Somali Pirates vow to fight US Navy

[Kevin]

-- a pretty good blog post

Somali pirates: another side of the story April 10th, 2009· posted by by Alan Bock, Register editorial writer

There’s no justification for the attempted takeover of the Maersk Alabama or for holding the captain hostage. And while I expect the current hostage situation, which has the pirates asking for a $2 million ransom, is most likely to end with the pirates getting safe passage, I wouldn’t mind seeing them blown to kingdom-come and punitive raids — I imagine some Seals could pull it off — on the shore-based sanctuaries.


However, as execrable as the current situation is, there are aspects to the whole Somali sea-raiding phenomenon that haven’t received as much attention as might be warranted. According to Johann Hari, a left-leaning but not entirely fact-averse British journalist in a piece earlier this year, the Somalis didn’t start raiding ships until after a bunch of foreign fishing ships came in and fished out their coastal waters, depriving local fishermen of their livelihood and local Somalis of a source of food. Then, it is alleged, foreign vessels started dumping waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coast, and the vaunted international community did nothing about it. There are reports of radiation sickness among Somalis, and a number of barrels of foul stuff washed up during the 2005 tsunami.


Thus some Somalis see the piracy as a way of getting compensation for these indignities. There are problems with this, of course. By seizing commercial vessels they are demanding “compensation” from companies that are different from those that caused the problems in the first place. And what may have been conceived as a way to “get our own back” from nasty furriners has escalated into serious criminality, drawing in ever more ruthless and greedy scum, as successful criminality almost always does.


I’m not sure if all these allegations are accurate, and even if so they don’t justify piracy. And I’m not sure how to resolve the situation. But check out the links and see what you think. The story may be more complex than we have been told to date.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

-- a pretty good blog post

Somali pirates: another side of the story April 10th, 2009· posted by by Alan Bock, Register editorial writer

There’s no justification for the attempted takeover of the Maersk Alabama or for holding the captain hostage. And while I expect the current hostage situation, which has the pirates asking for a $2 million ransom, is most likely to end with the pirates getting safe passage, I wouldn’t mind seeing them blown to kingdom-come and punitive raids — I imagine some Seals could pull it off — on the shore-based sanctuaries.


However, as execrable as the current situation is, there are aspects to the whole Somali sea-raiding phenomenon that haven’t received as much attention as might be warranted. According to Johann Hari, a left-leaning but not entirely fact-averse British journalist in a piece earlier this year, the Somalis didn’t start raiding ships until after a bunch of foreign fishing ships came in and fished out their coastal waters, depriving local fishermen of their livelihood and local Somalis of a source of food. Then, it is alleged, foreign vessels started dumping waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coast, and the vaunted international community did nothing about it. There are reports of radiation sickness among Somalis, and a number of barrels of foul stuff washed up during the 2005 tsunami.


Thus some Somalis see the piracy as a way of getting compensation for these indignities. There are problems with this, of course. By seizing commercial vessels they are demanding “compensation” from companies that are different from those that caused the problems in the first place. And what may have been conceived as a way to “get our own back” from nasty furriners has escalated into serious criminality, drawing in ever more ruthless and greedy scum, as successful criminality almost always does.


I’m not sure if all these allegations are accurate, and even if so they don’t justify piracy. And I’m not sure how to resolve the situation. But check out the links and see what you think. The story may be more complex than we have been told to date.

Sounds like some global agency or advocacy group needs to go to 'the source' as it were, and find out what they can do, if at all possible to provide an income for these people to cut down the acts of piracy that's going on.

On the flipside of that, the Somalis and whomever else in on this may find this more lucrative (altho more hazardous) than working legit.

I mean there are at least 12 confirmed other ships and their crews out there where they are just waiting for a payday...sounds like Mexico kidnappings all over again.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Sounds like some global agency or advocacy group needs to go to 'the source' as it were, and find out what they can do, if at all possible to provide an income for these people to cut down the acts of piracy that's going on.

On the flipside of that, the Somalis and whomever else in on this may find this more lucrative (altho more hazardous) than working legit.

I mean there are at least 12 confirmed other ships and their crews out there where they are just waiting for a payday...sounds like Mexico kidnappings all over again.

If there are no NGOs there right now, I think it's safe to assume that they either consider the country too dangerous or too corrupt [or both] to benefit from the services of an NGO. I do understand that western powers have attempted (unsuccessfully) several times to colonize Somalia and Ethiopia. The countries are full of veteran guerilla fighters who are completely loyal to their tribes/warlords/whatever. I don't think the cost-benefit analysis of trying to control the country via military occupation is something that's going to work out. Nor do I think that we can pour money into NGOs and other relief agencies and expect anything to happen (besides warlords siphoning everything away).

Sadly, I think the best option here is simply level all of their port towns and destroy any large ships in the country. The people in this country, due to the political and social issues there, I think are beyond our help.

Isn't that essentially what we did to the Barbary Pirates way back when? Destroyed their ports/fleets?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If there are no NGOs there right now, I think it's safe to assume that they either consider the country too dangerous or too corrupt [or both] to benefit from the services of an NGO. I do understand that western powers have attempted (unsuccessfully) several times to colonize Somalia and Ethiopia. The countries are full of veteran guerilla fighters who are completely loyal to their tribes/warlords/whatever. I don't think the cost-benefit analysis of trying to control the country via military occupation is something that's going to work out. Nor do I think that we can pour money into NGOs and other relief agencies and expect anything to happen (besides warlords siphoning everything away).

Sadly, I think the best option here is simply level all of their port towns and destroy any large ships in the country. The people in this country, due to the political and social issues there, I think are beyond our help.

Isn't that essentially what we did to the Barbary Pirates way back when? Destroyed their ports/fleets?

I understand your points but...if I remember correctly (and quite honestly I don't have time to track down all of that history so anyone who does can help) isn't it becaus eof Western colonization and de colonization mostly responsible for why these countries are in the shape they are now? My co worker (who is from South Africa) says so (doesn't make it so however but she has a lot of insight on this) and states because of this that these countries were left with scraps to fight over.

With that said, then how much better are we making it further destroying and further destabalizing these countries by taking out their fleets and ports. How much better would it make the West look by doing that?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

With that said, then how much better are we making it further destroying and further destabalizing these countries by taking out their fleets and ports. How much better would it make the West look by doing that?

It wouldn't help them at all but it would help us because then there wouldn't be any pirates.

I don't really how it would look. Why should the West care about that?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I don't really how it would look. Why should the West care about that?

There's probably not a lot of sympathy out there for these guys. The Muslim world probably wouldn't view it as an 'us vs. them' situation because these guys have been pretty equal opportunity in their attacks.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I understand your points but...if I remember correctly (and quite honestly I don't have time to track down all of that history so anyone who does can help) isn't it becaus eof Western colonization and de colonization mostly responsible for why these countries are in the shape they are now? My co worker (who is from South Africa) says so (doesn't make it so however but she has a lot of insight on this) and states because of this that these countries were left with scraps to fight over.

Western colonization may be an indirect cause, but for the most part, as in many failed African states' cases, their problems are by and large self imposed. They had a working government for about a decade before they got caught up in some war over land with Ethiopia (note: never ever go to war with Ethiopia, those folks have a long, long history of dealing out ass kickings to major powers). After that, the government pretty much collapsed and never picked up steam again.

If I could name one issue which has been a major cause of failure (directly) in African states, I would have to say that tribalism is probably it and that colonialism makes a nice scapegoat, but c'mon... that was a long, long time ago. It's time for some of these countries to look within for their problems rather than to Western meddling in the early 20th century.

With that said, then how much better are we making it further destroying and further destabalizing these countries by taking out their fleets and ports. How much better would it make the West look by doing that?

Well, since the country as an entity really doesn't exist, I don't see how you can really make much of an argument that "they" have anything to do with those fleets and ports. And if a criminal enterprise is using the failed state as a cover to commit piracy, then eff 'em. Somalia had its shot and won't again until someone there emerges with enough power to really control a good piece of territory. An alternative might be to allow the piracy to continue so that whoever controls the coast might actually have a shot at becoming the new government? Who knows?

I'm glad this isn't my problem.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Western colonization may be an indirect cause, but for the most part, as in many failed African states' cases, their problems are by and large self imposed. They had a working government for about a decade before they got caught up in some war over land with Ethiopia (note: never ever go to war with Ethiopia, those folks have a long, long history of dealing out ass kickings to major powers). After that, the government pretty much collapsed and never picked up steam again.

If I could name one issue which has been a major cause of failure (directly) in African states, I would have to say that tribalism is probably it and that colonialism makes a nice scapegoat, but c'mon... that was a long, long time ago. It's time for some of these countries to look within for their problems rather than to Western meddling in the early 20th century.

I think it's a case of the two together. Now, this is on the general level, not specific to Somalia since I don't really have serious expertise in Somali politics beyond what anyone else would have. Since many African countries have similar borders to what was created through colonization, there has not been much done by way of allowing "national" groups to have their own territory, when you keep in mind that colonial powers didn't give a rat's what tribes were thrown in together or whether or not tribes were split up. You add that together with land grabs and dominant tribes ruling over smaller tribes now, and you get the mess that they're in.

Many failed states have had a hard time forging a national identity because the tribes are so diverse, and that's really had an effect on whether or not the state remains. If there's no national identity, it's hard to keep people from overthrowing the government when all tribes aren't happy (and it's very rare for all tribes to be happy).

I really only have a basis in former French colonies, however, since that was my area of interest. It doesn't make a huge difference who the colonial power was, but there are some differences which do play in to the stability of regions.

[RU OX Alum]

Federalism might work in there, and in some cases, I think, has.

by there, i mean Africa in general, not Somalia in particular.

[moe.ron]

Another problem is the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia 3 years ago. That caused more damaged then good, rendering Somalia in a bigger mess.


Here's a wiki article on that invasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_...2%80%93present)