Pirates off the coast of Somalia have taken their first American hostage, merchant ship Captain Richard Phillips. Can anything be done to stop the brazen sea gangs?
For the first time, pirates off the coast of Somali have taken a U.S. citizen hostage. Captain Richard Phillips of the Danish owned freighter Maersk Alabama is reportedly being held captive on one of the ship's lifeboats.
On Wednesday, at least four gunmen boarded the Maersk Alabama, effectively hijacking the ship for a brief period. The crew of 20 Americans took back control of the vessel, after a confrontation with the pirates. The gunmen escaped onto one of the ship's lifeboats, taking Captain Phillips with them. The crew of the Maersk Alabama has attempted to negotiate the captain's release, to no avail. In response to the kidnapping, a US Navy destroyer has entered the area to help in the rescue effort.
Upsurge in attacks
In recent months, significant international naval efforts have been focused on curbing pirate attacks, in and around the Gulf of Aden. It looked as though these commitments were yielding positive results, but in the last few weeks the pirates have seized five vessels.
The temporary capture of the Maersk Alabama and the kidnapping of her captain is the latest incident in what seems to be a sharp rise in pirate attacks around the Horn of Africa. But Pottengal Mukundan, director of the International Maritime Bureau, says that, there has been no upsurge in attacks:
"We have seen a reduction in the successful hijacking of ships. So what that means is that the pirates were still continuing to attack ships in the Gulf of Aden, and lately in the Somali basin off the East coast of Somali. But they were not succeeding in getting the ships. In the last month, what we have seen is a spike in the number of vessels successfully hijacked." Arming ships
One potential method of deterring piracy off the coast of Somalia is for companies to employ more armed security personnel to protect their ships. Mr Mukundan, however, believes that this approach could make matters worse:
"We feel that arming merchant vessels is not really the answer. Given the current legal framework in which merchant shipping operates, we may be creating more problems than trying to solve them." There are several reasons why arming merchant vessels may not be the best option. First, the presence of armed security agents would not guarantee that fewer ships would be hijacked. Second, the pirates have rarely harmed captives and arming these ships could increase the likelihood of injuries and deaths. Furthermore, if only some ships are armed and others are not, then the armed ships may remain safe while exposing the unarmed ships to increased violence.
Finding a solution
The problem of piracy off the Somali coast does not admit itself to simple solutions. Increasing security at sea will only occur once the volatile situation within Somalia itself is tackled. International naval efforts to stop this piracy may also prove ineffective, given the vast area of sea in which the pirates operate. Mr Mukundan, however, does have a suggestion for how the international community should proceed.
"What we need to do is to focus on the mother-ships, from which the pirates are operating. They are conducting these attacks hundreds of miles off of the coast, and they cannot do it in these small boats. So every time there is an attempted attack, there is a mother-ship nearby."
According to Mr Mukundan, international naval efforts should be aimed at taking out these mother-ships as they are the launching pads for these attacks. The ships could then be brought into ports, disarmed and the crews could then be prosecuted under international law.
Tags:
EU mission,
Horn of Africa,
piracy,
Somalia
ottohedrick,
21-04-2009
- usa
Pottengal Mukundan, director of the International Maritime Bureau is the problem, he has no guts for this bussiness. He should not have the position he holds. Put a real man withj leadership qualitys, not a hand wringer like thjs guy, Where are the real men in this world anyway??
François,
14-04-2009
- Netherlands.
The last time I commented on this pages I suggested a multi pronged approach that would have worked to reduce piracy. The first is a change in maritime law allowing jurisdiction over piracy in international waters and ensuring successful proseution. In the case of Somalia it is possible to extend this to their sovereign territory. The second suggestion was to equip ships with security teams and security defence measures. This could range from electrified peimeters to prevent boarding to greasing the sides of the ship. The crew could also be armed with tasers or other non lethal weapons. Sonic booms and other classified technologies are available for this task. The problem with a shoot on site policy is that it could lead to unfortunate situations like what happened to the Thai fishing ship that was shot by the Indian navy. David Berridge whereas it is commendable that the American hostage was rescued safely it is no guarantee that the next operation will go so well. Already this action has led to calls by the pirates of retaliation against French and American shipping crews. Now dont get me wrong every country has a right to defend it's citizens against pirates, the issue is how to deal with the problem comprehensively. There is no point in losing life when something can be solved in other ways. The problem with some American neo-cons is that the first reaction they have to such issues is a trigger happy antagonistic approach. I dont know what you will say when the next crew of say 20+ Americans is executed by this pirates. I totally oppose this piracy especially on the East African coast because it is making neighbouring countries in the area lose business or increase the cost of business. So a comprehensive approach has to be found. Support to the newly formed federal govt in Somalia and talking to the elders who control these pirates could yield some results. There are better and good ideas out there but cowboy tactics are not the answer they will only lead to escalation and loss of life.
David Berridge,
14-04-2009
- Canada
The Americans pull off a sensational hostage rescue at sea and where is this Forum with the story for contributors to comment on? Are RNW and the moderators of this Forum painfully disappointed that the rescue succeeded so brilliantly?! Judging from the large majority response to this issue, the RNW editorial position has lost the debate beyond any shadow of a doubt.
George Kay,
13-04-2009
- U.S.A.
Would it be possible to navigate far away from the Somalian coast and have sufficient radar equipment on board to detect the approach any mother ships of the pirates?
Thus one could avoid them, and in case the pirates seize a ship, pay ransom with counterfeit and marked banknotes to trace them afterwards.Also, international fishing off the coast of Somalia, to the detriment of local fishermen should be ceased.
Thaddeus P. ,
13-04-2009
- USA
Strange - - I sent in my thoughts yesterday still not Posted
I thought they were very accurate
Dennis,
editor@thenewsfactor.com,
12-04-2009
- USA
THE ANSWER to International piracy is not as complicated as the U.N. & the Obama Administration make it out to be …the answer lies in 2 simple ingredients: 7.62mm minigun + 4 military personnel per ship http://twurl.nl/1zbroq
Eric,
12-04-2009
- USA
I would take issue with the whimpy reasoning (non-reasoning actually) of 2 of Mr Mukundan's aguments against armed ship's security. When I read it, I'm thinking what is wrong with this picture (or lack of logic; no offence intended). He says: "There are several reasons why arming merchant vessels may not be the best option." Of his 3 reasons, I only see one that is even "remotely" logical but still does not answer the problem. His first reason makes no sense whatsoever:
"First, the presence of armed security agents would not guarantee that fewer ships would be hijacked." What is that supposed to mean? It's like saying 'going to the store to buy food may not gurarantee that other people don't lack food'; what does that have to do with anything? you don't buy food; you don't have any food. You don't arm ships, the ships are in same situation "THEY ALREADY ARE IN NOW: no protection".
Only this 2nd one "remotely" makes sense, but it's still not a reason to not arm ships.
"Second, the pirates have rarely harmed captives and arming these ships could increase the likelihood of injuries and deaths." Yes, that could be true, but why is this reasoning ONLY focused on ship's personel? What about the lives lost on land once the pirates get back to their homeland? that doesn't count? If they had been stopped robbing ships, they would have no money to buy weapons to kill others in their homeland and abroad.
Now this last one is also illogical; makes no sense whatsoever. "Furthermore, if only some ships are armed and others are not, then the armed ships may remain safe while exposing the unarmed ships to increased violence." Well.... duh... no armed ships; no protection. JUST like things are already now. no difference. Again, a non-reason. All I can say is this: if you don't do something soon, and this reasoning above prevails, then why not get rid of your police, army, navy altogether? the reasoning above can be applied to them as well, but of course we know that makes no sense.
Thaddeus P.,
11-04-2009
- USA
I Can't believe what I'm reading - only a bunch of passivests - or cowards would run from the obvious - Your letting a few Bath tub Pirates turn y'all into fish mongers - all it takes is to hire several professional sharp shooting military men
knock out the opperation on land and Sea
Why the hell are we paying $100 million to a bunch of dipsticks -Any country that is affrade to defend itself deserves what it gets- And thats a Fact -Think of what that MONEY can do to feed the Hungry
Bill Stout,
11-04-2009
- U.S.A.
I tHINK THAT A CONVOY WITH MILITARY ESCORT IS THE ANSWER. Satialite survalance of the somali area could be used to track the mother ships reveling where the pirates are coming from. when the pirates are ready to attack, blow the mothers out of the water and since you now know where they came from bomb the hell out of there home port. Somalia is not a State but a collection of warlords and have no interlational statis.
Carlos Borjal,
11-04-2009
- USA
Enough of all these useless debates. This case is beyond civilized premises. Hang them all and raze their villages to smithereens. End of story!
Michael Goetz,
11-04-2009
- USA
Why not bring back the Q boats?
Various navies are finally addressing the problem of piracy, but they are finding the challenges of asymmetrical conflict hard to overcome. Pirates overpower vessels with armed men on speedboats. Naval power is hard to use against hostage takers.
Why not bring back the Q boats? In WWI the submarine threat was countered by all manner of vessels that were secretly heavily armed. The tactic was used again in WWII. Seemingly vulnerable civilian vessels would suddenly reveal heavy guns and armed military crews.
The fun might go out of piracy if one in twenty seemingly weak vessels cruising by turns out to be a naval Q boat ready to respond. This would be a low cost and highly effective way to deter the modern scourge of piracy.
David Berridge,
11-04-2009
- Canada
Had a detachment of US marines been on board this ship manning 20mm gattling guns as well as their regular weapons, many starving children would be helped and there would not be a hostage criis to worry about. When the world comes to it's senses about getting tough with pirates, then matters will improve. On my last commentary to this Forum about pirates, I was taken to task by the moderator for my views, now this time an American captain of a ship sailing under the protectection of the American flag is taken hostage. The humour may be ironic but definately not funny. If convoy esscorts don't work, then armed detachments from the countries under the flag these ships sail should be provided on board.
DaSui,
10-04-2009
- usa
"Armed ships are subject to increased violence, but remain safe compared to disarmed ships which may be subject to increased violence."
Which is it?
Rabbit,
10-04-2009
- Netherlands
A holy man was having a conversation with God one day and said, ' God, I would like to know what Heaven and Hell are like.'
God led the holy man to two doors.
He opened one of the doors and the holy man looked in.
In the middle of the room was a large round table. In the middle of the table was a large pot of stew, which smelled delicious and made the holy man's mouth water.
The people sitting around the table were thin and sickly. They appeared to be famished.
They were holding spoons with very long handles, that were strapped to their arms and each found it possible to reach into the pot of stew and take a spoonful.
But because the handle was longer than their arms, they could not get the spoons back into their mouths.
The holy man shuddered at the sight of their misery and suffering.
God said, 'You have seen Hell.'
They went to the next room and opened the door. It was exactly the same as the first one.
There was the large round table with the large pot of stew which made the holy man's mouth water.
The people were equipped with the same long-handled spoons, but here the people were well nourished and plump, laughing and talking.
The holy man said, 'I don't understand.'
It is simple,' said God.
'It requires but one skill.
You see they have learned to feed each other, while the greedy think only of themselves.'
Steve,
10-04-2009
- USA
"The ships could then be brought into ports, disarmed and the crews could then be prosecuted under international law." I agreed until this sentence. So when the pirates fire on Western or Asian ships and then illegally try to board them we should give them a free ticket to the West? Just sink the mothership and leave. They are 500 km out so not our problem at that point. Good for this crew. At least someone made these pirates realize there is some risk to doing this. So far for the pirates it has been like taking candy from a baby.
