Pirate Politics Need Serious Revision

I want to apologize in advance for something: I am about to sound like a neo-conservative. Forgive me, everyone else, for I will sin. I must, however, take issue with the United States government’s response to the issue of piracy off the Somali coast. Politics aside, it seems clear to me that the response to the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama earlier this month, and even more so the conflict immediately following the hijacking, should have elicited a stronger response from President Barack Obama.

Here is a brief overview of the events. On April 8, 2009, the Norfolk, Va., based cargo ship Maersk Alabama was boarded and hijacked by four Somali pirates, thus forcing the ship’s 21 crew members into an engine room for self-preservation. The Alabama’s crew later took back the ship from the pirates as Captain Richard Phillips, a three-decade veteran of the maritime trade, allowed himself to be taken captive by the pirates to ensure his crew’s safety. The buccaneers then managed to escape with Phillips and nine days’ worth of food rations on one of the ship’s lifeboats, allowing the crew to resume control over their ship. The next day, American destroyer U.S.S. Bainbridge reached the Alabama, which was then escorted towards the Kenyan coast. While the cargo ship made it to Mombassa on April 11, the Bainbridge was in a stand-off with the pirates until the next day, when it was determined that Captain Phillips’s life was in imminent danger and Navy SEALs opened fire on the lifeboat, killing three of the pirates and rescuing Phillips.

The immediate (and understandable) reaction is that the U.S. did well and that we showed those pirates who was boss. Not so fast. Two days later, on April 14, another American ship, the MV Liberty Sun, underwent an attempted boarding by pirates and, although the attempt was thwarted, sustained bulkhead damage. Once again, the Bainbridge was called in to save the day, escorting the Liberty Sun to Mombassa. It seems pretty clear to me that the response ordered by Obama was less than effective in its execution; if he was trying to assert American dominance over American property (the ships; I am not trying to make any imperialist claims about foreign seas), he failed.

In the case of Phillips and the Alabama, Obama’s specific directive was that no action should be taken against the pirate-commandeered lifeboat unless it was clear that Phillips’s life was in imminent danger. For the record, this situation would mean that the pirates could have killed the captain pretty much instantly, certainly faster than any American crew in another ship (or even Navy SEALs) could have helped him. A more appropriate response would have been to implement immediate, non-lethal response. It would appear that our president is assuming that any force the United States Navy would use would be lethal by default. In fact, had a response such as this one been authorized, it is entirely possible that the U.S. would now have all four pirates in captivity, being questioned, rather than only one and the rest of them dead.

If there had been a greater showing of United States force, especially in this manner, the second hijacking attempt would likely have been avoided. Instead, when the president-authorized response involves a sudden hail of bullets killing three men, pirates will probably act more brazenly. Imagine, if you will, that you are a pirate in the Gulf of Aden. You obviously would like to get a hold of foreign ships and their cargos for your own benefit. Having seen the reaction to the Maersk hijacking, you know that U.S. forces will act only if you place people’s lives in imminent danger. The response is simple enough: do not try to kill anyone and you will be able to walk off with your spoils. If, however, you know that attempting to hijack a ship will probably lead to a military response (even if it is non-lethal) regardless of the risk to life, you probably are not going to go through with the plan. This all makes sense, no? However, as with anything, you have to look at the situation through all possible lenses to get the clearest picture and thus implement the best response.

You may be wondering what precious cargo Maersk Alabama was carrying. Was it oil? Rubber? Raw materials for steel or some other valuable alloy? None of the above: all 17,000 metric tons (more than 37 million pounds) of the ship’s cargo consisted of United Nations food aid bound for Mombassa, Kenya. MV Liberty Sun was also carrying food aid to Kenya. This immediately changes the situation, as we must alter our beliefs as to why the hijacking occurred. Since the pirates were clearly not looking for monetary value in the cargo, we cannot apply the same logic to them that we would an oil-funded despot or, dare I say, ourselves. We are then left to assume that the pirates are operating for purposes of pride and/or glory, emotions with which we can all identify, or food. Bloggers on the left are quick to point out the likely causes of these desires. It would appear that, for decades, the developed West has been essentially siphoning off the oil, food and other necessary products that nations in and around the Horn of Africa have produced. They are, it seems, merely trying to take back what is theirs. The logic behind this is, admittedly, a bit faulty; it is not the fault of anyone currently in power or living in countries like the United States and Italy that their predecessors did these deeds. At the same time, however, we must recognize that our predecessors did what they did, and we need to look at the whole picture when dealing with the problem.

Thus, I propose that while a stronger response to the problem of Somali pirate attacks, on a case-by-case basis, is necessary, the United States’ response cannot stop there. We need to see what has caused these problems and figure out, with other developed nations, how to remedy them. It is only by looking at responses and opinions from both sides of the political spectrum that we can solve this problem.