So, finally, after years of Somali pirates running amok, the US and Royal Navy finally get their act together and take action. As it was, this action involved no loss of life as the pirates surrendered without a fight. Irrespective of the risks, though, this should always be the approach taken towards piracy on the high seas – a zero tolerance approach and never paying ransoms. Every ransom paid is an encouragement to go out and do it again. Every hijacking thwarted is a message that we will not tolerate the practice. The Royal Navy knew how to deal with pirates once – it does look as if they are learning anew. Keep it up.
Comments are closed.
Hanging from the yard-arm, or making the bastards walk home, you mean?
I believe an Indian frigate ( Vikram ?? ) did something like this last year.
Blew a pirate mothership out of the water, and left’em to it …..
Well back in the mercantilist day England gained a trading empire in part at least through piracy or privateering as the euphemism of the day had it ( ask the Dutch who we used to do a Somali on when it suited us ) so maybe we shouldn’t be too triumphalist about this. I have some small sympathy for the Somali pirates who don’t usually seem to harm their captives and are really only responding rationally to the economic breakdown of their society, I wonder if we’ll see English pirates again in the Channel if or maybe I should say when, our own economy goes completely tits up.
That’s getting very close to a tu quoque there. Just because piracy has a place in our history, it doesn’t make it right – even if we did use it as a weapon of war.
Also, I very much doubt the ordinary Somalis are seeing the benefits of this new economy – rather a few criminal gangs are getting very wealthy.
Given their new enterprise seems to be raiding the tourist beaches of Kenya and murdering anyone who resists, I think it would be hasty to paint them as poor hard done-by types who aren’t doing any harm.
No, there is only one way to deal with piracy and that is to vigorously impose the rule of law and that means, no ransoms and taking ships back by force if necessary.
True but I wasn’t suggesting it was right only something that is to be expected when a society breaks down and there are few legitimate ways to survive, people who would otherwise not do terrible things become criminals. On the other hand in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries England pursued a deliberate policy of taking the wealth of other nations through force as well as expanding its own economy, so I don’t think it’s a tu quoque so much as a suggestion that moral outrage about modern piracy ought perhaps to be tempered by recognition of our own history of this kind of thing.
I could be wrong, but I would have to assume that our current rules of engagement have nothing in the way of ‘yardarms’ or ‘keel-hauling’, more the returning the captured chaps to Blighty, setting them up in rather plush council accommodation, bringing in any dependents, and paying compensation for the trauma of capture… All to do with deterrent, doncha know.
Wouldn’t mind that job in the Seychelles in the anti-piracy team.
Chap I work with has a son who is Chief Engineer on an RN destroyer. He says that our red tape concerning rules of engagement is so restrictive that usual proceedure is to inform the nearest Russian Navy ship and withdraw to let the Ruskies do a proper job.
Back to Thornavis, I read recently about one of these Somalian pirates who ended up in a French prison – not at all as cushy as the ones we have. This chap was delighted with his en-suite toilet and the fact that he got 3 meals a day and to see a Doctor for free if he got sick.
“Privateers” ( Private ships-of-War ) were in fact covered by (by the standards of the time) fairly strict rules.
Some failed Privateers became Pirates – and were hung for it.
Privateering was generally outlawed in the treaties of Vienna, 1815-7, and of Paris 1856.
BUT, one important exception was the USA, which is always funny about “Treaties” because it binds the US to others’ rules.
As usual, they failed to realise (as they still do) that this also protects YOU.
They found out the hard way, during the Civil War, when various Confedrate Privateers were commissioned – and because the US had not signed the treaty, they were legal
Look up: CSS Alabama
and CSS Shenandoah
I wasn’t so much thinking of keelhauling or stringing them up from the yard arms, rather the case was that pirates caught alive were tried and then executed. The modern equivalent is what is required – vigorous application of the rule of law. A refusal to negotiate or enable these people in their activities.
“Let the Ruskies do a proper job.” – Like this? (scroll on to 4min30s for the “fun” bit).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTrkcQJ9i2I
Greg Tingey. That was rather my point really, states make the laws and decide which acts of piracy are legal and which aren’t.
As for Russia, well they’d know all about using force against economic enemies, it seems to be the way their entire economy is run, I’m not sure I’d want to use the actions of a deeply repressive state like that as my yardstick for dealing with pirates.
From the point of view of their rules of engagement, I would. Less red tape and more operational freedom for commanders in the field would go a long towards stamping it out.
The BBC news report mentioned a situation where the RN tried to intercept a captive vessel and backed off when the captors threatened the lives of the hostages. Unfortunately, this is the wrong tack to take. Sure, those hostages were not harmed, but the pirates now feel at liberty to go and take more.
As has been stated a privateer holding letters of marque and reprisal wasn’t a pirate. It would be fairer to call them mercenaries.
If we’re talking history though – pretty much the first actions of the new Republic’s Navy* was to defeat the Barbary pirates so this reticence is revolting. Why do you think the USMC song has “…to the shores of Tripoli”. The pirates need to be telt and this means not only being more robust (perhaps even attacking shore bases) but having more ships. A USN carrier is needed. Air-power can cover a lot of ground and a couple of squadrons of EF-18G Growlers using their ELINT capacity to get their radio signals would help pinpoint mother-ships and such.
Of course we should be able to deploy Nimrods for sea- patrol to bases in Kenya (I can’t imagine the Kenyans objecting) except…
*I’m not counting the John Paul Jones raid on Whitehaven.
Nick M, the privateers holding letters of marque weren’t pirates simply because the state said they weren’t, there’s no hard and fast line here, the history of the evolution of the state is largely one of the licensing and regulation of extortion. I wonder though if your robust approach to the pirates would be quite as effective as you think or would it go the same way as the war on drugs ? Can we compare the Barbary pirates to the Somalis ? I don’t know but I’m instinctively suspicious of a send in the cavalry approach to these sort of things, it hasn’t been working too well recently.
There’s nothing we can do about the state in Somalia – and nor should we. It is a Somali problem and one they should solve themselves. What we can and should do is protect our shipping. And that means robust enforcement of international law – boarding and seizing back captured ships along with vigorous prosecution of captured pirates.
The problem of piracy by Somalians has reached sufficient proportions that its a problem for any Nation’s vessels that use the Suez Canal or the East Coast of Africa (or even the Arabian Sea these days it seems). There are enough interested parties, surely, to organise a strict blockage of the Coast of Somalia. Treat every vessel coming or going from the country as potentially involved in piracy. I would imagine that that would soon smother the trade. I appreciate the Ruskies actions in Microdave’s vid, but think the old Soviet approach would have been more thorough. I vaguely remember that during the US Embassy siege in Iran during the Carter era, the Soviets were threatened with a similar scenario – the Soviet diplomat approached took off his wristwatch, dropped it on the ground, crushed it under foot and told the Iranians that if they took Soviet hostages “THIS is your Holy city of Qom”! Even the Russians are getting soft…
Thornavis, I have no problem at all with being deeply repressive against criminals. In fact I believe it is something that there should be a lot more of. I only have a problem with repression against those who are not criminals.
Or we could just allow merchant ships and other privately owned vessels the means to defend themselves.
Apparently the Royal Navy has captured a mother ship arrested the crew and released the hijacked crew ( from Pakistan ) all without a shot being fired, so it seems it can be done. No Russians around to get Medieval on their sterns or just the methods of a more civilised navy ?
I’d say that was a good result as I did regarding the original linked story that involved rescue without loss of life. I never said anything about getting medieval, I said we should apply the rule of law and be robust about it.
The medieval bit was a ‘Pulp Fiction’ reference, not everyone’s cup of tea I know but I think it fits in with the tone of one or two of the other commenters here.