| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Horn |
| Could 19th Century plan stop piracy? |
| 2009-04-10 |
| International efforts to thwart Somali piracy would appear to be floundering. Perhaps words from the 19th Century could offer a solution, writes the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds. If the navies of the world need some advice on ways to stop piracy off Somalia, they could look to Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary in 1841. "Taking a wasps' nest... is more effective than catching the wasps one by one," he remarked. Palmerston, the great advocate of gunboat diplomacy, was speaking in support of a British naval officer, Joseph Denman. Denman had attacked and destroyed slave quarters on the West African coast and had been sued by the Spanish owners for damages. It was British policy to try to destroy the slave trade, but this sometimes ran into legal complications. The British attorney general, in a gem of delicate legal advice, declared the following year that he ... "cannot take it upon himself to advise... that the instructions to Her Majesty's naval officers are such as can with perfect legality be carried into execution... Denman, a hero of the anti-slave trade campaign, was eventually vindicated and the Royal Navy carried on with its anti-slavery operations. James Walvin notes in his book Black Ivory: "Between 1820 and 1870 the Royal Navy seized almost 1,600 ships and freed 150,000 slaves." With Somali piracy still threatening shipping, it sounds as if modern navies need a few Captain Joseph Denmans, or the like-minded American, Commodore Stephen Decatur. Sent to attack the Barbary pirates off North Africa in 1815, Decatur simply captured the flagship of the Algerian Bey [ruler] and forced a capitulation. When the Bey later tried to repudiate the agreement, the British and Dutch bombarded Algiers. No such action against the "wasps' nests" along the Somali coast is possible today, even though the UN Security Council has authorised the use of the "necessary means" to stop pirates on the high seas and hot pursuit into Somali territorial waters. However, the resolutions that made these actions permissible (1838 and 1846) also contain restrictions. Everything has to be done in accordance with "international law" and this is interpreted as complying with the conditions of the International Law of the Sea Convention. This convention, in article 105, does permit the seizure of a pirate ship, but article 110 lays down that, in order to establish that a ship is indeed a pirate vessel, the warship - and it may only be a warship - has to send a boat to the suspected ship first and ask for its papers. This is hardly a recipe for a Denman - or Decatur-type action. Add to this legal restriction the relative lack of warships in the seas off Somalia - more than there were, but still insufficient - and the reluctance to tackle the pirates in their home bases, throw in the chaos in Somalia, where there is no effective government, and you have perfect conditions for piracy. Even if they are caught, they are simply handed over to Kenya whose legal system is not designed to deal with them. The German navy transported another batch of captured pirates to Kenya recently. But nobody knows how long they will be in custody there. And the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia issued a damning report last December in which it castigated ship owners for paying ransom. "Exorbitant ransom payments have fuelled the growth of [pirate] groups," it stated. The report also expressed concern about "the apparent complicity in pirate networks of Puntland administration officials at all levels." Since writing in December last year about the legal problems involved, I have had a lot of e-mails from people angry at the ineffectiveness of the measures taken so far and proposing their own solutions. These include: * Convoys. Already done in the case of aid ships going into Kenyan and Somali ports |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #9 grom, I'm pretty sure I saw some mention of Chinese nationals being among those hostages being currently held by the pirates. This shit isn't going to end until a foreign power seizes Puntland & hangs half the officials & hires the balance to run it as a colony. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2009-04-10 11:56 |
| #8 Gee, NS, we signed a good portion of the Geneva Convention and had the Senate even ratify it, but that didn't stop SCOTUS Kennedy of ignoring that part about illegal combatants and lack of coverage of rights. Doesn't matter what the paper says or not, the focus of power is not in the waters off of Somalia, its on the bench in Washington. Get to the heart of the matter first, then the pirate issue will quickly disappear. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-04-10 08:32 |
| #7 Survey from Die Welt Can the USA handle the Pirate problem? 0 Yes, they can do it better than the Europeans. 77% No, the problem can only be solved together 20% No, The Europeans can do this better. 3% Umfrage Bekommen die USA das Piraten-Problem in den Griff? Ja, die können es besser als die Europäer Nein, nur zusammen ist das Problem zu lösen Nein, die Europäer können es besser 77% Ja, die können es besser als die Europäer 20% Nein, nur zusammen ist das Problem zu lösen 3% Nein, die Europäer können es besser 291 abgegebene Stimmen |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-04-10 08:27 |
| #6 We have not signed nor ratified the LOST and we should boldly violate its terms. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-04-10 08:19 |
| #5 Personally, I'm waiting for them to take a Russian, or Chinese, ship. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-04-10 08:14 |
| #4 Satellite imagery is available which can monitor each of these buggers and how many Lucky Strikes they smoked as they leave their huts and villages, walk to their mother boats, or RB's and put off to sea. The solution is painfully simple. The only components missing are a 5 inch deck gun and the willingness to use it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-04-10 07:53 |
| #3 "And the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia issued a damning report last December in which it castigated ship owners for paying ransom. 'Exorbitant ransom payments have fuelled the growth of [pirate] groups,' it stated." Any payment should be regarded as collusion with the pirates. Ship owners should be made aware that funding pirate activity by paying ransoms is enabling pirates to attack other ships. It should be regarded as a very serious offence. Now that some crews have begun fighting off the pirates (all credit to them), the pirates will start using lethal force more frequently - expect violence associated with hijackings to increase, until the problem is dealt with properly. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2009-04-10 03:02 |
| #2 I'd suggest that you'd be surprised who gives a rat's ass, but you're a regular reader, so you won't be. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-04-10 00:49 |
| #1 "luring pirates into attacking apparently unarmed ships which then declared themselves as warships. Would this be in "accordance with international law"?" Who gives a rat's behind? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-04-10 00:18 |