Dutch Idiocy on Piracy

Back in November, the Dutch navy caught five Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. The had hijacked a yacht, and kidnapped a South African couple. The victims are still missing. After they were found guilty of these actions, a Dutch court sentenced them today. So what does piracy and kidnapping get you in the Netherlands? How about "up to 7 years" in prison? Wow, that should serve as a great deterrent to piracy. No doubt Somalia pirates are quaking with fear over the possibility that they might be intercepted by the Dutch navy. They might face up to seven whole years in prison. Oh wait, that was only for two of them. The other three got even shorter sentences.

If you have to travel in the areas where Somalian pirates operate, you'll just have to take your chances, since no state is willing to take the actions necessary to suppress piracy. At least some nations, such as the U.S. and Spain, are willing to hand out harsh sentences to captured pirates.

In similar cases this year, a U.S. court in Virginia sentenced five Somalis to life in prison and a Spanish court in Madrid sentenced two convicted pirates to 439 years each.

But apparently the Dutch are still blindly adhering to some archaic law written during a time when a 7 year prison term was much more like a death sentence.

Prosecution spokesman Wim de Bruin said the sentences were in line with Dutch law, which provides a maximum 9-year term for piracy and 12 years for a pirate captain. The 17th-century law against sea robbery has not been revised since modern pirates began plaguing the sea lanes off Africa’s eastern coast.

Maybe they should have addressed those sentencing rules before they decided to bring Somali pirates back and try them in the Netherlands.

Maybe the Chinese Will Do Something About Somali Piracy

Here's China's Chief of the General Staff, General Chen Bingde on Somali piracy.

"For counter-piracy campaigns to be effective, we should probably move beyond the ocean and crash their bases on the land," ... "It is important that we target not only the operators, those on the small ships or crafts conducting the hijacking activities, but also the figureheads,"

The way to stop piracy has been known for thousands of years: you kill the pirates and destroy their bases. With most anti-piracy efforts crippled by blind legalism, will the Chinese actually step up and take effective action?

The Price of Tolerating Piracy

If you haven't heard, Somalia pirates murdered four U.S. captives today in a reminder that there is a price to be paid for the legalistic stupidity preventing the eradication of Somali piracy. Despite having the world's most powerful navy, the U.S. is unwilling to take the basic measures necessary to eliminate a piracy threat that has now claimed American lives. I've written about the piracy issue numerous times, so I'll just quote myself.

The way to eliminate piracy is well known, and has been for a couple thousand years. You kill the pirates, and you destroy their bases. It really isn't much more complicated than that. Yet international naval forces vastly more powerful than historical counterparts can do little more than catch and release the occasional pirate stupid enough to get caught. ... we are just too civilized to use such effective methods against piracy. We are too worried about someone calling our actions illegal, or about possibly killing innocent people -- as if people who permit a pirate operation to take place in their midst shouldn't have to accept the risk of retaliation. Instead we'd rather put merchant seamen at risk of being taken hostage or killed.

According to the NYT link we captured thirteen pirates involved in this killing. If we were serious about combating piracy, we'd summarily execute twelve of them as an example of what happens when pirates kill Americans. We would save the most cooperative pirate to obtain information regarding where this particular group was based, and then use that knowledge to raid and destroy that location. Will we do those things? Of course not. Instead we'll give the pirates lawyers, pretend they have rights, waste time trying them in civilian court, and house them in our prison system. Somalia pirates will continue to expand their range, secure in the knowledge that all the awesome naval power in the world isn't that scary when it's crippled by legalism. There's always a chance that a warship might be in the right place at the right time, but as long as you aren't stupid enough to put up a fight, the worst that could probably happen if you encounter a U.S. warship is that you'll find yourself arrested, put on trial and sent to jail. Given conditions in Somalia, and the huge ransoms available from piracy, most Somali pirates are probably going to view that as an acceptable risk to reward ratio.

World's Dumbest Pirate Confesses

A Somali pirate captured by the U.S. Navy confessed yesterday to attacking an American warship back in April. He and six of his dumb pirate friends actually chased and fired on the U.S.S. Ashland, one of the more amusing incidents of the not so amusing Somali pirate problem. Here's a picture of the Ashland.  It has a crew of over 400, can carry 400+ marines, and has an array of surface to surface weaponry, including two 25mm auto-cannons, and six .50 cal machine guns. It's an ideal target for seven guys in a small boat.

If you are going to make your living as a pirate, knowing the difference between major warships and merchant shipping is a key job skill.

Supertanker Captured by Pirates

Somali pirates have hijacked a South Korean owned supertanker carrying $170 million in oil from Iraq to the U.S. The ship is based in San Antonio, Texas, and the oil is owned by U.S. refining firm Valero. It's time once again to point out the impotence of international anti-piracy operations, and the failure to take basic measures needed to eradicate the pirate problem.

The way to eliminate piracy is well known, as has been for a couple thousand years. You kill the pirates, and you destroy their bases. It really isn't much more complicated than that. Yet international naval forces vastly more powerful than historical counterparts can do little more than catch and release the occasional pirate stupid enough to get caught. Consider this passage in the linked article,

A Nairobi-based maritime group said the tanker had been seized by Somali pirates, and a pirate source named Mohamed said the ship was now heading for Haradheere, the port and pirates' base at which many ships are held during ransom negotiations.

Haradheere should be a smoking pile of rubble full of dead and wounded, with its port facilities in ruins, and its coastal shipping at the bottom of the harbor. That's how you deal with pirate bases. But we won't do that. Oh no, we are just too civilized to use such effective methods against piracy. We are too worried about someone calling our actions illegal, or about possibly killing innocent people -- as if people who permit a pirate operation to take place in their midst shouldn't have to accept the risk of retaliation. Instead we'd rather put merchant seamen at risk of being taken hostage or killed.

I'm hardly the only person to call for the destruction of known pirate bases. Here's a good article, called "No Mercy," written last year in Armed Forces Journal, that makes similar points.

peacekeepers do not “tackle” piracy. Violence does solve problems. The West must remember this fact, and use violence as well as legal structures to solve the challenge of piracy.

He gives an example regarding another known pirate port.

Short-duration land operations focused on the bases used by pirates (shades of O’Bannon) must be launched to reinforce the point that the price of piracy is the loss of what the pirates and those who support them hold dear. For example, if there are high-priced restaurants in the port of Eyl that make a living from the ill-gained money of pirates, they should be destroyed. Piracy is a crime against the world and the right of free trade.

The whole article is full of excellent advice on things we should be doing, but won't.

Kill the Pirates

There's actually a major newspaper with the courage to publish advice that should be obvious. I was surprised to see the title, "Put Pirates to the Sword," in today's Wall Street Journal.  Believe it or not, it is actually written by lawyer, Sandeep Gopalan at the National University of Ireland. Here are a few key excerpts,

Prosecution can only be a small part of the fight against piracy. The main weapon has to be ruthless force.

For some reason we've forgotten the lessons of centuries of anti-piracy operations.

confusion over the legal authority to use lethal force has emboldened pirates.

Exactly. Pirates aren't stupid. They understand risk vs. reward. Currently the risk of death, or even imprisonment is small, while the potential rewards of piracy are high.

Naval officers and others need not hesitate to use lethal force against pirates: The United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1851 in December 2008 authorizing states to take "all necessary measures—that are appropriate in Somalia, for the purpose of suppressing acts of piracy." This resolution was issued under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and should serve as a sufficient legal basis to kill pirates. Further, the law of self-defense ought to cover the use of lethal force against pirates boarding ships armed with lethal weapons.

If basic common sense, tradition, and results aren't enough, there's even a legal argument to be made.

It is regrettable that the failure of the legal system to bring pirates to justice effectively has created a perverse incentive to kill rather than prosecute. Until Somalia has a legal system capable of convicting pirates, killing them is the only option.

Gopalan's recommendations are so blindingly obvious, and have been made by plenty of others, that it is almost certain they will continue to be ignored.

Piracy at a Six-Year High

There were 406 reported instances of piracy in 2009, compared to 293 in 2008. It looks like those "civilized" anti-piracy efforts have been real effective. Over the past year, 1052 crew members were held hostage, 68 injured and 8 killed. Catching and releasing pirates and pretending that they have legal rights just isn't anywhere near as effective as traditionally established anti-piracy techniques such as summary execution and destruction of safe havens. I know that's a big surprise. 

France and "Suspected" Pirates

An article in today's Los Angeles Times further illustrates the impact of blind legalism on anti-piracy efforts. France has asked the Seychelles Islands to prosecute "suspected" pirates. Why the quotes around "suspected"?

This month, 11 suspected pirates were captured after they tried to attack French tuna boats. The Somalis were released shortly afterward due to a lack of evidence.

That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? If they tried to attack tuna boats, that sure seems like not only evidence, but proof of piracy. So why were they released?

Bringing to justice suspected Somali pirates captured by international navies in the Indian Ocean has proven difficult as lawless Somalia cannot try them, while most European countries do not want to take in a suspected pirate who may then claim asylum.

Here the article again falsely refers to actual pirates as "suspected." These are individuals captured in the act of piracy.  They are not suspects in any sense, except in a narrow legal one.

Just as wars cannot be fought by lawyers, neither can piracy. It is no accident that all the naval power assembled against it seems to make little dent in the problem. Effective action against piracy is crippled by blind, legalistic idiocy. For centuries the penalty for being captured in an act of piracy was well-known: summary execution. Pirates were rightly seen as a type of vermin that plagued international shipping, and a threat to the commerce of all civilized nations. But today, not only do we not execute them, we pretend that they are suspects who need access to our legal systems, defense by lawyers -- at taxpayer expense -- and every other consideration, as if they were citizens of whatever country apprehends them.

If we are too squeamish and stupid to carry out well-justified summary executions -- which we are -- let's do the next best thing. Instead of capturing pirates in the act of attacking shipping, just kill them instead. That will remove all the self-inflicted legal problems. 

The Latest in Piracy

Somali pirates have captured a Chinese cargo ship in the Indian Ocean, 700 miles from Somalia. According to the "naval spokesman for the European Union's anti-piracy force," the naval patrols in the region are forcing the pirates to move further out to find targets. Wow, what a great success. Basically they've succeeded in annoying the pirates, and increasing their travel time. Good job. Rarely has so much naval power been assembled for so little result. 

You have to wonder when some country is going to get tired of this and actually take effective actions, instead of just ignoring the lessons of history and trying to put a band-aid on the piracy problem. The Chinese currently have three warships in the region. Is there any chance they might retaliate against suspected pirate bases in Somalia? A British analyst quoted in the report thinks the Chinese will probably take a cautious approach, and avoid endangering the captured crew, but he isn't sure. As he points out,

"We've never seen so many Chinese citizens captured at a time when Chinese ships were in the region."

Somalia piracy will continue as long as it is profitable, and the rewards outweigh the risks. Naval patrols can't be everywhere at once, and there are just too many targets to cover.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if piracy increased and spread to other countries, since it is clear that no one has the stomach for stamping it out.

U.S. Ship Saved From Pirates

There was another piracy incident today involving a U.S. merchant ship, this time in the Gulf of Aden. Fortunately, three Canadian naval helicopters, along with an Italian one, intervened. The pirates were forced to surrender and taken prisoner by the Italians. Hopefully they won't just be released.

Ideally the helicopters would have just sunk the pirate boat. Apparently it fired an RPG at another merchant ship, so it was clearly identified as a pirate. If NATO naval forces would simply start sinking pirate boats caught in the act, the pirate problem would quickly diminish. Captured pirates should of course be hanged, but I know we're just too civilized to do that anymore. We'd rather release them, provide them with unwarranted legal "rights," or even allow them to sue their captors. But in any case, U.S. thanks are in order to Canada and Italy for their intervention and protection of an American vessel.

Cruise Ship Repels Pirates

Pirates attempted to attack an Italian cruise ship 500 miles from the coast of Somalia. Fortunately for the passengers and crew, the cruise line had hired a private Israeli security firm to protect their ship. Here's what happened,

Cmdr. Pinto said the pirates fired with automatic weapons, slightly damaging the liner, and tried to put a ladder on board. But he said they were unable to climb aboard. The commander said his security forces opened fire with pistols and the ANSA news agency said the pistols had been kept in a safe under the joint control of the commander and security chief.

The relatively simple measure of hiring some competent armed security personnel defeated a piracy attempt. They didn't need military hardware or even rifles, but were able to drive off the attack with pistol fire. Hopefully some other shipping lines will start doing the same. 

Somali Prime Minister on Pirates

Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the prime minister of Somalia, spoke out today about the piracy situation on his country's coast. Surprisingly, rather than making the same excuses as western pirate apologists, he pinpointed one of the more obvious reasons for piracy:

"The only reason people [become pirates] is because the companies are deciding to pay ransoms,"... "That is what encouraged several young kids to go into the waters. Our policy has always been ‘don't pay ransoms'"

It's nice to see someone from Somalia honestly stating that the main motive behind the piracy problem is profit, abetted by the fact that shipping companies are willing to pay high ransoms, rather than pretending that the pirates act as some sort of coastal militia, or are reacting to environmental damage, as some have suggested.

You Can't Fight Piracy With Lawyers

A Somali pirate has filed suit against Germany, claiming "inhumane treatment." If anyone wants to know why piracy is flourishing off Somalia despite the presence of numerous international warships, they need look no further than this case.

Ali Mohamed AD was captured by the German Navy when he and eight other pirates attempted to capture a merchant ship. Rather than summarily executing him -- the traditional and customary penalty for anyone taken in an act of piracy -- the Germans stupidly turned him and his cohorts over to Kenya, supposedly for prosecution. Now, rather than just thanking his good luck that the West is paralyzed by ridiculous legalistic rules that forbid the execution of even traditionally-defined "enemies of humanity," this particular pirate is going see how far he can push his advantage. He's going to try to make Germany pay for capturing him while he engaged in piracy. 

Unfortunately there are no doubt lawyers ready to take up his case. And there are probably human rights activists and others looking into it. If this sort of thing continues, there will probably be people calling for an inquiry into how captured pirates are treated. What if they were subjected to any sort of harsh treatment? We can't have that. After all, we can't even harm known terrorists, let alone poor pirates just trying to make a living.

Is Somali Piracy Our Problem?

Today there are articles all over the blogosphere and mainstream media about piracy, and what if anything should be done about it. I have previously written favorably about the traditional response to piracy -- destruction of suspected pirate ports, and summary execution of pirates. I've seen a number of people on the right take up the call for massive retaliation against pirate nests on the coast of Somalia. For example, Rick Moran writes,

It is time for the United States to take the lead and mount a military operation that will wipe out the scourge of piracy. If no one will help, we should do it ourselves

Is a unilateral major anti-piracy operation really in the U.S. interest at this time? Why is it the job of the U.S. to tackle the dirty job of eliminating Somali piracy? Up to this point, the threat to U.S. shipping has been minimal. And the latest incident ended in disaster for the pirates. No Americans were lost. Why should we take on a thankless task, for which we will be harshly criticized, and in which every action will be scrutinized in an attempt to find fault with the U.S.? 

How about letting the countries whose shipping has suffered the most, or whose trade is most threatened by piracy take the lead for once? We could back their action and maybe provide support if asked. Wouldn't it be better to let someone else smash the ports into rubble and kill a bunch of civilians? We could quietly cheer from the sidelines as pirate bases were eliminated.

Instead of leading another major world-police action that is almost guaranteed to be under-appreciated, why not work to make sure U.S. ships are better protected, and send some q-ships to the area to disrupt pirate operations and discourage attacks on U.S. flagged ships? This would be far cheaper and cleaner than a major nest-clearing operation. And it would effectively demonstrate that U.S. vessels are dangerous targets. These pirates aren't suicidal terrorists. People looking for ransom can be deterred. Why attack a possibly armed U.S. vessel, when there are a lot of easier pickings around? If the pirates deliberately target the U.S., and our limited defensive efforts prove to be not enough, we can always go with a policy of massive retaliation in the future. Why do it now?

Kill the Pirates

That's the title of an editorial up at the Washington Post. The author doesn't go as far as I would in anti-piracy options, but it looks like he would support the Q-ship idea. He calls for arming merchant vessels and for killing pirates as they attack. Why haven't we taken more effective action against Somali piracy?

Start by blaming the timorous lawyers who advise the governments attempting to cope with the pirates such as those who had been engaged in a standoff with U.S. hostage negotiators in recent days. These lawyers misinterpret the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Geneva Conventions and fail to apply the powerful international laws that exist against piracy. The right of self-defense -- a principle of international law -- justifies killing pirates as they try to board a ship.

That pretty much sums it up. Unfortunately many ship owners would rather take their chances and pay ransom if necessary, and as private owners its their right to make that decision about how best to protect their ships and crews. That's why we need to scatter some Q-ships among the merchant vessels.

Piracy Apologists

The Huffington Post has had a couple of posts up making excuses for Somali piracy. Really. The latest is a guest-post by a Somali-Canadian named K'nann: "Why We Don't Condemn Our Pirates" It's interesting that despite being a Canadian, this individual still apparently identifies with Somali pirates. Here's the basic argument.

Western ships have been "stealing" fish from off the coast of Somalia. And an Italian firm made an agreement with a Somali warlord to dump toxic waste in Somalia waters. Somalis got fed up and responded with piracy.

our pirates were the only deterrent we had from an externally imposed environmental disaster. No one can say for sure that some of the ships they are now holding for ransom were not involved in illegal activity in our waters.

That's real convincing, isn't it? These pirates are just protecting Somali waters by grabbing every merchant ship they can get their hands on and holding them for millions in ransom. They are just another type of environmental activist. No doubt they'll put that ransom money to good use cleaning up the coastline, in between murdering each other and engaging in more piracy.

What about the fact that Somalia is a chaotic hellhole unable to govern itself?  That's all the west's fault of course. Why are Somali warlords making deals with foreign firms to dump toxic waste offshore? I guess that's the west's fault too. It's a good thing these articles are appearing in left-wing outlets like the Huffington Post. If anything can possibly be blamed on the west, particularly on the U.S., you know they'll be all over it, no matter how ludicrous the argument. Where else will you find sympathizers with a class of criminals traditionally defined as enemies of humanity?

Effective Action Against Pirates

It was good to hear that the U.S. took strong and decisive action against the pirates holding Richard Phillips hostage, killing three, taking one prisoner, and releasing Phillips unharmed. Congratulations to the SEAL team involved, and to the administration. I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that such a rescue operation needed high-level authorization. If so, President Obama should be commended for having the leadership to make a difficult life & death decision, and for not paying the ransom.

The New York Times article linked above notes that pirates are still holding over 200 hostages. They also have a statement from a pirate saying that this action won't discourage them, and that they'll "take revenge" if they capture another American. This would be a great time for the U.S. to send some American-flagged Q-ships -- merchant-type vessels with concealed weapons and military crews -- into the area, in the hopes of enticing pirate attacks.  That way we could kill them as they attack, and avoid the legalistic problems that are otherwise crippling anti-piracy operations. The Q-ship approach is probably the best option to counter these pirates, given that we & other nations are unwilling to carry out the type of punitive measures that might neutralize piracy in the region.

Blind Legalism in Action

British naval vessels have been part of international counter-piracy forces patrolling off Somalia. During various operations they've captured a number of pirates. According to The Independent, they may have to free them. Why? That's right: legal issues.

Although the UK volunteered to lead the EU's first naval mission, officials have consistently warned ministers that its impact could be limited by the inability to prosecute captured pirates, who are therefore freed – potentially to resume their threat to shipping.

This is a prime example of what happens when blind legalism is allowed to control overseas military operations. Pirates, who by traditional and custom going back more than a couple thousand years, are subject to summary execution if captured, now might have to be set free. The power of the international naval forces  deployed off Somalia is more than sufficient to completely obliterate the piracy problem. If this were 1909 or even 1939 instead of 2009, a similar problem would have already been stamped out. Even though individual warships today are far more powerful & capable than anything existing a hundred years ago, their ability to respond to a threat has been crippled by legalistic-minded bureaucrats. In the words of shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague

"It will make a mockery of British efforts to combat Somali piracy if we have no effective system to deal with those captured by the Royal Navy, and pirates are simply let loose to attack again."

This is what the rights-for-terrorists crowd wants to do to U.S. military operations. Just say no.

Follow-up on Piracy

After writing the preceding post on piracy, I just now read a Voice of America report on today's Congressional testimony by the head of the U.S. Navy's Central Command.

In his testimony, Vice Admiral Gortney said the task force has encountered about 200 pirates. He said seven of them were delivered to Kenyan authorities Thursday for possible prosecution.

Two hundred pirates encountered, seven delivered for possible prosecution. Yeah, that's a serious anti-piracy effort we've got underway. The article has a picture of a small boat full of pirates being boarded by German forces. Here's what should happen to those small boats when caught in obvious acts of piracy. Sink the boat. Machine-gun the survivors in the water. Repeat for all subsequent incidents until piracy ceases. After a few such encounters, would-be pirates will get the message. Problem solved. I know, we can't do that. Killing vicious criminals who represent a plague on shipping is just so uncivilized. We'll just hope we can intercept them and deliver them for possible prosecution. If we miss some and they kill any innocent victims, oh well, that's just too bad. 

Piracy & State Weakness

Over at Military.com there is an article by William Lind entitled, "A Barometer of Order." Lind argues that the failure of states to deal with piracy, specifically Somali piracy, is an indication of state weakness and of a breakdown in international order. In his words

So little do the international elites who now rule all but a handful of states – the administrators of Brave New World – believe in the state that they cannot even hang pirates. They have the souls, not of leaders or governors, but of petty functionaries.

Although Lind is interesting reading, I often disagree with him, at least in part. Lind presents the historical scenario for cleaning up piracy

International ships and aircraft hunt down and sink the pirates' vessels at sea. (As in the 17th and 18th centuries, there are very few pirate "ships;" most pirates operate from open boats, now as then.) Any ship taken by pirates is immediately re-taken by some state's navy or Marines. Captured pirates are hanged from the nearest yardarm, without trial, as common law allows. Ports out of which pirates frequently sail, such as Eyl, are bombarded, and any likely pirate craft are destroyed.

I agree, this could be done, and it would be effective. But I find his reasoning for why it isn't done wholly unconvincing.

We refuse to take effective action against pirates not because of some lack of belief in the state, as Lind maintains, but instead because of excessive humanitarianism and blind legalism. The West has elevated humanitarian concerns to the point where they overrule basic common sense. We can't hang pirates because most western states don't even believe in capital punishment. Never mind that hanging pirates has long been a highly effective way of eliminating them. We can't do it because its just too barbaric for our delicate sensibilities. Where are we going to try them? Surely they need legal representation. What about their "rights"? The idea of just summarily executing people captured in the act of piracy -- even though it makes perfect sense and has for a couple thousand years -- is just too harsh to contemplate. And even non-Western states, like Russia and China, fear the condemnation of the West.

Bombarding pirate ports is another highly effective traditional counter to piracy, as Lind writes. It reduces the profit of piracy, raises the risks, and turns the inhabitants -- who don't like being blown up or rendered homeless -- against the pirates. It demonstrates quite effectively to port dwellers why it isn't a good idea to allow pirate bases in your neighborhood. Even the most primitive barbaric types tend to get the message after the shells start raining down. But of course we can't bombard ports. Innocent people might be killed, and we certainly can't risk that. Instead we have the ridiculous spectacle of warships from multiple countries -- a few of which could wipe out Somalian piracy entirely given the will to do so-- patrolling and trying to catch pirates, unsure what to do with them when they succeed.