New Insights On Somali Piracy

There's a new book now out in North America, the UK, Australia and the Netherlands that provides one of the most detailed looks ever presented into how piracy operates in the seas off Somalia. "The Pirates Of Somalia" is the result of several years of meticulous research by Canadian journalist Jay Bahadur, who has gone where few others have to explore the issues by immersing himself in things the hard way: He traveled throughout the Horn of Africa. At great risk to himself, Bahadur ventured into coastal communities, met with pirates, their leaders, supporters and those struggling with this nefarious threat. As I wrote in a review for The Globe & Mail newspaper this weekend (read it here), Bahadur manages to get to the core of piracy - the money angle - by using his contacts and research to break down the financial aspects of this criminal enterprise, positing that some of those on the low end of the hierarchical ladder of a gang make less than $11.00 an hour for all their efforts. The book is a fascinating read and a well-needed look into the ongoing problems, well worth checking out.

I've added a link at right (under Horn Of Africa Piracy) to Bahadur's blog, The Pirates Of Puntland, where he has more information about the book, and himself.

Pirates Sentenced In U.S. Court To Life In Prison

For the first time in over two hundred years, the United States has convicted individuals on the crime of piracy. As AFP reports, five Somali suspects today each received life sentences for their attack on a an American frigate last year (the USS Nicholas, see here). In a Norfolk, Virginia, court, the individuals also received an additional 80 years apiece for other charges, for whatever that's worth.

Able prosecution using the fullest legal means possible is part of dealing with the problem. The international community must not shy away from using the clearest - and most transparent - means available to address things. The rule of law is one of the thin wedges that keeps communal cohesiveness from spiraling into anarchy.

However, I still advocate the establishment of an international admiralty court to deal with suspected pirates, as this is a unique situation in the broader scheme of things. More to come, but this is a big advance.

Suspected Pirates Indicted In Virginia

Fourteen suspected pirates have been indicted by a U.S. federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, relating to the attack on the yacht Quest. That incident ended on February 22 with the deaths of four Americans, Jean and Scott Adam (the owners of the yacht) and Phyllis Macay and Bob Riggle. It's being reported that the suspects face charges of piracy, conspiracy to commit kidnapping and use of firearms. No member of the group has charged with murder, which may be because investigators are still trying to unravel what happened when the incident ended. Thirteen of the indicted suspects are said to be Somali, while the fourteenth is apparently Yemeni.

More On Danish Yachters Seized By Pirates

It's being reported that the Danes seized by pirates last week, while sailing in their yacht, have been moved to another vessel. And the seven captives have apparently been split up, clearly to make it more difficult for forces to try to rescue them. What happened earlier last week with the four American yachters has obviously been noted by the pirates holding the Danes, which tells you a little about how much these maritime criminals communicate and follow the news.

Meanwhile, there are still have ill-informed postings about the situation, harping on that these Danes should never have been in the area. In a piece in today's National Post out of Canada, Araminta Wordsworth writes, "A Danish couple and their three children ignored warnings of Somali pirates when they elected to sail blithely into the Indian Ocean. Guess what? They got caught. Now they're getting little sympathy as they pray for rescue."

Wordsworth assumes many things here: That the children ignored warnings, that the pirates offered a warning, that no one cares about their plight and that the Indian Ocean - in toto - is the realm of pirates. Okay, I am really talking about semantics and bad journalism, but there is a broader point here.

As I said in an earlier post, there are responsibilities on various fronts here. But the criticism being thrown at these Danish captives is wrong, in my opinion. Change what Wordsworth wrote to something like, "An Asian crew ignored warnings of Somali pirates when they elected to sail blithely into the Indian Ocean. Guess what? They got caught. Now they're getting little sympathy as they pray for rescue."

That could describe the vast majority of mariners currently being held hostage by Somali pirates. The Danish yachters took a risk and got caught. But this is what the seafaring world deals with on a daily basis. In fact, as I've been told in many interviews, the professional world of global shipping considers piracy as just another cost of doing business.

The media criticisms should not be aimed at the Danes hijacked last week. They should be aimed at the shipping community that has allowed piracy off the Horn of Africa to grow while being written off as a bottom end deduction.

Yachters: Piracy Risks & Responsibilities

With the news that a Danish yacht was seized by pirates last Thursday, there has been concern raised about the fact among the seven aboard the vessel are three children, aged between 12 and 16. As Danish foreign minister Lene Espersen put it, "It's almost unbearable to know that children are involved, and I vigorously condemn the pirates."

On a Time online blog, an item was posted today that voiced what many others are thinking, with the writer wondering, "What astounds your humble correspondent is that many foreigners, mostly Europeans and Americans, still insist on adventuring in the shadow of the pirate threat, especially with their own children."

Seems a fair assessment on the surface, but ignores the fact that piracy is not confined to the Indian Ocean or seas off the Horn of Africa. Yachters face the risk of seaborne attacks in many other places, such as the Caribbean. In early December, a Canadian man was killed by attackers while anchored on his boat off the north coast of Honduras. As reported, he was shot in front of his 24-year-old daughter, who managed to get a passing commercial vessel to rescue her. (The yachter killed, Milan Egrmajer, was a retired veteran of the Canadian Navy, so was not unaware of maritime risks.)

Sailing in many parts of the world is fraught with potential trouble, from the weather to criminal activity, on shore and at sea. Nobody sails in a place like off the Horn of Africa without being aware of the risks. But should they be there in the first place?

Well NATO does not think so. On their shipping site (see here), they state, "Naval forces strongly recommend that yachts do not transit this area." And the European Union's Naval Force Somalia site says, "Yachts are strongly recommended to avoid the area."

So if you follow this thinking we should just concede the seas off Somalia to the pirates and go elsewhere. Except that the route through the Red Sea to and from the Suez Canal is a vital transit corridor, for pleasure boats as well as commercial vessels. And giving in to the pirates is the wrong approach.

Instead, recent incidents involving yachters mean that the various entities dealing with the situation in that part of the world need to amend their procedures. To simply attempt to safeguard commercial vessels while ignoring yachters is misguided. As the EU says (quoted on Noonsite), "Anti-piracy patrols by warships can only offer limited protection for yachts in the area. If you are boarded by pirates, the rules of engagement prevent EU naval forces from taking steps to rescue you."

Damn, that's a bitch.

As an EU member, hopefully the Danes will not throw up their hands and leave the most recently hijacked yachters left to their own devices. But they should also have released information about the seizure earlier than four days after it occurred, if only to give fair warning to any other vessels in the area the incident transpired.

It is time for the naval forces in the region to extend their protection to yachts and specifically provide convoy assistance to these boats. they may not be carrying hundreds of millions in commercial goods, but they are still mariners seeking free passage on the seas.

But it is also time for the yachting community to address this situation in a more cohesive manner. As the level of violence continues to rise in the region as a result of pirate activities, sailing in the area must be considered akin to venturing into a storm front.

Most are aware of the risks, and a good take can be found on the Cruising World site (see here), where a couple of yachters recently talked about the stress of sailing in piracy-prone waters.

Americans hijacked by pirates

As has been reported tonight (see here, here here and elsewhere), a number of American yachters have been taken hostage by pirates in the Indian Ocean. The sailing vessel Quest, owned by Jean and Scott Adam, was reportedly seized Friday afternoon while sailing 240 nautical miles off Oman. We can likely watch a growing media reaction to this hijacking, owing to the hostages being American.

Which is both good and bad.

The good - such as it is - is that the media and the public will remember that maritime piracy is a problem that affects all of us, not just off the coast of Somalia. This is something that does impact on North Americans.

The bad is that this will forget the plight of the almost 800 individuals currently being held hostage by Somali captors, including a South African couple captured while aboard their sailboat four months ago.

Those aboard the S/V Quest deserve as much attention as all the other mariners currently being held in atrocious conditions. Please do not forget them - all of them; they have no one else but all of us to pressure international community to free them.

Somali man sentenced in Manhattan court

Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse, the sole survivor of the April 2009 Maersk Alabama incident, was sentenced this afternoon to 33 years and nine months in prison for his role in that pirate attack. This was the maximum sentence; Muse's lawyers had asked for the minimum-allowable sentence, 27 years, but Judge Loretta Preska declined the request.

The Somali man reportedly told the court today, "I'm very sorry for what I did. I got my hands into something that was more powerful than me."

Muse plead guilty last year to charges of hijacking, kidnapping and hostage-taking. He did not plead guilty to any piracy charges, nor was he convicted of piracy charges, unlike what some media are reporting (see the BBC here). While he may be a pirate in the eyes of many, he is a convicted kidnapper and hijacker in the eyes of justice.

British Couple Released By Pirates At Last

After over a year in captivity, British yachters Rachel and Paul Chandler were finally released by their Somali pirate captors yesterday. In a video posted on the BBC site, they appear thin, but in good spirits. In a comment given to the BBC's Andrew Harding, Rachel said one of the worst things about their ordeal was being separated from her husband, an unusual tactic that pirates do not normally employ with captives.

Xan Rice of The Guardian provides a closer look at what may have gone on behind the scenes to secure the couple's release (see it here). It includes the possibility that some of the ransom money may have come from part of British government assistance provided to the Somali government.

Though denied by a spokesman for British prime minister Gordon Brown, one would have to wonder about things based on what happened to the Chandlers after being let free. Instead of being allowed to go free - as every other captive has - the couple were, instead, flown to Mogadishu. There they were driven by African Union forces in an armoured vehicle to meet with Somali government officials for a photo op. Not the usual way these things work out.

It should also be noted that the same spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon did not call the Chandlers' captors pirates. Instead he called them terrorists.

Regardless, it is good to see the ordeal of these hostages finally ended.

Pirates Get The Largest Ransom For The Largest Ship Ever Seized

According to media reports, Somali pirate gangs have managed to secure a record ransom of $9.5 million (US) for the release of the largest vessel ever seized. The MT Samho Dream was captured last April off the Horn of Africa while sailing about 1500 kilometers southeast of the Gulf Aden, while en route from Iraq to the United States with a load of crude oil valued at around $170 million. Her crew of 24 are said to be in good condition after spending seven months in captivity, though the supertanker has yet to leave for open sea.

When the Samho Dream was seized back in the early hours of 4 April, her capture immediately raised the bar in terms of how big the prizes are that pirates are going after. Yet since the ship and her crew were taken, there has been precious little reported about this situation.

Writing the day after this immense vessel was hijacked (see here), I wondered if she would garner the largest ransom ever seen. And, unfortunately, I've been proven right. I wish I'd been wrong.

There appears to be a change happening within pirate cartels in Somalia, another metastasis of their various criminal enterprises. Some are garnering huge payouts - meaning we will see the $10 million barrier broken next year, unless the situation drastically changes. But others are feeling the pinch of reduced returns on their investments, leading them to more frustration, and actions such as the sinking of vessels deemed of insufficient value (see here). As well, there is the pressure coming the main Islamist insurgents in Somalia.

Regardless, the situation with piracy off the Horn of Africa is currently morphing, evolving. But is anyone noticing?

Book Review: Pirate State By Peter Eichstaedt

There's a new book out that provides insights into the rise of piracy in places like Somalia and Nigeria that is worth looking at. I recently reviewed it for The Globe & Mail in Canada, and here's what I wrote:

"Paradise - for pirates that is"

When it comes to describing Somalia, one of the few words you would expect a sane person to use would be ‘paradise’. But a few years ago, in Kenya’s port city of Mombasa, that was exactly how one man remembered for me the Somalia of the 1970s: as an economically vibrant, politically stable and culturally inviting country. Today it is better known as one of the most lawlessness places on the planet, fraught with warlords, famine, religious extremists, and, of course, pirates.

How Somalia got to this point and how piracy has come to flourish in the seas off the Horn of Africa are what drives American journalist Peter Eichstaedt’s new book, Pirate State: Inside Somalia’s Terrorism At Sea. A former senior editor with Uganda Radio Network, the author knows East Africa well (his previous book looked at child soldiers in the Lord’s Resistance Army). In this work, he introduces us to pirates, gunmen, security officials and others trying to cope with the situation, going beyond the headlines, and the hyperbole, to investigate the root causes of piracy off Somalia, while also examining the broader implications that the situation poses to the world.

As Eichstaedt shows, the spectacular growth of piracy in the waters off the Horn of Africa can be traced back to Somalia’s descent into anarchy that began almost two decades ago. In the years that followed, a variety of elements capitalized on the country’s chaos. Local warlords carved out clan-based fiefdoms on land, while foreign vessels appeared offshore to illegally harvest fish and dump toxic waste into the same seas.

The rape of the ocean by foreigners was one reason some Somalis began attacking vessels in the 1990s, and it continues to be used as a justification for piracy today. While Eichstaedt acknowledges this as a motivating factor, he also goes to lengths to dispel its lingering rationalization. The notion that today’s pirates are just simple fishermen forced to pillage ships because of foreign exploiters falls apart as the author reveals how organized the situation has become today. For behind those young men hijacking ships in the Indian Ocean lie criminal gangs tied to Somali warlords and politicians, entities intent on illegally generating tens of millions of dollars from the sea each year. In the words of a Somali negotiator for pirate gangs, “Angry fishermen [are] not the reason and cause of piracy. It is a purely selfish business.”

One of the book’s strongest sections comes when Eichstaedt travels to the sprawling Dadaab Refuge Camp in northeastern Kenya to see how those displaced by the fighting in Somalia feel about the situation in their homeland. These snapshots of refugee life reveal an overwhelming sense of despondency about the state of their nation, a place most fear returning. Many of these exiled Somalis also voice contrasting views about the international community’s responsibilities: some blame it for creating – or even fostering – the current situation, while others feel outsiders are the only solution to end the lawlessness.

The desire to reach a more hopeful, peaceful place – like America – resound within Dadaab. So, too, does a fear of how Somalia is being torn apart even further by extremist groups. The same chaos that allowed pirates to flourish has also given rise to Islamist insurgents, some of whom have ties to al-Qaeda. Eichstaedt traces the growth of the largest such group, al-Shabaab, meeting with a former fighter and raising the potential of Somalia becoming a new Afghanistan.

At times the book seems rushed, condensing some of the author’s experiences into just a few pages or paragraphs. And he omits to speak personally with any of the victims of pirate incidents, relying on media reports instead. But Eichstaedt more than compensates for these moments of brevity by introducing us to those affected by Somalia’s anarchy and those perpetuating it. As he makes abundantly clear in his book, Somalia is today a paradise only for pirates, warlords, criminal gangs and extremists.

One Year in Pirate Captivity

When it comes to being taken captive by pirates, especially those who operate off the Horn of Africa, the standard (hopeful) vision is that mariners hijacked will be freed within a few months, possibly even weeks. That is, ransoms will be negotiated by the various parties involved in an expeditious manner, as shipowners and operators do not want to see their vessels, crews and cargoes creating a strong hit on the business side of things.

It's harsh, but true, that piracy today operates - for the most part - just as it always has: As a commercial crime in which criminals gain money through illegal activities and reputable entities consider it part of doing business in the seafaring realm.

But what happens if you do not have the money of a shipping firm, ship management firm or other nautical-oriented endeavor behind you in such a situation? Well, consider - again - the case of the British couple who were kidnapped a year ago while sailing their yacht from the Seychelles towards Tanzania.

Rachel and Paul Chandler were kidnapped on October 23, 2009, and have just passed their one year anniversary in the hands of Somali pirates who seized them. As recent reported, their captors are renewing demands that the couple will not be released until a "full ransom" is paid. Those same captors have also reportedly received nearly $500,000 that was collected by family, friends and supporters of the Chandlers.

Why has there not been more action on the part of the British government to secure their release? Certainly no government wants to get into the business of paying criminals for their illegal actions. Yet there is a degree of duplicity going on here, inasmuch as these same governments allow corporations, and perhaps individuals, who operate from their territories to do just that.

A numbered company based out of a mail drop in any country can transfer funds to criminal gangs in Somalia to secure the release of professional mariners. A nation can even send its military to free hostages. Seems easy to find a half million dollars from some government account that could quietly end this couple's trauma.

After a year in captivity, it would seem something's not being dealt with properly here. We're talking pocket change compared, say, to the amount of money that will be spent repairing HMS Astute after it ran aground last week.

For more on the Chandlers, there is a site set up to support them, www.savethechandlers.com

Rachel Chandler with a Somali doctor, January 28, 2019 (AFP photo)

An Insider's Description Of The Magellan Star Incident

For those interested in reading more about yesterday's incident, in which US Marines rescued 11 mariners from suspected pirates aboard the MV Magellan Star, USMC Capt. Alexander Martin has posted a detailed account on the USNI Blog (here). It's a fascinating read, taking you through events from first word the freighter had been boarded by attackers through to the after incident activities carried out by naval personnel.

As Martin writes, this was something that went all the way up the food chain for approval - right to U.S. President Barack Obama. And further to what I wrote earlier about the need to rely on skilled professionals to deal with armed intruders on vessels, I'd point out one particular part of Martin's commentary. In talking of how his raiders reacted once aboard the Magellan Star, Martin writes:

"The details of what happened next are important as they highlight the individual actions of 24 highly trained shooters who were put in decision points of the highest moral magnitude: when to shoot, when not to shoot. I can't go into all these details at this time, but the long and short of it was: some of the enemy threw their hands up when rifles were put in their face, some ran and attempted to allude us in the superstructure but were run down and some hesitated but were taken down by less than lethal force, as the situation dictated. The end result was 9 pirates captured in an opposed boarding and 11 crew members rescued."

But read Martin's account; it's rare that we get such an insightful account.

The Judicious Use Of Force Against Pirates

Amidst all the hoopla about Christian extremists planning to burn Korans, some may have missed today's news about the boarding by US Marines of a hijacked vessel off the Somali coast.

Two dozen members of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit's Maritime Raid Force boarded the M/V Magellan Star just before dawn this morning (local time). Suspected pirates had taken control of the freighter yesterday; her eleven crew managed to get themselves into a safe room after sending out word of the situation. In response, elements of CTF 151 (the maritime counter-piracy force in the region) were dispatched, including a Turkish frigate and the American warships USS Dubuque and USS Princeton. The Marine raiders aboard the Dubuque then prepared and executed an operation to board the Magellan Star and free the crew.

Nine suspects were apprehended by the members of 15th MEU, in what is the first instance in that region in which American forces have undertaken such an operation with a commercial vessel seized by pirates. No injuries have been reported.

The Force Recon platoon commander ("Blue Collar 6") during this incident is none other than USMC Captain Alexander Martin, whom I have mentioned in a few earlier posts (see here and here, for instance). He posted a short item on the incident today on the USNI Blog, which is worth noting:

"We got word that the pirates wanted to stay on and fight - it was funny b/c when we came alongside and they saw us board and rush the superstructure, you could see the look change in their eyes...they didn't want to play anymore...you'd be proud of the men today, they represented America with honor. It didn't need to be a bloodless day (for the pirates) but it was..."

Actually, I'd say that the raiders from 15th MEU represented more than just America today. They also represented the larger international community who are trying to work together to deal with maritime criminal acts. And this is important to mariners around the world, because it shows that seafarers are not alone when it comes to being predated upon by pirates.

The boarding of a hijacked vessel by military assets is fraught with dangers, for the raiders, the crew and the pirates. Past incidents have seen such endeavors end badly (such as happened with the yacht Tanit last year). Still, I would argue that today's incident shows that professionals, trained in counter-piracy operations, can do a far more effective job of dealing with these situations than some of the other options floated out there (such as arming mariners or embarking private security assets). The skill sets of teams such the 15th MEU allowed for a successful operation without the loss of any lives - military, civilian or criminal.

Is a permanent, international counter-piracy raiding force, willing to board vessels, take on pirates and risk their own lives to safeguard civilians the way to go? Well, we do it on land all the time. They're called police. It's part of the process of containing and deterring criminal activities. Not the whole solution, but an important element. And, no, raiders like the 15th MEU cannot be everywhere. But the threat they pose to pirates has risen dramatically as a result of today's events.

The Business Of Piracy

A piece posted in today's Vancouver Sun by columnist Fazil Mihlar explored "What business executives can learn from pirates". (Mihlar is also a member of The Sun's editorial board and comes from a business background.) In his piece, Mihlar talked about the relationship between employers and employees, and how criminal groups like modern-day pirates have managed to maximize the potential for profits in this relationship. It's not such a bizarre idea - learning from pirates - and Mihlar mentions Peter Leeson's book, "The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates", which also focusses on this subject.

I've spoken several times to business groups about this very topic. It wasn't alway the talk they were expecting, but the points I - and others - have raised come from a purely analytical look at things. These observations have nothing to do with supporting criminal activities in any manner. But when it comes to figuring out how to motivate one's staff in the midst of an economic downturn, maritime pirate gangs (in places like Somalia) have managed quite well.

A crucial aspect of doing so is to provide an economic reward when the prevailing sense is that there are no other options available. Hope where there is despair, if you will. By knowing there is a hunger - real and otherwise - out there, one can capitalize on the desire to make ends meets in individuals, harnessing their physical and mental energies to a greater purpose.

Fundamentally, all it takes is someone to say, "Here's a way to make yourself useful and successful." The desire to do so is inherently part of human society in a variety of applications. It's the basis of numerous late night infomercials and self-help seminars. It's someone else showing you a path and putting an end to all the troubles that ail you.

It is also often misguided in terms of the real goals imagined by those who engender such solutions, but it is nevertheless still very attractive to many, many people around the globe. When you have little or nothing to begin with, the risks of embarking on something that may be criminal in nature are of reduced concern. And the workforce available in those situations becomes very malleable. Of course one could always use some of the techniques used by pirate "managers" to motivate employees on a more positive, non-criminal level.

Risk, profit-sharing, group support - all are nothing new. They've been utilized by those calling themselves capitalists, communists, socialists, fascists and ordinary criminals for years. Understanding the base aspects of human motivations when it comes to piracy is important in figuring out how to combat the problem. It's just one of the elements that causes the issue to exist.

On a related point, I'd like to point readers to a piece called "Mutatis Mutandis" written by Alexander Martin on the U.S. Naval Institute blog back in late July. Some may have seen it, but for those who did not, Martin - an exceptionally perceptive writer currently deployed overseas with the USMC - gives an good precis on how Somali pirates came to be what we know them today. I meant to mention it earlier; apologies to Alex. Read it and you'll understand what the title refers to.

Who Are The Real Pirates In Somalia? Not Academics

The first part of the title of this commentary is taken from a piece posted by Dr. Alexander Mezyaev yesterday in which he wades into the issue of piracy off the Horn of Africa (HoA). The entire piece can be seen on the Aduunyo website by clicking here. Aduunyo is a site which aims to promote a positive Somali image.

Mezyaev's piece was picked up by Ecoterra and included in their most recent update on the status of vessels and crews seized off Somalia, the Gulf of Aden (GoA) and in the Indian Ocean. It's likely to get picked up by other media groups, too, because it offers the perspective that those Somalis attacking vessels in the region are not really pirates. They are, in his opinion, victims of foreign aggression who are being persecuted (my word) by the international community.

As the "Head, Chair of the International Law, Governance Academy (Kazan')", I would hope Dr. Mezyaev would be well-versed in the details of maritime law, and has perhaps spent some time in the field talking to those who have been affected by maritime crime off the HoA and, just possibly, some of those who commit these acts. However, I seriously doubt he's ever left his office.

Like many others, Mezyaev seems to have fallen in love with the idea that those guys ranging around the seas off Somalia in small craft armed with Kalashnikovs are merely trying to protect their sovereign rights to the natural resources lying beneath the ocean. And these misguided perspectives need to be met head-on with facts.

Let's set this up: Are foreigners illegally fishing off Somalia and dumping waste in those waters? Yes. It's been going on for a decade and a half.

However, IUU activities (that's illegal, unreported and unregulated) are not confined to the waters off Somalia, not by a large margin. It happens in many places, but for some reason only with Somalia is it used as an excuse to justify attacking passing vessels.

Dr. Mezyaev opines that what's going on off Somalia does not constitute piracy and that "The Somali pirates are a myth floated by the global media to divert attention from the international criminal activity taking place in the territorial waters and on the marine shelf of Somalia".

But Mezyaev makes things worse when he writes, "Considering the specific navigational situation in the region, it would be a reasonable view that the ships attacked by pirates (his word) off Somalia's coast actually invaded the Somali territorial waters".

These analyses would be, of course, be news to those mariners attacked well beyond Somalia's nautical borders. Or those pleasure boaters sailing quietly off the coast who were hijacked and held for ransom.

The issue is only partially about the activities of foreigners in the seas off Somalia. In the larger sense it is fundamentally about the activities of criminals preying upon on mariners. And the growth of large-scale organized criminal activity that has found a way to package their business in a manner that is attractive to certain individuals.

To sit in an office an opine on the the situation from a theoretical level strikes someone like myself - who has been there and investigated this topic firsthand for years - as just plain callous. The real pirates are the guys attacking innocent mariners just going about their daily business. There is absolutely no justification for their actions. And I would gladly debate Dr. Mezyaev on this topic, should the opportunity arise.

Piracy Charges Thrown Dismissed In Virginia

A judge in Norfolk, Virginia, yesterday dismissed piracy charges against six Somalis accused of attacking the USS Ashland last April (see my earlier post about the early stages of this incident here). As the Voice Of America reports, the reason appears to be because the men did not actually board or take control of the warship, which is what U.S. statutes define as being acts of piracy. For those who might be angered by this decision, it is important to remember a couple of things.

One is that vigilante justice - "hanging them from the yardarm", so to speak - is not the way to deal with piracy in the 21st century. Maritime criminals like pirates operate outside the rule of law. We cannot stoop to their level. The system of beliefs that supports law and order goes far beyond the confines of a Virginian courtroom. It is international, transcending borders and cultures. It's what separates the thugs and bad guys from most of the rest of us. And if we don't like the existing laws, then we can try to change them.

In the meantime, we have to work with we're given. And for the six Somalis in a Virginia prison, there are still a number of legal issues to be dealt with. I recommend checking out EagleSpeak's take on things (see here ). He's an American attorney and retired US Navy officer, after all. These guys aren't going to be chewing khat again anytime soon. I hope.

Gaza Flotilla Incident & Piracy Assertions

In response to a number of queries, I'm finally able to find time to comment on the recent incident off the Israeli coast involving the flotilla of vessels trying to reach Gaza. Specifically, I'd like to point out that under international law, the actions of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) do not constitute an act of piracy. (See Article 101 the UN Convention On The Law Of The Sea, here.) As EagleSpeak's notes, here, the key part of the Article's wording defines an act of piracy as being one committed for private ends, not one committed by governmental personnel.

That is, the IDF was not intent on seizing the flotilla vessels in order to ransom them, hold the crews hostage, etc. Compare, for example, the actions of international naval forces in the seas off the Horn of Africa, in which vessels have been stopped and boarded in international waters. Sometimes those vessels are seized (and sunk), at other times they are left to continue on their way. Either way, no international laws are being broken either off Somalia or in the eastern Mediterranean. It is important to remember the true definition of acts of piracy and not allow certain individuals to use the terminology to describe this rather bizarre incident.

What is slightly more odd about how events unfolded is the manner with which the IDF decided to carry out the boardings. As others have commented (such as Information Dissemination's lengthy posts, here), the IDF actions seem somewhat stupid in light of previous incidents in which security personnel have engaged in vessel boardings. Putting some commandos on a freighter held by pirates is one thing: A good commander knows the pirates and their hostages will likely be contained within a specific area and there is likely to be ample space on the vessel to effect a safe boarding. But dropping personnel via helicopter onto a heavily populated passenger vessel, at night, no less, virtually invites a confrontation, especially when the passengers aboard said ship are expecting something and are knowingly antagonistic to the idea of being boarded.

In the "what were they thinking?" mode, Information Dissemination posted the following cartoon, which comes from the Center for a New American Security blog (here):

When Is It Time To Pay A Pirate's Ransom?

As anyone who has looked at maritime piracy will know, it is a criminal endeavor that is all about money, especially the money to be garnered by holding crews, vessels and cargoes for ransom. And, as an economic criminal activity, if no one pays the pirates they will eventually move on to some other more profitable things. This is a bit of a simplification, but not far off the general mark, and it is one of the reasons that I have felt that those in the shipping industry should not pay ransoms (as well as taking more effective preventive measures to safeguard their personnel).

At present, though, it remains a difficult proposition to take because ransoms are being paid and if you've ever sailed with mariners through piracy-prone waters, as I have, this view means you are potentially relegating those you know to being incarcerated by criminals in dire circumstances.

In a worst case scenario situation, they'll hopefully only be held for a few weeks or months. But then there is the ongoing case of Rachel and Paul Chandler. The British yachters have been held by Somali pirates since last October 22, spending over seven months in captivity. The couple have made another plea through the media to have the British government help them, and one has to wonder whether something can't be done to free them.

The case of the Chandlers raises all kinds of questions about how we should deal with pirates. For instance, there is the fact that these two older British sailors have been held for seven months with little chance their family or friends can pony up a hefty ransom to free them. So maybe the British government should intercede and repatriate the couple. Maybe a campaign to raise awareness of their plight would help force the British government to do something. But, then again, wouldn't that just play into the pirates' hands, and embolden them to attack more yachters?

Maybe some of those naval forces in the region could swoop in and rescue the couple, doing what Jack Bauer does on 24 each hour. But some might remember the French response to their citizens captured by Somali pirates a year ago (see here), which ended with the master of the yacht Le Tanit killed.

This is a difficult and unique case, and I have no complete solutions. But it's the first time in a while that I have actually thought that maybe the ransom should be paid to free the Chandlers.

Russia Reacts To Piracy By Releasing Some, Prosecuting Others

Somewhat interesting couple of events unfolded today regarding the manner with which Russia has opted to deal with suspected events of piracy.

In the case of the tanker Moscow University, which was boarded by a band pirates in the Indian Ocean last Wednesday, a rescue operation was mounted the next day by elements of the Russian Navy operating from the warship Marshal Shaposhnikov. This resulted in the release of the tanker's crew and the capture of the boarders - and the death of one suspected pirate. Afterward, though, the Russians opted to release the captured suspects. As quoted in a BBC report, this was because of "imperfections" in international law. As EagleSpeak has noted from another site, the suspected pirates were apparently "put in an inflatable boat" and sent on their way by the Russians, since, in the words of one Russian defence official, they felt that, "Why should we feed some pirates?"

Nevertheless, on the same day the Russians also sentenced the first person to be convicted on piracy charges in that nation in some time. This related to the incident last summer when the freighter Arctic Sea went missing off Europe, an event which concerned a lot of folks. A court in Moscow today sentenced Andrei Lunev, originally said to be from Tallinn, Estonia, on charges of piracy. He was sentenced to five years in prison. Lunev and one other of the eight crew members charged over the incident admitted their guilt over the incident this past week. He is said to have struck a deal with prosecutors to avoid a lengthier jail term.

It's odd to see that the Russians are willing to prosecute those involved with the Arctic Sea incident, but not the Moscow University attack. With the latter case, it seems clear-cut that the individuals who boarded the tanker were intent on criminal actions. Being presumably armed and aboard a ship without the express permission of its master clearly violates some protocols. So why the double standard?

Many questions still remain unanswered about the Arctic Sea incident. According to the BBC report, some of the accused claim they were "set up" and had rescued the vessel, not hijacked it. And an unnamed Russian journalist who helped break the initial story is said to have fled Russia, "saying he had been warned to leave after suggesting [the ship] may have been carrying a secret consignment of weapons."

An odd set of events that leaves this observer scratching his head.

Somali Islamic Insurgents & Piracy

With the news that the Islamic militants Hizbul Islam overran the Somali coastal town of Haradheere on the weekend, the pirates who had previously been using the port as a base of operations have fled northward, taking their belongings, supporters and even their hostages with them. But now that Hizbul Islam is reportedly in control of Haradheere, there appears to be some confusion about the group itself, and whether they mean to use the port for pirating operations.

For instance, yesterday's New York Times had a piece that wondered, "whether rebels with connections to Al Qaeda will now have a pipeline to tens of millions of dollars - and a new ability to threaten global trade." Unfortunately, the article is incorrect in tying Hizbul Islam to al-Qaeda. Though Hizbul Islam has invited Osama bin Laden and foreign fighters to come to Somalia to aid the insurgent group in its efforts to gain control of the country, and though the group's leader is believed to have ties to al-Qaeda, this particular Islamist organization is not thought by many experts to be linked with al-Qaeda. It is, in fact, Somalia's other main Islamist insurgent group - al-Shabaab - that has aligned itself with al-Qaeda. (For more on the two groups, see Bill Roggio's post at The Long War Journal from last month, by clicking here.)

Some of the confusion may stem from Shabbab's brief entry into Haradheere a week ago, which first caused the local pirates to pack up and leave. But the two Islamist groups are currently not closely allied and have not been working together for some time, and it would appear that Hizbul Islam's capture of the port was part of their efforts to consolidate territory over their rivals.

As well, the idea that the capture of Haradheere may signal a new piracy campaign on Hizbul Islam's part overlooks the fact that they could have engaged in active operations at any time in the past year had they been so inclined. The reality is that these Somali Islamist groups are more interested in their land-based operations than they are in any maritime criminal activities. It is believe that the insurgents receive some funding from piracy operations and rely on vessels to smuggle arms, supplies and other goods in and out of the parts of Somalia they control. As some reports have pointed out, the battle for Haradheere may have been partially the result of a failure on the pirates' part to send some of their profits to the Islamists. That is, the pirate gangs didn't want to pay protection money to either al-Shabaab or Hizbul Islam (though the pirates are known to accept protection money from some vessels operating in the seas off the Horn of Africa). So in a tit-for-tat response for not giving up a cut of the takes, the pirates of Haradheere found themselves being run out of town by better armed and organized adversaries.

The ideological foundations of groups like Hizbul Islam and al-Shabaab mean that if they engage in widespread piracy operations, they risk undermining their core supporters and any other Somalis who might be favorable to the Islamists. This is not to say these groups will completely refrain from engaging in piracy, just to point out they have other, more important issues to deal with ashore. For the time being, piracy does not appear to a priority for the Islamist insurgents.