Somali Pirates

Yeah, that account seems to be the product of the imagination of the author--it is certainly not based on Captain Johnson, or any c0ntemporary records of which i know. I could write many paragraphs about what is wrong with that narrative. I once did a thread on pirates, which some members occasionally post to whenever something about sailing vessels comes up in the news. I linked it once in another thread (an early thread about piracy in east African waters), but the post was removed. For some reason, the moderators (or one of them who was a friend of the thread author, i never knew, of course) did not want me linking that thread in other threads. However, you might be able to find it if you search for a thread entitled "What shall we do with a drunken sailor?" Someone recently started a thread with a nearly identical title--mine was started about five or six years ago.

Most of the English-speaking world thinks Caribbean when the subject of pirates comes up, but in fact, Africa was the venue for most piracy by Europeans. All ships returning to Europe from the "spice islands" and India and China sailed via the Bight of Benin (also known as "the Slave Coast"), so pirates tended to hang out there to prey upon them. Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts was killed while operating in those waters. In a brief career (most pirate's careers were brief, with the exception of some of the notorious pirates of the "golden age" of piracy in the Caribbean, when the Spanish were just not able militarily to deal with the problem), he is alleged to have amassed more plunder than any other pirate of the heyday of European piracy--it is said to have exceeded one million pounds sterling, which in the early 18th century was an astronomical sum. He took a frigate (allegedly-- French, i think, although its an incredible claim), and began to prey upon the east Indies shipping in the Bight of Benin, and whenever pirates got that bold, the Royal Navy (of either England or France, or both) made a point of hunting them down and putting them out of business. Robert's ship was being chased by a Royal Navy frigate (English), and with an incredible freak shot, the frigate's bow chaser decapitated Roberts as he stood on his quarterdeck. Blackbeard was hunted down and killed by the crews of two sloops commanded by a Royal Navy lieutenant, and provided by subscription of merchants in Virginia and the Carolinas. Blackbeard was one of the few pirate commanders who actually acted like a naval officer, and he fought the boarders until he was killed. It was alleged that he had 20 bullet wounds or cutlass wounds when his body was examined after the fight. Ironically, he was one of the least bloodthirsty--if a ship resisted, he killed everyone on board--but if they surrendered, he allowed no one to be killed, and saw to it that the crew were put in boats with food and water and a good shot at making a safe land-fall. This became quickly known, and he took most ships with ease. Henry Morgan and l'Olonnais preyed on the Spanish in the Caribbean, and, as i said, the Spanish were just overwhelmed by the English, Dutch and French piracy, and most pirates on the Spanish Main in the 17th century operated with virtual impunity. When Spanish prizes grew thin at the beginning of the 18th century, pirates began to attack French, English and Dutch shipping, and their navies quickly put almost all of the pirates out of business. After about 1720, piracy in the Caribbean was largely restricted to small vessels with small crews who operated from coastal waters on Spanish islands (usually from Cuba) and who preyed on local coast-wise shipping, avoiding murder and letting ships go when they had been plundered, so as not to attract the unwelcome attention of the English or French Royal Navies, which would have had no problem with landing on Spanish territory to extirpate a nest of pirates.

But in the 17th century, the really rich grounds for piracy by Europeans were the waters off the east coast of Africa (ironic old world, innit?), where the east India merchantmen could be taken, as well as the often rich prizes of Muslim nations. Captain Kidd was actually a respected privateer who took Adventure Galley--a fine new frigate built for his use--to the waters off east Africa and the Arabian peninsula, and was then (allegedly) forced to turn to piracy by his crew--which is not actually that unusual in the annals of privateering and piracy. John "Calico Jack" Rackham, who would have been eminently forgettable had he not hooked up with Anne Bonny, was originally the Quartermaster of a letter of marque, who was elected captain by a mutinous crew who decided their captain was "shy" (i.e., a coward, and therefore no money maker). Most pirates in the Caribbean and off the coast of North America were just looking for specie (gold and silver coin) and booze--wine was okay, but what they really wanted was rum. Blackbeard's log shows that he kept his crew happy by keeping them drunk, and when rum or wine ran low, mutinous grumbling usually broke out. Blackbeard was another privateer who allegedly turned to piracy when the war ended (in that case, the War of the Spanish Succession, which ended in 1713).

But the real money was in the east African waters, and some pirates lasted for years by concentrating on Muslim shipping, and only taking European shipping if it was known that two nations were at war, in which case they would raise the requisite colors and plunder their victim. The Muslim shipping was the real prize though--you could plunder a ship from Mecca bound for Basra, and then put into Muscat the next day, sell the entire cargo and sell the crew as slaves, and put to sea virtually without fear of punishment. The biggest danger to European pirates in those waters was other pirates--competition was keen and there were a lot of pirates chasing the available resources. Piracy in those waters by Europeans was not finally extirpated until the Wars of the French Revolution and the Wars of Napoleon, when both the English and the French kept relatively large squadrons on station there, and protected Muslim shipping in return for rights to port facilities and supplies. By the beginning of the 18th century, England, France and Holland had highly professional navies, even if much of their crew were pressed or convicts, and pirates simply couldn't deal with them. The waters off east Africa and the Arabian peninsula were the last area in the world where European pirates could operate with safety, and a good expectation of good booty. Piracy by locals (chiefly "Vietnamese", Malay or "overseas" Chinese) was sufficiently virulent that both the Dutch East India Company and the English East India company armed their vessels to the point that they were virtual frigates, although usually having, of course, smaller crews, and using "beamier" vessels meaning they didn't sail as well as a military frigate, but could carry large cargoes. East Indiamen were so well armed that both the Royal Navy and the French Navy of Napoleon commandeered them and used them as consorts for their frigates in the Indian Ocean.

Fascinatin' subject . . . but i'll leave off now.

The headline of this BBC report might look a bit strange ...



... but it deals with the EU's anti-pirates concept:

Might be of some interest: This site >Pirates, Ports and Partners: Maritime Security in the 21st Century< provides free access to audiofiles and transcripts from a conference on maritime security jointly sponsored by the Atlantic Council and the U.S. Naval War College which took place in October 2009.
(Topics covered include incidents involving pirates off the coast of Somalia.)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/01/02/somalia.hijacking/index.html

I think that it is safe to say that what ever we in the civilized world are doing to protect our assets along the Somali coast ain't working.

Why not nuke 'em? We'll tell our friends to look the other way.

the solution is known, it is military run convoys, but the ship owners think that paying pirates is cheaper. And it might be, for them, but what about the rest of us? What is the cost to the international community of one load of chemicals and crude dumped at sea by the pirates trying to punish a owner for not paying the ransom fast enough? Owning the ships does not give them the right to dictate to the rest of us how pirates are dealt with.

but the shipping companies have in fact decided that is usually cheaper for them to pay the pirates .
since many/most ships now operate under a " flag of convenience " it will be very difficult indeed to tell the shipping lines what to do .

( but i do agree with you hawk - the shipping lines should NOT be allowed to dictate how to deal with pirates ) .

a situation that must be addressed, but for which we are no were near being willing to address.

Jesus you spew bullshit. Ship owners aren't dictating anything. The decision to deploy naval resources to the horn of Africa are dictated by the financial considerations of those nations with a naval force having a credible opportunity to provide real protection to shipping. Those nation with such naval resources make their decisions about deploying their assets based on what they are willing to spend, not what shipping companies think about the issue. The United States Navy has done far less than they could, but then our military expenditures are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. They Royal Navy has done little, and once again, their military expeditures are presently committed to military ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Indian Navy in the last year provided effective patrol operations in the gulf of Aden and off the horn of Africa, and on one occasion sank one of the pirate vessels. Indian has no significant military commitments to distract them, and they are free to spend their military budget in that manner if they want. But if the Americans, the English and the French are not stepping up to the plate, why would a nation like India want to do the heavy lifting? They have a lot less at stake.

When England and France were locked in combat in the era of the Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, the corsairs of North Africa took it as an opportunity to run rampant in the Med. The United States responded, and enjoyed a modest success, but then was drawn into naval war with England in 1812. With the final defeat of Napoleon and the end of the War of 1812, both England and the United States returned to the problem of the Barbary corsairs, and by 1816, it was all over. The militarily sophisticated nations of the world have the resources to deal with this problem, but their priorities are focused elsewhere, just as were those of the Royal Navy and the French Navy until 1815. As bad a problem, or worse, exists in the Straits of Molucca, but it is of little interest to the great naval powers. It has only been recently that Malaysia and Indonesia have reluctantly agreed to intensive patrolling in the Straits.

Piracy is as old a profession as the alleged oldest profession. And the extirpation of piracy is as old a military venture. Iulius Caesar's first military venture was to extirpate pirates in the eastern Med more than 2000 years ago. The pirates of east Africa have survived because no one has taken the lead, and no one has deployed the resources necessary to wipe them out. As long as Somalia is a failed state, and an anarchic region, it will be a haven for this scum, and as long as it is profitable to the organized criminal organizations which fund them it will continue. No one wants to do anything about Somalia, and it's now been two decades since it collapsed into anarchy.

There is a similar problem on the west coast of Africa. Once again, it's a matter of whose ox is being gored. It's not a problem for the United States Navy or the Royal Navy, so nothing effective gets done. The nations of western Africa have no serious navies, so nothing gets done.

Shipping companies don't dictate to anyone other than the handful of low level politicians they can afford to buy. They don't set military priorities for the nations which are truly naval powers.

some background info on the widespread use of " flag of convenience " :

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/xf-conv.html

even some very reputable shipping companies use " F O C " .
the reason usually : lower shipping costs .

we'd probably all have to pay more from imports from china etc. if " F O C "
would not be accetable or would be controlled .
( but who is going to bell THAT cat ? nobody wants to pay more , i believe )

they probably don't even dictate but make " useful suggestions " .

that does give them a SLIGHT advantage , doesn't it ?

A slight advantage over whom? It would give them a slight advantage over anyone who would notionally oppose their agenda. It is not demonstrated, however, that they have an agenda to prevent navies from patrolling the seas off the horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden, nor is it demonstrated that they can dictate military policy to their respective governments. It may be that the executives who control shipping company's policies find it cheaper to just pay ransoms, but that is not demonstrated either, it's just another bullshit ipse dixit claim by the Rapist Boy (a.k.a. Hawkeye). And one has to ask, cheaper than what? The shipping companies are not directly billed by navies which patrol the region. The Indian Navy decided to intervene in the Gulf of Aden (and did so effectively) because their own national shipping passes through those waters on the way to and from European customers.

Hawkeye has just made another of his typical unsubstantiated claims, and as is so often the case, it just doesn't even make any sense.

by the practice of putting ships at risk of being hijacked, and by paying the pirates, they are dictating the continuation of successful piracy. Owners have the option of paying for escort, and paying for armed guards on each ship, but they refuse.

The way I understand it is the global governments would conduct convoy escort service, and pay for it out of public funds, but the ship owners refuse. They say they would lose more money in lost transit days waiting for escort and going on routes that are out of the way then they spend on Pirates. The answer then is to raise the price of doing business with Pirates, or else make doing business with pirates illegal.

interesting comment from the head of shipping company MOLLER-MAERSK :

http://miller-mccune.com/europe/the-politics-of-ransom-1632

There is a third alternative plan that makes sense in the long run.

Take away the economic blight that drives these criminals into piracy in the first place.

Stop the fishing companies from the many European countries from illegally overfishing off of the Somalia coast. Help start up a manufacturing base in the region so the devastating level of unemployment wouldn't force that segment of the population into such dangerous and enticing criminal activity in the first place.

Hence, build up the region's economic infrastructure (which also includes helping them establish a valid educational system as well). And BTW: this is perhaps the best foreign policy to stave off the further mass recruitment of terrorists into the Al Qaeda's of the world.

that would take a generation, if the Somali's decided that they wanted to join civilization, and there is no indication from their past that they do. We can not let the global shipping system be negatively impacted by a handful of backwards humans.

you might be driving the price of fish up - or profits down ... ...
not an idea favoured by many ... but i agree with you in principle .

That assumes that pirates are motivated by a desire to share their ransom procedes with starving fishermen and others affected by overfishing.

no, he is assuming that if the area now known as Somali had the economic resources it would become a country, and the people living in that patch of sand would put a stop to the pirates.

Well enforced security for the shipping lanes now with ongoing infrastructural support if not for this pathetic generation but for the next generation who didn't ask to be born into such a turd of a third world country.