Fool Blog: An Open Letter to Somali Pirates

The Saudis are constrained, as well, by the fact that these pirates are also co-religionists who are sharing wealth with an Islamic insurgency supported by the Wahhabists who also control Saudi Arabia.  Put simply, the Saudis will cough the cash and tack it onto your and my oil bills.  Then they'll pipe up in the U.N. and call for "restraint" when dealing with the pirates.  Don't believe me?  Just watch. 

The Chinese are horrifically dependent on these oil shipments out of the Gulf, but they have vetoed every attempt, in the U.N., to drop the hammer on these two-bit pirates because of fear that some other nation (esp. the U.S.) might use the pretext of anti-piracy action to insert itself into the Horn of Africa, where the Chinese are determined to snag a foothold. 

Like piracy always has, this piracy acts within the interstices allowed by larger geo-political concerns and issues.  The "Pirates of the Caribbean" succeeded because the English, French and Dutch found it useful to protect them and their depredations on Spanish shipping.  Without that protection, the Spaniards would have rapidly run them to ground and Disney would be missing a ride at its theme parks.  Ditto the Barbary Pirates - the piddling and infant US Navy destroyed them with a handful of frigates and Marines, while the French and British and Spanish Navies, all possessed of numerous single ships each mounting more guns than the entire U.S. Navy, did nothing, because they found some advantage, esp. during the Napoleonic War, to allowing the pirates to harass their enemies.

SO, don't look to international action to deal with the problem.  Folks like "Blackwater" are the only answer and that means that the Shells and Exxons and BP's are gonna have to start posting protection on these ships and authorizing the use of all possible force, at which point the pirates will go back to attacking fishermen and yachters. 

The oil companies cannot just hire Blackwater, 3WA, Crushers or whomever to provide armed coverage on their tankers.  

The problem is that armed private citizens, contractors, ship crews, etc would be arrested and thrown in prison at the first port of call.   Especially if the ports know the incoming ships are armed, you'll have "inspectors" doing their best to bust the crews and lock them up.     Afterall, "we cannot have a boat with a heavily armed crew on it!" has been one of the excuses used for cracking down on piracy. 

You can be sure some countries would be thrilled to get the chance to arrest and hassle crews.  Mexican police for one.  The rules about guns are poorly enforced on Mexicans but god forbid somebody comes to port in a cargo ship with even a single bullet in their luggage.  All hell breaks loose.  A crew carrying RPGs or AKs for defense?  The Mexican cops would put that crew so far under the jail, they'd never see the sun again.  

Hell, some countries' police forces are in fact the pirates.  Put on the uniform, go enforce the laws.  Take off the uniform, go break the laws and rob ships.  Happens all the time.

Even if you get a cop who is not also a pirate, cash payments to look the other way  would be required and that's just piracy of another form: extortion.

The only way this could work would be to provide mercenary cover that ends at the territorial waters, which means the pirates just have to wait for the target ships to cross the boundary and it's business as usual.  Is that an effective solution?   Even in international waters, I am not sure mercenary ships would be tolerated by the international policing navies.   Who would want to find out if the Russian Navy would say hello or open fire?

Ok suppose all that is resolved and a Shell manages to put armed security on their tankers.  The family of the first pirate they kill is going to sue them for more money than Shell is worth.   They won't win but it will be a hassle and drag Shell's name through the mud for years.   Big oil picking on poor helpless Somali man, shooting him down, leaving his five wives with 30 kids and no father.   Death to America!  (not that Shell is American, but they'd blame America anyway).

That's why the oil companies are not already doing this.  Nobody gives a damn about a pirate's dead body but it's awful publicity only fixed by paying out big checks to the surviving family members.    

Shell can choose to do it that way and look like jerks for killing "innocent fishermen" (yeah right) and right some checks, or Shell can just pay the pirates and look like a poor company getting screwed.    Most companies choose the latter.  They end up writing the same checks but they look better in the media.

Hey "Just Wondering" I"m wondering where your "head's" at asking such a dumbass question. Looting fish is hardly a fair trade for human life,oil and weapons!!!! There's plenty of fish in the sea...as they say but how the hell do you replace a human life??? When you figure it out let me know....God!

The ships are not already armed because international laws, as well as local laws, mostly prohibit weapons.  What is legal to carry in one country is highly illegal in many others.   Weapons permits and license generally do not carry any power away from the issuing authority.

Weapons enforcement varies but armed crews would be arrested in many countries, regardless of the reason the crew was armed.   Some ships carry significant non-lethal defense because it's the best they can do without breaking laws. 

Military ships are a totally different story.  Cargo ships are not military.  

Somalia has nobody to enforce laws and arrest tanker crews with guns, true.  The problem is the tanker isn't just staying in Somalia.  It has to travel from port to port to port and cross multiple sea borders.  The ships have to worry about all the laws along the way and legally carrying weapons on such a trip would be impossible.  Illegally carrying is another matter.