the area that used to be Somalia it seems.

My head is still shaking at this.

You might note that the dead Thai fishermen were held by those valiant crusaders for social justice from the coast of the area that used to be Somalia. The Indians found them when they took the noble crusaders boat. They weren't anywhere close to the Straits of Malacca. Not much piracy there lately. Most of those pirates were killed by the tsunami.

If it's sophistry to recognize that a legal structure is comprised of more than police work, or that a society is comprised of more than a legal structure, then yes--I'm guilty as charged.

Police work is police work. It is sophistry to equate it to the myriad other things you've equated it to (the ankle bone is connected to the shin bone, the...). You are quite accomplished at it.

And law will quickly bring an end to piracy.

Finally something we can agree on. The law of the sea, formal, statutory, customary, popular, historical and cultural, prohibits piracy. So lets get on with the vigorous enforcement of that law and bring this to an end.

Dayuhan: Agree completely about going after the money men. Some might be hard to get at though. One of the stories I read told about a woman who got an RPG as part of her alimony and she allowed the pirates to use it with the condition she got a share of the prize...ransom money. She got 50k I think. That is a very good return on investment.

[motorfirebox]

Sorry, but I don't follow you here. What else is there if money is not the only thing driving/sustaining piracy ?

Honest question with no sarcasm

The specifics are debatable, but two points that support this idea: one, the ICU reduced piracy without greatly increasing wealth in the region; two, I don't know many people in the US who are looking for opportunities to ransom hostages at sea, for all that the ransoms represent pretty large sums for most people. You could argue that these difference eventually boil down to money (and I don't think you'd be wrong), but there's more going on than just the profit.

Carl, I'm tired of debating you. You have an amazing talent for talking past any point that might inconvenience your paradigm--I'm not sure if it's willful ignorance or genuine confusion, at this point, and I don't really care anymore.

[Dayuhan]

We can beat it down now and see a resurgence in a year or two or five, or we can work to contain it and also work to remove the root cause. It seems unlikely that we can do both, or I might advocate that.

Because the money is not the only thing sustaining this activity. If it were just money, then we'd see people from every corner of the globe, first world certainly included, engaging in this sort of piracy. I don't know about you, but my projects don't net hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each. I know a lot of other people who don't see that kind of money, either.

Money is half of what sustains piracy. The other half is the absence of adverse consequences. People in most corners of the globe don't engage in piracy because they wouldn't end up rich, they'd end up in jail, or dead. People don't want to be in jail or dead, so they don't hold ships for ransom. Take away the adverse consequences, keep the profitability in place, and people hold ships for ransom.

If you want to remove the root causes, focus on the root causes: high profitability and few or no consequences. Reduce the profitability and/or impose consequences, piracy ceases to be attractive.

If the "root causes" were poverty, overfishing, and waste dumping, you'd see a lot more piracy around the world, because none of those are unique to Somaila. You don't see them in many other places because people in those places are afraid of the consequences. What is unique to Somalia is the complete absence of governance capable of imposing consequences in a place with easy, direct access to busy sea lanes.

Of course if we could establish stable effective governance in Somalia that would end piracy, but we can't... so what's the point in discussing it?

PS (edit)... Re this:

I'm not sure if it's willful ignorance or genuine confusion

Simple difference of opinion is also an option. It happens.

[carl]

An interesting link to Feral Jundi that discusses security companies setting up maritime police forces.

http://feraljundi.com/industry-talk/...alliday-finch/

[JMA]

Russian Cruise Companies May Be Offering Pirate Hunting Cruises

...wealthy tourists are hunting for pirates off the coast of Somalia for the cost of $5790 per day. In an effort to attract pirate attack, the ships are said to cruise deliberately close to the coast at a speed of only five knots. If attacked, passengers have the opportunity to unleash hell with rocket launchers, grenade launchers and machine guns.

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

A similar story appeared maybe two years ago, then claiming it was a cruise for Americans IIRC and it was soon found to be a hoax.

[JMA]

JMA,

A similar story appeared maybe two years ago, then claiming it was a cruise for Americans IIRC and it was soon found to be a hoax.

Could be. I remember back to the days after Victoria Falls town got mortared from Zambia when there was a increase in tourism (not massive) from yanks and Germans. Is there not a name for the people who seek out this adventure/danger?