Pirates, Russia, Somalia...Politics....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know there's no somalian navy hence the. .........

When you can stabilize that region without violence and total overhaul of their entire society I will lick your French boots

He's FRENCH. He does not wear boots (unless he picked up the habit from Strike). Frenchmen love their women in boots (seulement, bien sur) but prefer something a bit more stylish themselves.

If you're very nice to him following his success, he'll let you buy him a bottle of '61 Pontet Canet. Do NOT expect him to share unless you've educated your palate a bit.

[rotorgun]

If a criminal breaks into your home, armed, with the ability to do violence upon you or your loved ones, most would agree that if you were to kill said criminal in self defense, than it is just. Is this not a summary execution without the benefit of a trial? You might, if given the chance, be able to escape your house, avoiding the violence if the circumstances were right-a very speculative notion I agree, but possible. At sea, there is no where to run from a violent attack. One must defend the ship because it is your only real chance to survive. Pirates are a special kind of criminal; to threaten the lives of people aboard a vessel at sea creates a special kind of victim. There is no law at sea except that which the master of the vessel, or captain if we may, is responsible for. Under certain circumstances, he may take life for crimes, such as mutiny, which threaten the safety and lives of those he is responsible for. Most courts would back such a decision if made for such a reason.

I am not advocating the summary execution of anyone, but if all of the countries involved don't agree to have a way of trying pirates in an international agreement, then pirates will only be encouraged to continue their plundering. Maybe we need to send them all to a prison on some remote island guarded by an international force made up from all the players involved.

[Beskar]

I am not advocating the summary execution of anyone, but if all of the countries involved don't agree to have a way of trying pirates in an international agreement, then pirates will only be encouraged to continue their plundering. Maybe we need to send them all to a prison on some remote island guarded by an international force made up from all the players involved.

I thought that was Africa?

[LittleGrizzly]

Yep, but you would need to send them money, ships, trainers, officers and a huge administration to keep an eye on all that. Actually why do I care, I live in a land-locked country.

Well for one I assume they already have some ships over there, unless they swim to thier targets (future olympians maybe) give them some camera's and we could pay them* for each vessel dumping they catch.

Let them then take the crew hostage and start negoations with either the nation or thier individual familys for a ransom for return.

*with fines we collect from whatever companies and individuals are responsible

It will give them a profitable alternative to piracy whilst being for the good of Somalia in general...

Its quite hard to think of a way to do this fairly but i think its sickening that people we in the west have helped put into a place* where they resort to piracy are now fair targets for all kinds of nasty deaths

*its not a huge portion of the blame we share but we certainly helped them to get where they are going

I guess we are just lucky in the west that we can sit at our computers and judge men in extreme situations so harshly whilst sipping on our tea...

[spmetla]

Being a disenfranchised fisherman is no excuse for piracy. This is not the only region in the world with problems and certainly not the only with prolific piracy, these pirates shouldn't get harsher or kinder justice than pirates in other areas. Being put in a boat is certainly harsher then the possibility of asylum if say the Dutch Navy captured then but then bear in mind that China executes the pirates it captures, though these are murderous pirates as well.

While I'd prefer that most European ships as well as the US Navy continue operations as they have in which pirates are brought to court I still believe that there need to be a few nations such as Russia that can deal out the tough love. While these pirates are in all likelihood dead it's not like they were summarily executed on the side of the ship. Seeing as they often operate with "motherships" there is a possibility of rescue if their financiers/support ships care enough.

Your method of essentially paying them off isn't going to solve the problem and in fact is similar to what used to happen constantly in regards to the Barbary Coast Pirates. Not to mention that your solution is basically agreeing to allow sailors to be kidnapped, most of these acts of piracy happen well outside Somalia's waters so how would you fine a company for having its ships operate in international waters.

Paying for a Somali Coast Guard would be a good step and will help reduce illegal dumping and fishing but it will not stop piracy.

The solution is of course not simple or cheap but of course lies in somehow fixing Somalia, though I still that the opportunity to do so was missed back when Pres. Clinton pulled out Somalia which essentially abandoned the hope for stability in this country.

[LittleGrizzly]

There's hardly ever a good enough reason for misdeeds individuals and nations do, I just feel its unfair that the bigger and more powerful can screw others over and get away with it but a desperate somalian pirate must have all kinds of nasty inflicted on him... what I am mainly asking is we offer the somalians an alternative, if we get thier country somewhat stable and provide alternative sources of employment then fine these people deserve whats coming to them but as it is they have been backed into a corner and then are beaten for lashing out... what else was expected ?

With the capture and ransom I was just referring to the dumping of toxic waste (I assume the waste is actually dropped inside somalian waters, or what could be considered thiers if they had a goverment strong enough to declare it so)

Im not saying actually pay the pirates, for one im proposing a coast gaurd (which could in future help with piracy but to start with probably wouldn't work) secondly we could make the effort to clean up thier waters and repopulate the fish along thier coast line, wherever possible hire somalians to help with this, once done they can fish again.

Basically what I am proposing is rather than deal with the consequences of Somalia and cheer inhumane treatment of desperate people, why don't we goto the source of the problem, offer the locals alternatives to piracy. Hell we could even build jails and pay gaurds to house whatever pirates we catch. It may start off as a bunch of industrys supported by the west* but via the trickle down effect the economy would somewhat kick into gear and there would be decent alternatives to piracy

*I assume our anti piracy missions cost money anyway, combine this with the fact we helped them get where they are currently

All of this could be combined with big efforts to fight the pirates and make it not worth thier while (no asylum ect.)

[spmetla]

Of course it's unfair, life is unfair, everyone has to deal with that fact, they get no extra sympathy from me just because chance put them there and me here. Somalian pirates live by that same rule, they prey on weaker less powerful ships to their own profit, some of those ships come from countries that will deliver harsh justice others kind justice, that's just chance and who they choose to pick on. From now on that's less likely to be a Russian ship they pick on.

Fining ships illegally dumping wouldn't really be a revenue source for the Somali government, unless of course as you suggested other governments pay all the overhead for operating a Coast Guard. Of course if they use this coast guard to board vessels illegally dumping and then ransom back the crew and ship instead of jailing the violators like they should then we'd be funding state funded piracy.

Investing in Somalia is as you undoubtedly know a catch-22. The security situation is too bad to invest but they need investment to improve the security. That's why I still begrudge President Clinton's abandoning Somalia because US Soldiers providing security by having to shoot aggressors that happen to be black is bad politics. Bear in mind not all Somalis get by on piracy, there must be some way the rest of that country is getting by. Those that resort to piracy do so right now because the potential profit seems to be better than than consequences of being caught, what Russia just did is up the consequence of piracy a little. Look at the link I posted of the ICC piracy map for past years, one pirate crew left adrift and a few others killed when resisting boarding by anti-piracy forces are but a drop in the bucket of successful pirate attacks which is why they will continue. Russia's actions only make it less likely that Russian flagged ships will targeted, or at least as high profile ones such as oil tankers.

Anti-piracy operations do cost money but that's primarily for the operation and support of ships of pre-existing navies. Building a new coast guard/navy for somalia and then funding it would be incredibly expensive not to mention there's little guarantee that those Somali coast guard/naval ships would actually do the unpopular task of policing their own countrymen.

As for piracy being a good form of income, who do you think gets that income? Do you imagine that the profits from piracy are distributed in an egalitarian manner as if these pirates are modern Robin Hoods? The profits are likely to be going to just another local warlord so that he can more successfully fight the next warlord over and drive in a newer Mercedes and own the best looking Italian sunglasses.

[Husar]

that being said if we really wanna get rid of these problems we need to get international patrols and we need to arm civilian ships.

There are already international patrols, but how many thousands of ships do you want to send there to cover the whole area? Do you know how much that would cost?
The idea of the french, to bundle the ships in convoys, guarded by a few military ships, seemed quite good, but I guess most ships cannot wait for a convoy to form so they take the risk of getting boarded by pirates.

i tohught you were pro-choice. you should be ecstatic they got an option, get in the dinghy or face mother russias wrath.

Where did I ever say I'm pro-choice? That's just you having a prejudice/being jealous because I'm a European...
And the choice is pretty lame if both options have the same outcome...

If a criminal breaks into your home, armed, with the ability to do violence upon you or your loved ones, most would agree that if you were to kill said criminal in self defense, than it is just. Is this not a summary execution without the benefit of a trial? You might, if given the chance, be able to escape your house, avoiding the violence if the circumstances were right-a very speculative notion I agree, but possible. At sea, there is no where to run from a violent attack. One must defend the ship because it is your only real chance to survive. Pirates are a special kind of criminal; to threaten the lives of people aboard a vessel at sea creates a special kind of victim. There is no law at sea except that which the master of the vessel, or captain if we may, is responsible for. Under certain circumstances, he may take life for crimes, such as mutiny, which threaten the safety and lives of those he is responsible for. Most courts would back such a decision if made for such a reason.

Yes, but once you have them captured and handcuffed, what reason do you have to kill them then? If the crew wants to start a shootout with boarding pirates on an oil tanker that's their own decision, I'm not going to argue about people trying to fight for their freedom and/or lives, but it also bears quite a few risks, we already said many ports don't allow armed crews etc.

Being put in a boat is certainly harsher then the possibility of asylum if say the Dutch Navy captured then but then bear in mind that China executes the pirates it captures, though these are murderous pirates as well.

That the pirates often run away once they come under fire(or water) from almost anything also shows that they're not the cold blooded murderomaniacs that the Chinese always kill.
And since when was China a role model for the West concerning how to treat people anyway?

While these pirates are in all likelihood dead it's not like they were summarily executed on the side of the ship. Seeing as they often operate with "motherships" there is a possibility of rescue if their financiers/support ships care enough.

Well, now you're pulling a pontius pilatus, washing your hands in innocence.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Many ports do not allow vessels in if they have arms. Why? Here's the fun part....to prevent piracy.

It's vital to keep an armed ship out of Goa so that they won't pirate anybody in the port. Oh wait, that doesn't work, they just jump the ship en route to Goa don't they?

This is gun control at sea. The logic runs thus: "if we ban guns at sea, the tools of violence will be unavailable and the violence will be lessened." Like other prohibition efforts, it has worked wonderfully....not.

My country has been involved in international mercantilism since its inception. Armed ships sailed into our ports for decades, with the weaponry on the ship often outgunning what the port had to defend its citizens. The same can be said for much of Europe. Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?

[Vladimir]

Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?

Because we're civilized you colonial!

[Tellos Athenaios]

My country has been involved in international mercantilism since its inception. Armed ships sailed into our ports for decades, with the weaponry on the ship often outgunning what the port had to defend its citizens. The same can be said for much of Europe. Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?

Au contraire. Arms on merchant vessels is more of a historical exception than rule; the period you speak of refers to the brief period in which piracy was pretty much officially sanctioned extension of state navies -- and even then, as far as Dutch merchant ships go, it was prohibited for the crew to actually carry arms, with weapons and munition locked away until actually engaging an enemy. Sometimes the ships would include a military detachment, more often than not ships would simply convoy relying on numbers for their safety.

As soon as the European powers no longer needed the pirates when their own navies were sufficiently well developed to do battle on their own they moved swiftly to crush this threat to their mercantile interests; restoring things back to normal.

[rotorgun]

Au contraire. Arms on merchant vessels is more of a historical exception than rule; the period you speak of refers to the brief period in which piracy was pretty much officially sanctioned extension of state navies -- and even then, as far as Dutch merchant ships go, it was prohibited for the crew to actually carry arms, with weapons and munition locked away until actually engaging an enemy. Sometimes the ships would include a military detachment, more often than not ships would simply convoy relying on numbers for their safety.

As soon as the European powers no longer needed the pirates when their own navies were sufficiently well developed to do battle on their own they moved swiftly to crush this threat to their mercantile interests; restoring things back to normal.

I believe you are referring to Privateering, which is officially sanctioned by a state during times of peace. It is reffered to often as La Guerre de Course, or a way of a weaker nation attacking a stronger one during a war. Privateering was eventually denounced in modern times, but is quite different than Pirateering which is a criminal act by international law, a small point, but significant.

[Kadagar_AV]

Many ports do not allow vessels in if they have arms. Why? Here's the fun part....to prevent piracy.

It's vital to keep an armed ship out of Goa so that they won't pirate anybody in the port. Oh wait, that doesn't work, they just jump the ship en route to Goa don't they?

This is gun control at sea. The logic runs thus: "if we ban guns at sea, the tools of violence will be unavailable and the violence will be lessened." Like other prohibition efforts, it has worked wonderfully....not.

My country has been involved in international mercantilism since its inception. Armed ships sailed into our ports for decades, with the weaponry on the ship often outgunning what the port had to defend its citizens. The same can be said for much of Europe. Why are we so enamored of making merchants defenseless now?

1. If the pirates has weapons and the crew does not, there wont be a shoot out, no one will do anything stupid having people killed, and at large more lives will come out of the situation, you know, alive?

2. Maybe you havent heard, but national states dont really like when ships dock with a load of guns...

You are aware, that if 10+ men in uniform, in arms, step over a border, it is in fact an invasion (and can be met as such). We would have to rewrite a lot of international laws.

3. Isnt capitalism beautiful?

X thousands of companies have a 0,0005% chance to lose a ship. They could prevent it if all of the companies spend 0,005% of the income on protection... See where the math fails in a capitalistic society?

[rotorgun]

Husar-Yes, but once you have them captured and handcuffed, what reason do you have to kill them then? If the crew wants to start a shootout with boarding pirates on an oil tanker that's their own decision, I'm not going to argue about people trying to fight for their freedom and/or lives, but it also bears quite a few risks, we already said many ports don't allow armed crews etc.

I agree Husar, for what is justice without mercy. I was just pointing out some of the more unique facets of violent crimes while at sea, where there are no police to call on. It's why there is a need to allow merchant vessels to arm themselves against such depredations. Convoying through pirate operating areas is a wise precaution as well. Ships captains need the international community to provide guidelines and legal authority to deal with those who are captured.

As for this abandoning of the pirates in a small boat without navigational aids, most modern pirates don't operate far from the coast. I'll bet that they weren't that far from safety. They probably had a fair chance to survive. I still think that the Russian acted appropriately in the circumstances. I think it unfair to judge him harshly unless one was there to observe the facts.

[Viking]

Frenchmen love their women in boots

So they wear boots after all?

[Centurion1]

Why can't you lock up an smg as well as a flintlock etc.