The US has deliberately done nothing much to deal with the problem of piracy in the waters off the Horn of Africa; the idea was that this would instill a sense of urgency in other nations that had more at stake. One problem has been that nobody knew what to be done with pirates if caught; there is no local government capable of the job. All this may be changing. The Navy has announced the creation of a new body, CTF-151 (CTF stands for Combined Task Force), that will be a coalition fleet of vessels from several “interested” nations. Furthermore it appears that the State Department has reached an agreement with a nearby nation to serve as the venue in which captured pirates will be tried (there is no way to be sure, but it appears it might be Kenya). It looks like this may all get going soon after the inauguration on Tuesday.
If you are interested in this sort of thing, you should read this briefing on the subject by Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Central Command, U.S. 5TH Fleet, Vice Adm. William Gortney, given on January 15th. And as always with matters naval, go to Information Dissemination for analysis.
5 Comments
While I don’t sympathize with the criminal actions of these pirates, the following site is an interesting resource that helps put things into a perspective you won’t find in the MSM. Assuming their call to victim status is meritorious, their options for justice would seem to be quite limited. Revenge will have to suffice.
http://www.biyokulule.com/view_content.php?articleid=1677
Also, there is a semi-autonomous “Somaliland” in the north (former British Somaliland) that is politically a far cry from the (also Muslim) barbarians in the south. They have a presence on the web and are fighting, more or less diplomatically, for independence.
Finally, lest anyone think Somalia is a hot and barren desert, it is in fact a hot spot for biodiversity with high levels of endemism in fauna and especially flora. This is particularly true in the northern and central limestone scarp areas. Among the world’s semi-arid tropical countries it is one of the most exciting for its natural history. Traveling and naturalizing there is another matter.
Welcome, Hannon. I don’t think you’ve commented here before.
A very interesting article, and one I will pass along. While I have no inclination to romanticize piracy, certainly it should come as no surprise that the stewardship of the seas by the great powers has been less than saintly.
Piracy, of course, will not be tolerated. Commerce is the life-blood of civilization, and the transit of goods must be safeguarded. This is as true now as it was in Roman times; the first job of a healthy polity is to make the roads safe from freebooters.
Hey Hannon,
I’m rather glad to see you appearing. I appreciate your link. Too many at present are simply not aware of the context in which this particular instance of piracy has arisen.
Without getting into too much detail, I’ve had some experience (sometimes extensive- sometimes less so) with Somalia since the late eighties. I have some familiarity with HW’s (US initiative) which began, as I view it, as “promising.” It was only after the hand-off to the UN that things began to rapidly become less so, culminating in the infamous “Blackhawk Down” story, many of the details of which (from the Somali perspective) are virtually unknown.
From my own, personal viewpoint things were set on the present course during the Clinton Administration’s decision to send in the Marines to dis-engage the beseiged UN contingent (which incidentally I fault for not having the “balls”, or maybe the “smarts”, to realize they should’ve been engaging with the entire Somali polity, such as existed) while at the same time not decreeing some individuals as “outlaws.”
The state of present day affairs where Somalia is concerned is, as you seem to suggest, far more entangled and complicated than what the world at large has any coherent clue to. Indeed the world at large has some “stain” on it’s own hands where the people of Somalia are concerned.
Currently, while I remain “an interested bystander” I am relegated to be interested and my focus is, as I see it, unfortunately, a non-influential one. Unfortunately (for the Somalis) they may be about to play (in a bit part) a role in a greater global play which due to the so-called GWOT will hopefully result in a futherance of “Great Power” development which may in turn (it is my hope) also result in dividends for the Somalis themselves.
Again, thank you Sir.
Thanks Malcom and JK for your welcome. As Malcom knows from my posting on his more recent entry “Peace in Our Time”, I am not especially a fan of UN work in these areas. As you suggest, an armed “peacekeeping force” without a moral compass is often worse than useless.
Interruption of fighting by the interjection of UN Peacekeepers can allow both sides to continuously rearm and a conflict that might have ended in a few years goes on for decades with no resolution in sight. This is not “peacekeeping” it is *warkeepning* and it goes on because of int’l politics and because in the modern age of equivalency we cannot stand to let war to its logical, historical and purposive conclusion: decisive victory for one side. This can lead to outcomes of peace for many generations, though not always.
I did not mean to go on a “war rant” and Somalia is especially complex. Probably there is no broad solution for the country as a whole, and it may make more sense to divide the country if it will calm hostilities. Or would that only legitimize hostilities? Did the establishment of Eritrea help regional relations? I don’t know.
The main question is what groups are more barbaric by nature and who are the more civilized parties? If we say that no one is a barbarian (or that they are all barbarians) then we have no case to interfere internally whatsoever. However, if a backward and violent group poses a threat to neighboring tribes who are seeking peace and/or autonomy, or a threat to neighboring countries, then we or the UN might assist if we are asked for help. But it is not our job (the West) to rescue people from their own lawlessness.
Probably no one reading this needs the reminder, but the UN is like many organizations whose people on the ground possess invaluable knowledge and wisdom but little of this permeates the decision-making layer or bureaucracy. “Enlightenment” is not a goal of policy wonks. I would hope that in a smaller, increasingly complex world there is an increasing interest for regular folks to learn that every conflict has more dimensions and historical elaborateness than the MSM will ever be willing or able to convey. From there perhaps some of that awareness will travel “upstream”.
Hannon,
I think you’re spot on as to diagnosis, but I fear we’ll disagree as to treatment.
The UN as currently structured does indeed possess “invaluable knowledge” perhaps wisdom, but again, as currently structured has little interest, indeed a reticence to involve itself in what all, even the most casual observer understands must be a more “active role.” For the so-clled “UN Peacekeepers” force (to be effective – in any sense) must, at some point choose a side.
For better or worse, Somalia perhaps provides the best, most extant example.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/so.html
I believe it is generally recognized that following the downfall of the Siad Barre government, there existed an hstorical moment (and all history consists of moments) where in the immediate aftermath, warlordism began to present itself (although personally I reject the notion of warlord as opposed to consolidation of “turf”) there existed a “perhaps” period of time when the Somalis may’ve been able to construct for themselves some sort of general government. I doubt that it would have been what we in the West recognize as demonstrably “democratic” but nonetheless could have been a functioning, consolidated, more or less consensus based polity.
Now part of this developed problem is the fault of the US, as I see it, we were too willing to hand off the problem to an obviously dysfunctional, unwilling UN which has a demonstrated habit of adopting a sort of “neighborhood think” which I personally believe derives from wherever the UN ultimately decides to locate it’s Headquarters (HQ) in. Basically what I’m saying is, people have a tendency to agree with their neighbors and to distrust even vilify their counterparts living across the river. (Even some Bloggers have come to recognize this phenomenon.)
However for the UN to be effective it can never be all things to all people, it must choose a side. There is a side which chooses equality before and under the law (admitting it’s imperfections – but given time those imperfections tend to right themselves) and then there is Shariya, which admits to no imperfection, at least within the lifetime of an accused.
Hannon, I expect that we rather agree more than we disagree. Except for my last point. At least insofar as means goes. As I’ve said, the UN cannot be all things to all people, it must choose a side. Here I suspect is where we may diverge.
UN APC’s (Armored Personnel Carriers) sitting on intersections, blue helmeted and what-not will never be an effective means of “motivating individuals/groups/etc” unless the lines of demarcation are clearly drawn and enunciated, and the blue helmets are given orders to, “Return fire – Fire at will.”