Bret Stephens writes today about the situation with the Somali pirates and how we're so much more hamstrung today in fighting piracy than we were in the 19th century when we defeated the Barbary pirates.
Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. Some 280 crew members are being held hostage, and two have been killed. Billions of dollars worth of cargo have been seized; millions have been paid in ransom. A multinational naval force has attempted to secure a corridor in the Gulf of Aden, through which 12% of the total volume of seaborne oil passes, and U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising.
Why? The view of senior U.S. military officials seems to be, in effect, that there is no controlling legal authority. Title 18, Chapter 81 of the United States Code establishes a sentence of life in prison for foreigners captured in the act of piracy. But, crucially, the law is only enforceable against pirates who attack U.S.-flagged vessels, of which today there are few.
What about international law? Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention -- ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. -- enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters -- provided Somalia's tottering government agrees -- but the resolution expires next week. As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate's prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers' organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.
Then there is the problem of what to do with captured pirates. No international body similar to the old Admiralty Courts is currently empowered to try pirates and imprison them. The British foreign office recently produced a legal opinion warning Royal Navy ships not to take pirates captive, lest they seek asylum in the U.K. or otherwise face repatriation in jurisdictions where they might be dealt with harshly, in violation of the British Human Rights Act.
This situation can't continue. Nations that rely on shipping need to get together and figure out a way to handle pirates other than just trying to avoid them. With no government in Somalia, it is a haven for such pirates plus Al Qaeda-like terrorists. We can't afford to be tied down like Gulliver with outdated laws never meant to deal with today's situation. All of these countries need to rewrite their laws to facilitate the fight against this piracy rather than being afraid of actually capturing the bad guys. As Stephens says,
A society that erases the memory of how it overcame barbarism in the past inevitably loses sight of the meaning of civilization, and the means of sustaining it.
13 comments:
India didn't have any qualms about dealing with the pirates who fired on its warship. It sank the pirates' mother ship. Had a U.S. warship sunk it, Congressmen Durbin and Murtha likely would have raced back to the House floor to denounce the Navy for killing innocent people in cold blood.
I say we let corporations like Blackwater have a letter of marque (still legal I believe) and let them deal with the problem.
Bachbone is right. That sounds like Durbin and Murtha. One solution is that a dead pirate won't capture any more ships. Dead enemies don't live to fight you another day and possible succeed. Shoot on sight, I say.
Clearly the time has come to declare war on piracy and reinvent Guantanamo as a prison for suspected pirates (random boaters).
The community organizer will surrender to the pirates and call it "an outreach program."
So, basically, you fellows want to deal with a severe problem of lawlessness by using our own armed forces to attack pirates in ways outside international law.
Yes, that worked out so well for America in Iraq, didn't it? Apart from driving the US economy into ruin, killing thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, unleashing an Iraqi civil war, and making Iran the greatest regional power.
I can't see why we wouldn't want to sign up to repeat all that in the Gulf of Aden. It's not like regressives ever learn anything from past failures.
Oops, it now appears that the INS Tabar may have sunk a Thai ship that was trying to repel boarders. That's one way to end piracy which is right out of the pages of Dr. Strangelove. I wonder if the world press will be as dutiful in their duty in reporting this premature pirate cleansing as if it was a US naval ship. BRW, those Indian warmongers have a cruise missile on board named the Barak so Sec. Clinton's first duty will be to get the Indians to use The One's name more circumspectly.
Alternately the US Navy could focus purly on protecting US flaged ships (not many) and let everyone else get a stiff dose of reality.
"Experiance keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."
Send in the Marines to that port and be done with it already.
Aw, heck. Better let Bill B. handle it.
Get back to us when you have things sorted out, Bill.
We may have been, but with the liberal illuminati in charge, we are too weak to compete with anyone, or at least that's the notion they're giving.
Bill B. wrote:
Yes, that worked out so well for America in Iraq, didn't it? Apart from driving the US economy into ruin...
Democrat backed Freddie Mac made sub-prime loans to Iraqis? Who knew?
killing...hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians...
Less than 100k per the Iraqi Body Count and most of that was done by Arab foreigners.
...making Iran the greatest regional power.
Iran was the greatest regional power before the war.
The reality based community is not so reality based.
It wasn't the making of subprime loans that brought the American economy down.
It was the GOP deregulation of banks, so they could repackage these toxic loans, and sell them on in bundles, with "insurance" no less.
Post a Comment