I also heard that the French, British, Americans, Chinese, and well... pretty much all the nuclear club were using that area off Somalia as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. When the tsunami hit, the locals discovered this was happening when all the waste washed ashore. That, allegedly, helped spark the piracy. None of the western media outlets report this but the likes of Al Jazeera have been reporting it long before the piracy situation even started making mainstream headlines in the west. There has even been a UN special envoy tasked with investigating the situation.
That's a false choice. I'm proud that the US crew resisted and that the US Navy is involved. The Somalis will be less likely to target US flag ships in the future.
It should be a crime to pay a ransom-- the "negotiators" in these cases are getting a cut of blood money, and the ransom money is going to bankroll criminal gangs.
Current rules of engagement are that a pirate can be apprehended while in the process of committing an act of piracy, but cannot be engaged otherwise.
Left up to the military, nuclear subs would have already torpedoed the pirate motherships and Marines would hit their shore bases (it cannot be coincidence that the task force includes USS Boxer, a ship whose sole purpose is doing forced entries into other countries - you don't use assault ships to patrol shipping lanes).
Yeah, perhaps. It's just a ton of money to tempt people with, relatively speaking.
Putting it all in comparison with a table of purchasing power parity ( ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita ) is revealing.
The average Somali income is apparently 600$ per year. So an average 2 million $ ransom is 3,333 times the average yearly income. Using the same chart, 3,333 times the US number (47,500) is 158.3 million $.
According to the article below, a low level pirate makes 10,000 a year, which puts him 17 times above average. Using the same US comparison this gives him an income of 807,500.
If I could make ~$800,000 a year for doing some morally duplicitous acts, well I'd be earning more than your average lawyer so I guess there'd be a lot of people who wouldn't have a problem doing it.
I can see where these Somali's come from, I likely can't make it through the 10 years to become a lawyer or doctor. However, I could probably pick up a rifle, be good enough of a shot to actually be capable of doing the job and probably wouldn't hurt any more people than if I was a slimeball lawyer or incompetent doctor and would make a lot more money doing it.
It's quite depressing that shooting someone can become an acceptable way out of the society you're placed in. Be it a third world nation (piracy) or a first world nation (going postal).
It's quite depressing that shooting someone can become an acceptable way out of the society you're placed in
You have to remember that these pirates are only really interested in ransoming cargoes - they don't set out to kill the crews like pirates back in the day.
It is interesting they seem to practice something akin to the 'pirate democracy' of 17th and 18th centure pirates. The old pirates also gave every man an equal vote, regardless of previous rank, and the captain was elected by the crew.
According to an interview I just heard on NPR, you stuff a million dollars in a plastic tube, attach a parachute, then fly over the hijacked ship and drop it. Pirates bring bill counters along on raids, so don't think you can shortchange them. Also, make sure during negotiations that the pirates have it all worked out about how much each of them gets: you want a nice orderly transition, free of inconvenient last-minute violence.
Seriously, just have the US/UK/French navies make a joint agreement to immediately destroy any hijacked ship and the problem will solve itself immediately.
Unfortunately, I rarely agree with harsh military action, but when it comes to matters like this the non-military action is largely too complex to consider. We cannot guarantee any money paid to a country like Somalia in aid or whatever would prevent piracy.
The best solution would be to launch attacks on the pirates supply ships. Sadly the cost of keeping a naval ship in the region is likely too high, especially with aircraft carriers being ridiculously large and little to no capability on the small scale.
A craft capable of carrying 2-3 aircraft would be capable of hitting these pirates where it hurts, but a ship carrying 24 aircraft and 5,000 people isn't cost effective to have sit in an ocean for a handful of attacks.
This problem is likely only to get worse, the next carrier in the US fleet will have ~75 aircraft, which if following current metrics will mean a crew of ~15,000.
Honestly, if this situation continues, I wouldn't doubt if companies started spending the money to defend themselves. ~$16 billion is lost in piracy a year, which is enough to buy 3 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and their full compliment.
Current Nimitz class carriers normally carry 48 combat aircraft and 16 support aircraft, and have a crew of 5k-6k (2480 in the air wing, the rest as ship's compliment). The upcoming Gerald R. Ford class will carry more aircraft, but only require about 4600 crew, and be roughly the same size.
But quibbling aside, there is no reason you need to send a carrier group to deal with this situation. The (already dispatched) USS Boxer is an amphibious assault ship that supports helicopters and VTOL aircraft (including Harrier II, SuperCobra, and Sea Knights), which will be more suited for dealing with pirate mother ships and coastal bases. It has a crew of roughly 1000.
"The ship owners and insurers have found that it's more cost-effective to pay ransoms. They are currently averaging slightly over $1 million per vessel, and that's cheaper than buying a new ship," Pham says. "The Saudi tanker that was seized [Monday] was just launched six months ago and cost $150 million to build and the cargo on board is worth $100 million, so I suspect the ship owners will be willing to pay some fraction of that to get it back."
Continuing to pay the ransoms is much better for everyone involved than destroying the ships, except for the governments who want to enforce rule of law.
True, paying ransoms is a better deal for the individual owners of the ships, but at some point you have to optimize for the long-term cost of the entire naval world.
Scorching a few ships with no hesitation would put an end to this line of income, saving everyone money down the line. If the pirates are getting $1 million a week in ransoms, and this trend continues for a long time, that adds up.
Of course I don't expect anyone to sacrifice for the good of the group. It'll probably take government stepping in to make that happen.
It's a Tragedy of the Common thing.