In the autumn of 1816, Admiral Lord Exmouth arrived off the port of Algiers with five ships of the line, and orders to use nothing but shot to negotiate with the citys pirates. In the battle that followed, the British lost 128 men, and their Dutch allies 13. But casualties among the enemy were monumentally greater, as Algierss fleet was destroyed and its fortifications levelled. Even though the corsairs of the Barbary coast continued to prey on merchant ships until 1830, when the French occupied Algiers, their backbone was broken and tens of thousands of lives that would have been lost to the slave trade were saved.
This week, it has emerged that 17 Somali pirates captured by HMS Cornwall in February were given meals, medical check-ups and cigarettes (or, in one case, a nicotine patch) before being set free after the captain was advised that Britain had no legal framework to prosecute them.
It seems incredible, yet it is symptomatic of a far graver problem. Ever since 2008, almost 30 navies have been jointly operating against Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean a level of international co-operation that has no precedent. Even Iran has a warship in the area. Yet little is being achieved. Jack Lang, the United Nations special adviser on piracy, has admitted that nine out of 10 of the hundreds of pirates captured have been released because of legal issues.
The problem, however, is getting worse. Last year, the number of hostages taken rose to 1,065, up from 867 in 2009, 815 in 2008 and just 165 in 2007. Ships are being captured ever further from the Somali coast, and there are disturbing signs that the pirates have become more efficient. Even though the number of unsuccessful attacks fell from 170 in 2009 to 154 last year, successful attacks rose from 48 to 65.Figures published by the International Maritime Bureau show that 587 sailors are now being held, along with 28 ships. This year alone, 14 ships have been hijacked, and 250 hostages taken.
The strange thing, however, is the lack of concern. Theres been none of the outcry wed have seen if even a tenth of that number of pilots were being held at Mogadishu airport. Its hard to see why, given that 92 per cent of Britains trade is conducted by sea, and piracy adds no small amount to the price of the fuel that heats our homes, the goods we export and the food we eat. Anna Bowden, a maritime expert, has estimated that the total cost to the world is as much as £7.5 billion a year up to £2 billion in extra insurance premiums, another £2 billion or so to re-route ships through safer waters, £1.5 billion for security equipment, and some £1.25 billion to maintain international forces in the Indian Ocean.
Somalias pirate cartels have their roots in a failed state: the country has had no government or law enforcement since 1991. Its administration, besieged by the powerful jihadist group al-Shabaab, has no influence outside Mogadishu, the capital. Communities, administrators and even less-than-scrupulous bankers have been seduced by the cash the cartels have brought into port towns such as Haradhere, Eyl, Garard and Ras Asir £108 million last year. Earlier this month, for example, the Thai-owned Thor Nexus and its 27 crew, hijacked 350 miles off the coast of Oman on Christmas Day, were ransomed for £3 million; last year, £5.75 million was paid for a South Korean ship.
The central problem is that where nation states break down, international law just doesnt have a structure for dispensing large-scale justice. Kenya and the Seychelles have been hosting trials of pirates, but they simply cant cope with the numbers. Last year, a court in the United States handed down convictions in the first piracy trial the country had seen in two centuries. A subsequent trial, though, has been delayed until November because of issues over evidence. Similar problems have been seen in India, while South Korea fears that the five pirates it is now trying could even press a claim for asylum after completing their sentence.
On Monday, the UN Security Council agreed to set up special courts to try pirates, but there is no consensus on where they will operate and how prosecutions will be handled. And patience is running out. Last summer, Russian special forces stormed the Moscow University oil tanker, killing one of the 11 pirates holding the ship. The authorities claimed to have released the rest of the pirates, but then mysteriously reported that they could not reach the coast and, apparently, have all died. Dmitry Medvedev, Russias president, gave some indication of what that meant when he said the country would have to do what our forefathers did when they met the pirates until the international community comes up with a legal way of prosecuting them. Ship-owners, for their part, have been deploying armed guards, who can charge up to $50,000 per voyage, and hardening defences for their crew.
Ultimately, however, no amount of warships and arrests are going to solve the problem. In March, the US government said a naval analysis had estimated that 1,000 ships equipped with helicopters would be required to provide the same level of coverage in the Indian Ocean that is currently provided in the Gulf of Aden an approach that is clearly infeasible.
That leaves just one option, which no one so far has wanted to take: punitive action against the pirates bases on the Somali coast. As in 1816, the risks are considerable. But it is increasingly clear that the easier, softer way is leading nowhere.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Take every one of these lawyers that says there is no legal basis on the high seas to do to pirates caught in the act what has always been done (drumhead trial and a swift execution), put them on a yacht and put them off the coast of Somalia.
Repeat that until you have gone though enough lawyers to find one that will allow the old law of the sea to function again.
Posted by: The Other Beldar ||
04/14/2011 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
But it is increasingly clear that the easier, softer way is leading nowhere.
Capitulation to Sharia Law is the ultimate objective. Observe if you will the current capture and release program in Afghanistan. Bombing or summary execution of the economically disenfranchised and protected segments of society is never the politically correct answer. They have RIGHTS!
EVIDENCE IS now in that President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a bloodbath in Benghazi, Libyas second-largest city and last rebel stronghold.
But Human Rights Watch has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government.
Misuratas population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people including combatants have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 less than 3 percent are women. If Khadafy were indiscriminately targeting civilians, women would comprise about half the casualties.
Obama insisted that prospects were grim without intervention. If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. Thus, the president concluded, preventing genocide justified US military action.
But intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libyas civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents.
The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi.
Libyan forces did kill hundreds as they regained control of cities. Collateral damage is inevitable in counter-insurgency. And strict laws of war may have been exceeded.
But Khadafys acts were a far cry from Rwanda, Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, and other killing fields. Libyas air force, prior to imposition of a UN-authorized no-fly zone, targeted rebel positions, not civilian concentrations. Despite ubiquitous cellphones equipped with cameras and video, there is no graphic evidence of deliberate massacre. Images abound of victims killed or wounded in crossfire each one a tragedy but that is urban warfare, not genocide.
Nor did Khadafy ever threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The no mercy warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libyas leader promised amnesty for those who throw their weapons away. Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight to the bitter end.
If bloodbath was unlikely, how did this notion propel US intervention? The actual prospect in Benghazi was the final defeat of the rebels. To avoid this fate, they desperately concocted an impending genocide to rally international support for humanitarian intervention that would save their rebellion.
On March 15, Reuters quoted a Libyan opposition leader in Geneva claiming that if Khadafy attacked Benghazi, there would be a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda. Four days later, US military aircraft started bombing. By the time Obama claimed that intervention had prevented a bloodbath, The New York Times already had reported that the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda against Khadafy and were making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.
It is hard to know whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds. In either case, intervention quickly exceeded the UN mandate of civilian protection by bombing Libyan forces in retreat or based in bastions of Khadafy support, such as Sirte, where they threatened no civilians.
The net result is uncertain. Intervention stopped Khadafys forces from capturing Benghazi, saving some lives. But it intensified his crackdown in western Libya to consolidate territory quickly. It also emboldened the rebels to resume their attacks, briefly recapturing cities along the eastern and central coast, such as Ajdabiya, Brega, and Ras Lanuf, until they outran supply lines and retreated.
Each time those cities change hands, they are shelled by both sides killing, wounding, and displacing innocents. On March 31, NATO formally warned the rebels to stop attacking civilians. It is poignant to recall that if not for intervention, the war almost surely would have ended last month.
In his speech explaining the military action in Libya, Obama embraced the noble principle of the responsibility to protect which some quickly dubbed the Obama Doctrine calling for intervention when possible to prevent genocide. Libya reveals how this approach, implemented reflexively, may backfire by encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering.
Alan J. Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, is author of The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention and co-editor of Gambling on Humanitarian Intervention.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/14/2011 15:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
encouraging rebels to provoke and exaggerate atrocities, to entice intervention that ultimately perpetuates civil war and humanitarian suffering. This is a generic propaganda move used in many wars over the years.
#2
So it is interest-free loans that has made Libya the socialist paradise that it is:
[Libyans] are entitled to free treatment, and their hospitals provide the best in the world of medical equipment. Education in Libya is free, capable young people have the opportunity to study abroad at government expense. When marrying, young couples receive 60,000 Libyan dinars (about 50,000 US dollars) of financial assistance. Non-interest state loans, and as practice shows, undated. Due to government subsidies the price of cars is much lower than in Europe, and they are affordable for every family. Gasoline and bread cost a penny, no taxes for those who are engaged in agriculture. The Libyan people are quiet and peaceful, are not inclined to drink, and are very religious.
So why would our very own socialist-in-chief want to attack them? I'm confused!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/14/2011 6:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why did the ComChi attack Vietnam? Socialism is about coveting. The Eastern European states were just not in shape to resist the Soviets [though the Hungarians gave it a try] ability to 'liberate' their resources and materials. The old meme 'no blood for oil' was simply one more Freudian projection of the left.
#5
Obviously better thought out and researched than my comments on the David Cameron article.
But I still wonder if it has something to do with migration. At any rate, I never believed for a minute that it was to avoid a humanitarian crisis. There must be something they're not telling us.
#6
You can find people pushing the whole "we went to war to keep them from dropping the dollar" conspiracy theory about every war we've been in in the last twenty years and every war we're going to be in in the next fifteen.
If anyone had remaining doubts about the fog of war that descended on Libya in the last weeks, the confused bickering that has completely taken over more recently should clear those.
More cynical - or astute - observers claim that the whole thing was a masquerade from the start, a cover for a full-scale Arab counter-revolution or even a diversion of world attention from more pressing global problems such as the disaster in Japan, the financial crisis and the rattled international system.
Others blame the situation on glaring incompetence. While some
of the former claims make sense as well, evidence of the latter is overwhelming, and incompetence does not exclude conspiracy.
Some of the latest news from Libya is that France and Britain are accusing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of not doing enough. "NATO must play its role fully. It wanted to take the lead in operations, we accepted that," French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Tuesday.
#2
You just had to know that once the French took a major roll things would go just swell. Plus they had the Brits and Barry backing them up, what could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: Jefferson ||
04/14/2011 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's the Germans, Dutch etc. who are the bottleneck in NATO right now.
#5
Is it wrong for me to enjoy seeing France and UK get their asses kicked by a tin pot dictator in a cat litter box country? Doubtless.
But as someone said the other day NATO is a scam where the euros pick our pockets while criticizing our pants.
Posted by: regular joe ||
04/14/2011 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yes it is. UK and France (nominally) are still children of The Enlightenment. When they fall, we fall a little too.
This sad episode illustrates why we need pick our battles carefully, clearly define our goals, use overwhelming power and make it impossible those we defeat pick up where they left off. And we to think how to turn a profit on it too. No more trillion dollar interventions to save those who would slit our throats in our sleep.
[Asharq al-Aswat] Has Iran begun to reap the fruits of its support for Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason,? Some observers believe that the recent conversion of several Gazooks to Shiism represents one of these fruits. The Al-Arabiya website, citing a report published by the Arsiran website -- which is affiliated to a number of conservative groups in Iran -- published a story claiming that the Shiite doctrine is beginning to spread in Gazoo and that the number [of converts] reaches into the hundreds. Abdul Raheem Hamad, a Gazook convert, also expressed the same point [in this report].
Anybody familiar with Hamas literature and its intellectual roots cannot imagine that the group could be content with the spread of Shiism, let alone that it would accept "Shiite missionary activity" in the Gazoo Strip, as a trade-off for Iranian support. If that is the case how is it possible that Hamas was not aware that the preaching of the Shiite doctrine in the Gazoo Strip would most certainly have been one of the hidden agendas that the "ideologically-driven" Iranian government aims to fulfill?
Through simple arithmetic the hundreds of Paleostinians who have become Shiite will come to represent thousands and then tens of thousands and they will demand a political and sectarian presence. This converted group will represent a thorn in the side of the sectarian harmony known by the Paleostinian people. This was emphasized by the "convert" Abdel Raheem Hamad when he said that Paleostinian Shiites will play a prominent role in running this region in the future!
It is within the rights of the regional states to be concerned about Hamas-Iranian rapprochement, which led to the strengthening of Iranian influence in an ultra-sensitive region and then to Shiite missionary work. However the pivotal question here is: did Hamas turn to Iran out of choice? It is well known that Hamas is not accepted by the key states of the Middle East even though it surpasses all other Paleostinian organizations in terms of popularity, organization and military strength, including Fatah. However due to this lukewarm relationship with Hamas, the Middle Eastern states refrain from [providing] the organization with financial support. Consequently, Iran exploited the opportunity and filled the vacuum and so Hamas has been suckled by the Iranian breast until it is able to cover its obligations to its own members, and the Gazoo Strip which it governs, and there is no solution to this except to wean Hamas from this Iranian support.
But weaning Hamas from Iran requires the provision of an alternative [to Tehran] and at present we do not expect to find any alternative. Despite the fact that Hamas surpasses [other organizations] in terms of popularity and military strength, the Paleostinian Authority, which is affiliated to the Fatah movement, continues to be recognized internationally. This takes us back to square one which is the continuation of Iranian support [for Hamas], and the continuation of Iran's political and doctrinal influence [on the Gazoo Strip], unless the regional states take it upon themselves to deny Iran this opportunity by establishing and normalizing relations with Hamas and pushing it towards [normal] political operation by allowing the organization to obtain its political share, to be determined by the forthcoming legislative and presidential elections.
Let us go back to the Shiites in the Gazoo Strip. After my last article in which I warned against the Iranian expansion in Egypt, and after others also warned against this and against Iran's missionary activities that resulted in the conversion of hundreds of Egyptians to Shiism, Shiite intellectuals objected and asked: is it not Iran's right to "preach" its ideology and engage in the marketing of ideas and doctrines? Fundamentally the answer is yes but we said "no" to Iran because it always plays the tune of Islamic unity and claims there is no difference between Sunnis and Shiites, but if that was the case then there would be no need for allocating large sums [of money] to missionary activity and "correcting" the beliefs of the Egyptians and the Paleostinians, not to mention the vile exploitation of Hamas' need by stabbing the Paleostinian people in the back and shattering their sectarian unity.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/14/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
[Asharq al-Aswat] At a time when Syrian President [Bashir al-Assad] described some of the victims of state violence against demonstrations in Syria as deaders, an Iranian Foreign Ministry front man came out to say that what is happening in Syria is a Western conspiracy!
In a presser, Iranian front man Ramin Mehmanparast said that the protests in Syria are taking place within the framework of a western conspiracy to destabilize a government which supports "the resistance" in the Middle East. He said that "what is happening in Syria is a mischievous act of Westerners, particularly Americans and Zionists" adding that the conspirators "want to avenge some countries like Iran and Syria, which support the resistance, by facilitating small [opposition] groups." Worse still, the Iranian front man said that the conspirators are trying, with the aid of the western media, to "tell the world that these people [the demonstrators] are the majority of the society, and this is the biggest lie and distortion." Can you believe this audacity?
The Iranian official said that the Syrians' demands were nothing more than foreign treachery; however everyone knows that the demands of the Syrian people are genuine, in a state with the longest-running repressive emergency law in the Middle East. The state lacks all kinds of freedoms, and even the Syrian president himself is considering reform, so why would he talk about reform if these were the demands of foreign agents? Why would the government decide to increase salaries, and why would the president grant the status of martyrdom to the protest victims -- which is a remarkable story in itself in a secular state -- if the protestors were foreign agents?
The other issue is that Iran falsely claimed that the protestors in Syria are a small group. Is this conceivable considering that demonstrations have taken place in seven cities in Syria over the past three weeks, with the corpse count standing at over two hundred? The demonstrations have reached the mosques, and the University of Damascus ...The City of Jasmin is the oldest continuously-inhabited city in the world. It has not always been inhabited by the same set of fascisti... , and so is it conceivable to believe that the demonstrators themselves are only a small group, a minority? Although the Sunnis are the overwhelming majority in Syria, there is no sectarian undercurrent, but rather the demonstrations consist of most components of Syrian society. The demonstrations have even spread to rural areas, specifically Deraa, a key ally in the balance of power in Syria. Thus the Iranian assessment is certainly incorrect.
As for the Iranian front man's talk of resistance, this is ironic, for it appears that Tehran and its allies did not pay attention after the Arab citizens grew tired of such fake slogans and lies. All demands in the Arab world today are national and internal, so where is this resistance that the Iranians talk about? Syria has not even killed so much as a pigeon in its resistance battle over the past three decades. It did not even react to Israeli attacks on its territory; instead it always reserves the right to respond, without actually responding. [As for resistance elsewhere] Hezbullies has now rounded on the Lebanese, specifically the Sunnis of Beirut, and terrorized all other factions, and Hassan Nasrallah is now unofficially responsible for appointing the Sunni Prime Minister! Even Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, has begun to suppress demonstrations held against it in Gazoo, although the media has not focused on this as it has been preoccupied with the open theater that is the Arab world. As for Iran itself, we have not seen them support the resistance, there have been no shots fired in defense of Arab blood, and we all remember that [Grand Ayatollah] Khamenei forbade the Iranians from going to Gazoo during the last war!
Thus we are right to say if you have no shame, become an Iranian official!
Posted by: Fred ||
04/14/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
