SOMALI PIRATES - Printer Friendly

EWRoss.com

SOMALI PIRATES

Does What We Call Them Make a Difference?

by Ed Ross

April 13, 2009

How should America deal with Somali pirates now that they've attempted to seize a US merchant ship and the hostage situation involving Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama has been resolved. Does what we call them make a difference?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to them as criminals. US Navy personnel negotiated with them before Navy SEALS killed three pirates and freed Phillips. Others, however, have called them terrorists and suggested that the Obama administration’s reference to them as criminals was part of an attempt to rewrite the lexicon and return to a pre-9/11 mindset on terrorism. Every American is happy that Phillips was rescued unharmed; President Obama and the US Navy deserve praise for Phillips successful rescue. Now, however, what we call these pirates, some fear, could determine what we do about the them in the future.

If President Obama hadn't decided to close the Guantanamo detention facility or his administration hadn't introduced those curious terminology changes, Obama's critics might not be so concerned. Deciding to close Guantanamo and move many of its inmates into the US prison and court systems signals a return to the pre-9/11 strategy of regarding terrorism as a criminal justice problem rather than an act of war against the United States. Rebranding “the war on terror” as “overseas contingency operations” and “terrorist attacks” as “man-made disasters” only reinforces the perception that’s what the Obama administration intends to do. It also brings into question what he'll do about Somali pirates.

The real problem, of course, isn't what to call Somali pirates but what to do about them, unless we hide behind labels to avoid doing what's necessary.

For starters, piracy on the high seas is recognized as a crime both in the US Constitution and by the United Nations. Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 10 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines piracy as “any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft.”

The language in both these documents is subject to interpretation. Words like felonies and private ends suggest many will conclude that piracy, like terrorism before 9/11, is an international criminal justice problem. The last time we had a pirate problem, however, it took a war to resolve it, and the language of the US Constitution gave Congress the power to authorize it.

In 1784, the United States Congress allocated money for payment of tribute (extortion) to the Barbary States to protect US ships from Barbary pirates, as Great Britain and other European countries had. It instructed our ambassadors to Britain and France, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, to negotiate peace treaties with Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, and Tripoli.

The price they demanded for these treaties, however, greatly exceeded the amount that Congress had budgeted; and shortly after Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, when the Pasha of Tripoli demanded more money, Jefferson sent in the US Navy and Marines. In the treaty concluding the Barbary Coast War of 1801-1805, however, the United States still paid $60,000 in ransom to the Pasha for the return of US sailors in his custody.

Interestingly, the Islamic extremists of their day often used the Quŕan to justify their actions and routinely beheaded sailors captured on the high seas or US Marines in battle, a behavior Somali pirates so far have not emulated. We still call US Marines “leathernecks” because of the leather collars they wore under their tunics to protect them from the knives and swords of Islamic pirates and warriors.

Since 2005, Somali pirates, belonging to one of at least five pirate gangs, have attacked no less than 90 ships. Approximately 230 crew members are currently still in pirate hands, including 16 seized on April 11, 2009. Shipping companies and governments have negotiated with them and paid out tens of millions of dollars in ransom.

Unlike terrorists, however, Somali pirates have rarely harmed their hostages and returned them and their ships after the ransom has been paid. They don’t openly claim an affiliation with al-Qaeda, Somalia's own al-Shabab, or other terrorist organizations.

Nevertheless, if we're going to put an end to the Somali pirates problem, sooner or later we'll likely have to do what we did in the early 1800s--send in the troops to destroy their camps and safe harbors and take some of their leaders out. That's when what we call them will be important.

The Horn of Africa in the 21st century is both a breeding ground for terrorists, as was and is Afghanistan, and for pirates. Somalis are Sunni Muslims. Al-Qaeda and Somalia's al-Shabab are a Sunni Islamist extremist movements. We can't afford to assume there's no connection between the pirates and the terrorists and that none of the tens of millions of dollars extorted in ransom by the pirates ends up in the terrorist coffers.

Designating Somali pirates as both criminals and terrorists has advantages. It provides the US with greater flexibility. We can prosecute captured pirates as criminals, as we do many terrorists, but we also can more readily use US military resources to go after the bases and infrastructure from which pirates launch their attacks. In doing so, with the help of other affected countries, we can reduce if not eliminate Somali pirate attacks on international shipping. At the same time we can deprive al-Qaeda and al-Shabab of additional sources of income and send the world a strong message that the US will not tolerate acts of piracy or terrorism against its property or its people.

Somali pirates may not be Jihadist; otherwise a lot more blood already would have been spilled. But they are part of the broader problem of failed and failing states from which much terrorism and piracy emanate. We should not allow terminology to prevent us from doing what's necessary to protect American citizens and property. The United States should treat Somali pirates as both criminals and terrorist.