Showing posts with label Barbary pirates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barbary pirates. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Somali Pirates, Sunken Trawlers, Missing Crews, and Fuming Hostages

Remember that pirate 'mother ship' that the Indian navy sank last week?

You Sank My Trawler!

The owner of the Ekawat Nava 5 is not at all happy. He says that his fishing trawler was chased by pirates and called for help. When the Indian frigate INS Tabar showed up, it sank his trawler.

He could be right.

One of the Ekawat Nava 5's crew survived six days in the water before getting rescued, another is quite definitely dead, and the rest are missing: quite possibly on the bottom of the ocean, along with the ship.

The Indian navy says that it can tell the difference between a fishing trawler asking for help, and a pirate mother ship whose crew is threatening to blow them up. And, that what they sank was not a fishing trawler.

They could be right.

It's quite possible that the pirate ship sank the trawler, and then the Indian warship sank the pirate ship. Why the pirates would sink a ship, rather than hold it for ransom, I don't know. Maybe they figured it would be more profitable to loot the trawler and sink it.

I'm glad I'm not one of the people who has to sort that mess out.

Pirates Not Winning Popularity Contests

Actually, a sailor who was freed after his ship was ransomed said, " 'I wish that no one else ever has to go through this -- (hijackers) are not human but rather animals,' " perhaps rather strongly put, but he had been under a great deal of stress.

Pirates: Popular, no; Rolling in Money, Yes

Looks like the Somali pirates, as a group, made $150,000,000 in ransoms in 12 months. I don't know what their overhead is, but my guess is that they've managed to hang on to quite a bit of that.

And, glad as I am to see hostages freed with no more damage than a deep-seated grudge, paying ransom does have drawbacks: " 'What other alternative does a shipowner have?' said Peter Hinchcliffe, marine director of the London-based International Chamber of Shipping. 'It is an appalling situation paying money, knowing that that will further enhance the capability of the criminals ashore.' "

In other words, shipowners are paying the pirates to upgrade their ships and weapons, so they can hijack more ships.

Frustrating.

21st Century Piracy: Not Likely to End Nicely

I'm no 'hawk,' but I doubt that the pirates in Somalia - and start up operations in east Asia - will stop pulling in six figures a year just because someone asks them nicely.

Centuries of diplomacy and sweet reason didn't stop the Barbary pirates a few centuries back, but the Marines did. And yes, there were other players involved, too.

I'm afraid that, sooner or later, someone's going to have to use force to end today's piracy.

In the news:

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Piracy and the War on Terror

As I discussed in a previous post, today's piracy and terrorism seem to be related.

To make the "piracy posts" a little easier to find, I've started this list:

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Piracy, Terrorism, and a Changing World

Piracy makes for rousing adventure stories: like the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.

When the pirates are real, and part of today's news, they're not so much fun.

Piracy: Not Exactly Terrorism, but Related

I know: this is the "Another War-on-Terror Blog," not the "Piracy Blog." I think that pirates and terrorists are related, though.

Not so much because many of the pirates are Muslim. Somalis are almost all Sunni Muslims. It should be no surprise that many Somali pirates are Muslim. Think about it this way: if a criminal operation were to get started in northern Minnesota, a lot of the people involved would be Lutherans. That wouldn't make it a Lutheran crime league.

I think piracy, and terrorism, are part of a set of issues being sorted out now: and that the War on Terror is part of the process.

Like the more familiar (so far) terrorists, pirates operate outside the law, and rely in part on fear to reach their goals.

Unlike your usual Islamic terrorist, the pirates aren't particularly interested in blowing themselves up, establishing a world-wide pirate kingdom, or getting rewarded with eternal membership in a celestial whoopee club.

Today's pirates, like their historical counterparts, are in it for the booty. And, in Somalia, their booty has gotten pretty big. To the point where they're hiring caterers to provide western food to some of their hostages.
Piracy, Terrorism, and Transitional Times
I think that today's piracy and terrorism exist in large part because the world is going through a great deal of change - rather quickly.

A messy set of independence movements has left many countries with dubiously competent governments - which gives people who don't particularly want to obey the law an opportunity to express themselves.

People who were living in a culture that hadn't changed all that much since Abraham moved out or Ur suddenly had to deal with cell phones, television, movies, Coca-Cola, Mickey Mouse and Barbie. Some of them took it hard, and started killing people who didn't agree with them, or wore the wrong kind of clothes.

Pirates, India, Russia, and Korea: No More Mister Nice Guy

It looks like the Indian navy sank a pirate 'mother ship' this week. More Russian warships are headed for the Somali coast, and Korea is withdrawing troops from Iraq, to protect their own shipping.

A half-millennia ago, it took a couple centuries and a colonial uprising to deal with piracy. We may see a much faster transition between diplomacy and ransom, and practical action, this time around.

Piracy is spreading, though. Somali pirates are making so much from the ransoms, that ethically-challenged people in Asia are starting their own operations.

Pirates, Terrorists, and the Information Age

I see (nominally) Islamic terrorism and the rise of piracy as related.

I'm not blaming western civilization, but it's a fact that, starting about five centuries back, European powers started taking over huge tracts of land around the world. And, developed technologies that sparked the Industrial Revolution.

More recently, European colonial holdings became independent nations - often with borders determined more by European conquest than by regional cultures and languages. That resulted in people who didn't necessarily get along being forced into cooperation on a national level. In some cases, it worked out about as well as might have been expected.

Meanwhile, the Industrial Age had started, and petroleum became a valuable commodity. That brought oil-rich countries into direct contact with outsiders.

Then, western civilization developed the telegraph, the telephone, the Internet, and YouTube.

Between the Industrial Age's demand for petroleum, and the dawning Information Age's revolutionary communications technologies, there's been whole lot of change going on. More so for some people than for others.
Terrorism: Militant Nostalgia?
People whose ancestors had, for centuries, lived without noticing the rest of the world - and vice versa - had a world of Barbies and civil rights drop on their communities of burqas and honor killings.

They're experiencing these changes over a period of years, or decades. Most other cultures had centuries, or millennia, to adjust. Under stress like that, it's hardly surprising that some people want to bring back the 'good old days.'
Piracy: Taking Advantage of Chaos
One reason that pirates can use Somalia as a base of operations is the lack of an effective central government. Somalia is having a worse time than many new nations, making things work.

Somalia is the result of a British and an Italian colony being merged into an independent nation in 1960. With about 85% of the people being Somali, and speaking the same language, they're in a better position than some countries. And, Somalis seem to be mostly Sunni Muslim, which lends a sort of unity.

On the other hand, Somalia has had a rough time, with none-too-constitutional regime changes, border disputes with Puntland, a do-it-yourself autonomous state, and people who forced a United Nations humanitarian project to pull out.

Right now, Somalia has a temporary national government that almost has control of the capital city.

A place like that is almost perfect for piracy: desperately poor; no law enforcement to speak of; sitting on top of one of the world's busiest sea lanes.

It's possible that if Portuguese traders, the British East India Company, and Italy hadn't interfered, sultans would be arguing about who owned what part of Somalia, and maintaining some sort of order for their own convenience. Arguably, a better situation than we have now.

Unless the sultans were like the current leaders of Sudan.

Background: In the news:

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Somali Pirates, Barbary Pirates, Ransom, and the War on Terror

We can learn so much from Egypt.

Here's One View

The owners of the Egyptian MV Al-Monsourah paid a little over a million American dollars, and in exchange got their ship and its 25 crew members back, safe and sound.

Meanwhile, America is endangering the lives of the people on a Ukrainian ship off the Somali coast. The presence of an American destroyer, with its implied threat of violence, threatens an escalation of tension.

Why can't America learn to talk to people? Violence never solves anything.

Here's My View

The USS Howard is keeping an eye on pirates and the Ukrainian cargo ship Faina they're holding. Besides the crew, the ship is carrying 33 Russian-built T-72 tanks and a substantial quantity of ammunition and spare parts.

The military hardware was bound for Kenya, and America would just as soon see that it got there.

So would Russia. The Howard is standing in for the Russian missile frigate Neustrashimy, or Intrepid, that's steaming toward Somalia.

I'll grant that the presence of all those big, rough sailors is a risk. The Somali pirates "warned of dire consequences if any military action was taken to try to free the ship," as the Associated Press put it.

On the other hand, I don't think that paying someone to do something you don't want them to do makes sense. Rewarding behavior enforces that behavior. Rewarding undesirable behavior is nuts.

Which is why America has had a policy of not negotiating with terrorists for decades. This country hasn't always followed that policy to the letter, but American leaders tend to be more practical than ideologically pure. Which I see as sensible.

Some kinds of "practical" are more practical than others in the long run, though. An example:
  • About 1550: Pirates control the Barbary Coast, routinely plunder shipping in that area
  • 1662: England applies practical diplomacy, starts paying ransom
    • Barbary pirates stop hitting British ships
    • Other countries trading in the Mediterranean begin paying tribute
  • About 1776: England stops paying tribute for rebellious North American colonies
  • 1785: The Dey of Algiers seized an American ship
    • America didn't pay tribute
    • The Dey jailed the crew, waited for America to anted up
  • 1794: The Dey has plundered eleven American ships, and is waiting for ransom in exchange for hundred and nineteen survivors
  • 1797: Adams administration follows European wisdom, pays tribute to Barbary pirates
  • 1801: Jefferson administration inherits budget in which one out of every five dollars goes to the Barbary pirates
    • America starts military action against pirates
    • 1812: War of 1812 begins, lasts until 1814
      • Anti-piracy campaigns go on the back burner
      • Size of the American Navy is drastically reduced
    • 1815: America formally declared hostilities against Algiers
      • Algiers fell
      • 1816: Anglo-Dutch bombardment of Algiers marks end of Barbary Coast piracy
Repeating what I wrote in an earlier post, what I see as a lesson from the Barbary pirates situation is:
  • Diplomacy and concession work, for a while
  • Using military force doesn't always result in disaster
  • Things take time

What Not to Learn From the Barbary Coast Issue

Researching this post, I found out that piracy, at least in the Mediterranean, is supposed to be something that Islam made up.

I've read stranger ideas.

Even though it's not on a par with 'Nero was a Christian agent,' I think that Joshua E. London's Heritage Foundation lecture is off base. True, the land that Americans called the Barbary Coast was the Maghrib: the Islamic lands west of Egypt. And, the Barbary pirates were Muslims: many of them, anyway. But I'm really dubious about the idea that the idea of jihad led to piracy.

You could use that sort of logic to prove that Blackbeard was a missionary for the Church of England. Which is nonsense, by the way.

Besides, there's been piracy in the Mediterranean at least since the time of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire. That's a long time before Mohammed was born. My guess is that piracy started pretty soon after someone got the idea of moving material on logs or rafts.

In the news:

Saturday, September 27, 2008

American Destroyer USS Howard Watching Ukrainian Ship With Belize Flag and Russian Tanks Taken by Somali Pirates: Nothing's Simple, These Days

Here's what we know so far: A Ukrainian ship, sailing under a Belize flag, carrying Russian Tanks to Kenya, was seized by Somali pirates. Now an American destroyer, the USS Howard DDG 83, is near the Somali coast, keeping an eye on the ship.

And the pirates want ransom for their captives and booty.

"It's déjà vu all over again." I've written about the Barbary pirates before. Follow the links if you're interested.

In the news:
Update (October 7, 2008)
This particular example of Somali piracy is still in the news. I'm planning another post, soon.

Meanwhile, I received a comment which starts with "It is not necessary to lie!"

So, a little clarification: The tanks were, apparently, manufactured in Russia, sold by a Ukrainian entity, and were to be received by the Kenyan government.

And, before someone assumes that I'm accusing the Somali government of piracy: The Somali pirates are, to all indications, acting independently of, and in defiance of the government of Somalia. I do not believe that the Somali leader(s) are complicit in this piracy. In fact, it sounds like Transitional Federal President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, Prime Minister Nur "Adde" Hassan Hussein and the rest of the Mogadishu government, would be only too happy for the pirates to stop giving Somalia a bad name.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Wannabe Terrorists, Somali Pirates, and Russian Tanks

The arrest of two men in Cologne is probably an example of why there haven't been quite so many terrorist attacks after 9/11. The two men, a Somali and a German born in Somalia, probably weren't planning to hijack the KLM plane.

On the other hand, police "...had obtained a suicide note written by the men that stated they wanted to take part in jihad – or holy war – and die in a terrorist attack, said Katharina Breuer, a spokeswoman for North Rhine-Westphalia state police...."

The pair were apparently headed for Pakistan, and my guess is that they were going to team up with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or some other outfit with bases there.

Pirates and Booty on the High Seas

Sounds like the sort of book you buy in a grocery, doesn't it?

It's quite real, though: "A Ukrainian ship carrying tanks and ammunition has been seized by pirates off the coast of Kenya, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry told CNN...."

The Faina, flying a Belize flag, was carrying tanks, ammunition, and spare parts from Nikolayev, Ukraine, to the Kenyan port of Mombasa. Kenya had bought them from Ukraine.

There's a Russian patrol ship, the Neustrashimy, headed for Somalia. It looks like Russia doesn't approve of pirates interfering with trade. Can't say that I blame them.

Remember the Barbary Pirates?

My guess is that not too many people think of the Barbary pirates when reading the day's headlines. History isn't a really hot subject in today's culture.

But America and the European nations were facing a serious problem back in the early nineteenth century. Actually, it was a problem that had been going on for a long time. The short version is that an American president finally decided that the traditional diplomatic approach to the Barbary pirate question wasn't working, and sent troops in to sort out the problem.

It took fourteen years, but America rooted out the pirates, and ended raids that had been going on for two and a half centuries. (More about the Barbary pirates: "Barbary Pirates, Tribute, and Tripoli" (November 12, 2007).)

In the news:

Monday, November 12, 2007

Barbary Pirates, Tribute, and Tripoli

Why aren't the Barbary pirates, Tripoli, and Algeria being cited in discussions about the War on Terror?

Contemporary culture, in America at least, has what I'd call historical myopia. I get the impression that, for most people, anything that happened BB (Before Beatles) seems to be ancient history, and anything before James Dean is roughly contemporaneous with the last ice age.

Many people's "well of the past" is hardly more than a muddy puddle. That may explain why the Barbary pirates aren't part of the public debate on the war on terror.

The Barbary pirates had a good thing going for over two and a half centuries. Operating from seaports in present-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, they made piracy pay from about 1550 to 1816. At first, they were conventional pirates, simply attacking and robbing ships that passed through their territory. The Ottoman Empire claimed to hold those lands, but sea rovers or corsairs - classy pirates - actually controlled the Barbary Coast

European shipping in the Mediterranean suffered from this piracy, until 1662. That's when England revived the ancient custom of paying tribute. This application of practical diplomacy was an immediate success. England paid the corsairs gold, jewels, arms, and supplies: and the corsairs didn't hit English ships.

Paying tribute caught on, and it wasn't long before all countries trading in the Mediterranean were employing this diplomatic means of avoiding conflict.

England paid tribute for the North American British colonies until they became the United States of America. The Dey of Algiers seized an American ship in 1785: and jailed its crew for nonpayment of tribute.

The United States didn't pay tribute at first, but the Dey of Algiers seemed willing to wait for his money. He found that it was profitable - and fairly safe - to capture American ships, since the new country didn't have much of a navy. His forces plundered eleven American ships and held one hundred and nineteen survivors for ransom in the next nine years.
That situation reminds me of the sixties and early seventies, when terrorists routinely took hostages, made demands, and got what they wanted. That golden age of terrorism ended, in my opinion, when a particularly exuberant group murdered a number of young athletes in Munich.

That exercise left a very bad taste, and a little later, in 1973, America settled on a 'no concessions policy. The immediate trigger for that decision was the murder of two diplomats.
Back to the Barbary pirates.

President Washington tried to find a diplomatic solution, but the corsairs were happy with things as they were, and the European powers ridiculed America's efforts to free the captives.

That was the late 1700s: Not much has changed, has it?

When John Adams became president, he followed the wisdom of the older European powers, and paid tribute to Algiers.

Then, Tunis and Tripoli demanded tribute. And got it. Remember, the American policy was one of diplomatic engagement: finding out what the Barbary pirates wanted, and giving it to them.

By the time Thomas Jefferson became president, about a fifth of the American government's income was going to the Barbary states. America developed a new strategy: trying to stop the pirates by military force.

That was 1801. Although there had been some victories, including the one that inspired the "Shores of Tripoli" song. The job was far from over when the war between England and America (1812-1814) sidetracked anti-piracy efforts. Besides, after 1812, there wasn't much of an American navy.

In 1815, America formally declared hostilities against Algiers. Algiers fell. Tunis was next on the list. The Dey of Tunis, groomimg his beard with a diamond-encrusted comb, complained "Why do they send wild young men to treat for peace with the old powers?" He also paid $46,000 to the Americans, who went away. Remember: that's 46 grand in early-nineteenth-century money.

The "old powers" didn't get any more tribute from America. And, seeing what America had done, European nations decided that they didn't need to bankroll the Barbary states, either.
The War on Terror isn't a re-run of the conflict with the Barbary states, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda aren't corsairs.

Just the same, there's something to be learned from the Barbary confrontation.
  • Diplomacy and concession work, for a while
  • Using military force doesn't always result in disaster
  • Things take time
"Things take time" may be the most important lesson. Dealing with the Barbary pirates took about 14 years: 12, if you take out the War of 1812.

I'll be surprised if the War of Terror is over that soon: but I've been wrong before.

There's a pretty good recounting of the Barbary pirates in American history in "Terrorism In Early America The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States To End International Blackmail and Terrorism" - and there's a virtually identical article at history-world.org. Also, a pretty good timeline at (what else?) "Timeline of Piracy."
Last week I Said that I'd cut back to one post a week, on Monday, unless "something genuinely major happens." Well, I couldn't resist the temptation on Friday, or Sunday, or today. We'll see what happens this week.

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.