Somali Pirates

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

Somali Pirates Tell Their Side: They Want Only Money

 

By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN

Published: 30 September 2008

 

NAIROBI, Kenya — The Somali pirates who hijacked a Ukrainian freighter loaded with tanks, artillery, grenade launchers and ammunition said in an interview on Tuesday that they had no idea the ship was carrying arms when they seized it on the high seas.

 

“We just saw a big ship,” the pirates’ spokesman, Sugule Ali, said in a telephone interview. “So we stopped it.”

 

The pirates quickly learned, though, that their booty was an estimated $30 million worth of heavy weaponry, heading for Kenya or Sudan, depending on whom you ask.

 

In a 45-minute interview, Mr. Sugule spoke on everything from what the pirates wanted (“just money”) to why they were doing this (“to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters”) to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, “you know, normal human-being food”).

 

He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.”

 

The pirates who answered the phone call on Tuesday morning said they were speaking by satellite phone from the bridge of the Faina, the Ukrainian cargo ship that was hijacked about 200 miles off the coast of Somalia on Thursday. Several pirates talked but said that only Mr. Sugule was authorized to be quoted. Mr. Sugule acknowledged that they were now surrounded by American warships, but he did not sound afraid. “You only die once,” Mr. Sugule said.

 

He said that all was peaceful on the ship, despite unconfirmed reports from maritime organizations in Kenya that three pirates were killed in a shootout among themselves on Sunday or Monday night.

 

He insisted that the pirates were not interested in the weapons and had no plans to sell them to Islamist insurgents battling Somalia’s weak transitional government. “Somalia has suffered from many years of destruction because of all these weapons,” he said. “We don’t want that suffering and chaos to continue. We are not going to offload the weapons. We just want the money.”

 

He said the pirates were asking for $20 million in cash; “we don’t use any other system than cash.” But he added that they were willing to bargain. “That’s deal-making,” he explained.

 

Piracy in Somalia is a highly organized, lucrative, ransom-driven business. Just this year, pirates hijacked more than 25 ships, and in many cases, they were paid million-dollar ransoms to release them. The juicy payoffs have attracted gunmen from across Somalia, and the pirates are thought to number in the thousands.

 

The piracy industry started about 10 to 15 years ago, Somali officials said, as a response to illegal fishing. Somalia’s central government imploded in 1991, casting the country into chaos. With no patrols along the shoreline, Somalia’s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.

 

“From there, they got greedy,” said Mohamed Osman Aden, a Somali diplomat in Kenya. “They starting attacking everyone.”

 

By the early 2000s, many of the fishermen had traded in their nets for machine guns and were hijacking any vessel they could catch: sailboat, oil tanker, United Nations-chartered food ship.

 

“It’s true that the pirates started to defend the fishing business,” Mr. Mohamed said. “And illegal fishing is a real problem for us. But this does not justify these boys to now act like guardians. They are criminals. The world must help us crack down on them.”

 

The United States and several European countries, in particular France, have been talking about ways to patrol the waters together. The United Nations is even considering something like a maritime peacekeeping force. Because of all the hijackings, the waters off Somalia’s coast are considered the most dangerous shipping lanes in the world.

 

On Tuesday, several American warships — around five, according to one Western diplomat — had the hijacked freighter cornered along the craggy Somali coastline. The American ships allowed the pirates to bring food and water on board, but not to take weapons off. A Russian frigate is also on its way to the area.

 

Lt. Nathan Christensen, a Navy spokesman, said on Tuesday that he had heard the unconfirmed reports about the pirate-on-pirate shootout, but that the Navy had no more information. “To be honest, we’re not seeing a whole lot of activity” on the ship, he said.

 

In Washington, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, declined to discuss any possible American military operations to capture the ship.

 

“Our concern is right now making sure that there’s a peaceful resolution to this, that this cargo does not end up in the hands of anyone who would use it in a way that would be destabilizing to the region,” Mr. Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon. He said the United States government was not involved in any negotiations with the pirates. He also said he had no information about reports that the pirates had exchanged gunfire among themselves.

 

Kenyan officials continued to maintain that the weapons aboard were part of a legitimate arms deal for the Kenyan military, even though several Western diplomats, Somali officials and the pirates themselves said the arms were part of a secret deal to funnel weapons to southern Sudan.

 

Somali officials are urging the Western navies to storm the ship and arrest the pirates because they say that paying ransoms only fuels the problem. Western diplomats, however, have said that such a commando operation would be very difficult because the ship is full of explosives and the pirates could use the 20 crew members as human shields.

 

Mr. Sugule said his men were treating the crew members well. (The pirates would not let the crew members speak on the phone, saying it was against their rules.) “Killing is not in our plans,” he said. “We only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger.”

 

When asked why the pirates needed $20 million to protect themselves from hunger, Mr. Sugule laughed and said, “Because we have a lot of men.”

 

Wikipedia links:

Somalia

Piracy in Somalia

List of ships attacked by Somali pirates

Eyl (pirate haven)

Xarardheere (pirate haven)

Economy of Somalia

Anarchy in Somalia

 

Excellent articles:

Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse (3 February 2006, WVU.)

Somalia after state collapse: chaos or improvement? (30 November 2006, Independent Institute.)

The rule of law without the state (12 September 2007, Mises Institute.)

Life in Somalia's pirate town (18 September 2008, BBC.)

The dismemberment of Somalia (6 October 2008, Somali Musings.)

Pirates live the high life, transform villages into boomtowns (19 November 2008, AP.)

The physiology of a nation at war (27 November 2008, Wardheed News.)

No way to stop us, pirate leader says (1 December 2008, CNN.)

Captured by pirates, ship captain recounts ordeal (2 December 2008, NBC.)

Mercenaries, sonic blasters no match for pirates (2 December 2008, Wired.)

Pirates don't like loud noises (3 December 2008, Salon.)

How do you pay a pirate's ransom? (3 December 2008, BBC.)

Somali pirates thrive after U.S. helped oust their Islamic foes (4 December 2008, Bloomberg.)

The poor fishermen of Somalia (4 December 2008, Spiegel.)

What I learned from the Somalia pirates (5 December 2008, Mareeg.)

The unlicensed and undocumented privateers of Somalia (9 December 2008, Garowe.)

Piracy is not terrorism: it's something else (14 December 2008, BlackState.)

Pirates outmaneuver warships off Somalia (15 December 2008, The New York Times.)

Q&A: Somali pirate explains how to steal ships (18 December 2008, Newsweek.)

Somali national self-determination (23 December 2008, Somali Musings.)

The US role in Somalia's calamity (29 December 2008, Huffington Post.)

International Maritime Bureau live piracy map (Current, ICC-CCS.)

 

How does forums.thesmartmarks.com feel about Somali piracy privateering? Is it "nothing short of terrorism"^[1] or is it, as quoted above, "like a coast guard" that, considering the circumstances in Somalia, is justifiable?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This is actually an issue that I've read and talked about a lot. As long as you have a basically ungoverned Somalia you'll probably continue to see these sorts of things, and I think that helping make Somalia a functioning state is probably going to be a more realistic solution that some sort of international naval police force in the Gulf of Aden. Or maybe the Indian navy will just continue to blow shit up.

 

Background for those of you who haven't been following this part of the world--Somalia had a government that was actually beginning to function rather effectively, which was a welcome change of pace for the country. You can probably figure out what the problem was with this government when I tell you its name: the Islamic Courts Union. So in 2006, the US had our Ethiopian proxies invade and overthrow the ICU. Ethiopia is still kicking around the area (although they are supposed to withdraw before too long), and Somalia now has a government in name only.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

So what's the solution? Does a foreign power have to invade and take over Somalia completely for it to discontinue being the wild west of Africa?

 

Aren't they still killing people in Darfur, too?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So what's the solution? Does a foreign power have to invade and take over Somalia completely for it to discontinue being the wild west of Africa?

 

Well, that just happened, and it hasn't work out too well.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

"Foreign power" in my question being someone with a little more clout than Ethiopia.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

So what's the solution? Does a foreign power have to invade and take over Somalia completely for it to discontinue being the wild west of Africa?

 

The real solution would be to build a time machine and go back and prevent the last 150 years of destructive colonial intervention from ever occurring. Failing that, idk.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

So what's the solution? Does a foreign power have to invade and take over Somalia completely for it to discontinue being the wild west of Africa?

 

The real solution would be to build a time machine and go back and prevent the last 150 years of destructive colonial intervention from ever occurring. Failing that, idk.

 

The real solution is time travel.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

Today's pirate news:

 

A ransom deal, possibly for US$3,000,000, has been reached to release the Ukrainian ship MV Faina, which was captured on 24 September 2008. Source: Al Jazeera.

 

It's a notable victory for the pirates since they still got what they wanted after two months and made the international forces look powerless.

 

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

They have to get off the boat eventually, right? Torpedo their asses.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Give 'em the money, then blow them up.

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

They have to get off the boat eventually, right? Torpedo their asses.

 

Who? There are already a shitload of naval forces in the area, and the piracy is still going on. The countries of East Africa basically have no naval capability.

 

Meanwhile, most western countries probably figure that it's a whole lot cheaper to risk the occasional hijacking and paying the occasional ransom than maintaining a naval police force along Somalia's really long coast.

 

Think of it this way. Would pirates be able to operate out of, say, Myrtle Beach, SC? No. You have to fight Somali piracy from the land.

 

If you're really interested in learning more about how the situation in Somalia could be improved, and not in just grumping and posturing like Dobbs, you can start here.

 

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1232&l=1

 

http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/somalia

 

 

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Really...one way to look at this...if the Somalis are going to allow and occasionally encourage pirate activity, which has created a new class of wealthy citizens in Somalia, then we really should consider cutting off any foreign aid that country is still receiving.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Really...one way to look at this...if the Somalis are going to allow and occasionally encourage pirate activity, which has created a new class of wealthy citizens in Somalia, then we really should consider cutting off any foreign aid that country is still receiving.

 

This is tremendously stupid. No one is "allowing" anything. THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT THERE TO ALLOW OR DISALLOW ANYTHING.

 

[Dobbs 3K 0]

All the more reason, then.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

They have to get off the boat eventually, right? Torpedo their asses.

 

Who? There are already a shitload of naval forces in the area, and the piracy is still going on. The countries of East Africa basically have no naval capability.

 

Meanwhile, most western countries probably figure that it's a whole lot cheaper to risk the occasional hijacking and paying the occasional ransom than maintaining a naval police force along Somalia's really long coast.

 

Think of it this way. Would pirates be able to operate out of, say, Myrtle Beach, SC? No. You have to fight Somali piracy from the land.

 

If you're really interested in learning more about how the situation in Somalia could be improved, and not in just grumping and posturing like Dobbs, you can start here.

 

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1232&l=1

 

http://www.enoughproject.org/reports/somalia

 

I'll stick with grumping and posturing and blowing people up, because fundamentally, I don't really care about African boat people.

[Guest Czecherbear]

I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. Let 'em steal. No real way to stop any of it.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I don't really care about African boat people.

 

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

India tried Agent's "torpedo their asses" method on 18 November with the FV Ekawat Nava 5.

 

Key quotes from the stories:

 

Daily Times (Pakistan)

A diplomatic row is building between India and Thailand, as the Thai embassy issued a note verbale to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs seeking information on sinking of its ship in the Gulf of Aden on November 18.

Bangkok Post

Ship owner Wicharn Sirichaiekawat could demand compensation from the Indian government if its navy was at fault.

Newsweek

the vessel still had 14 innocent fishermen onboard when the Indian Navy struck

The event underscores the difficulty of tracking pirates in waters where they easily blend in with fishing trawlers or other private watercraft. “The bulk of Somali coastal dwellers are still fishermen,” says Peter Lehr, a lecturer in terrorism studies at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews. “They are now caught in the fray and being attacked by western warships. How can you divide a real fisherman and a pirate from one another? They use the same vessels.”

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

All the more reason, then.

 

Some Somalis hijacking ships, so let's punish them by making other Somalis who have nothing to do with piracy starve to death.

 

Seriously, I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when you're ill-informed and have nothing to offer beyond "blow shit up, torture, & fuck the skinny black people!" it's probably best to keep you dumbassed yokel opinion to yourself.

 

Honestly, Dobbs and Agent--I like you guys--but you guys are way off here.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

You'd rather piss away millions upon millions of dollars in a shithole country that's been a mess its entire existence, all while our own economy is crumbling? Sorry to offend.

 

The problem here is thieves on boats with machine guns, not the circumstances of the worst place on earth. Arm the crews of the cargo ships. That's the kind of thing private security firms could excel at. Any company that can afford to ship massive amounts of cargo like that, (tanks and weapons?), can surely afford a few dozen guys that are armed to the teeth and prepared for the situation. Considering that these pirates are well-armed fishermen turned to a life of crime that are motivated by money and not some kind of psychotic religious bent, losing their lives would be a pretty big deterrent.

 

Imagine the security risks if these guys took something high-profile off of that Ukrainian weapons ship and sold it to the highest bidder. Someone that has a big problem with The Great Satan.

 

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

I would guess that the owner of the MV Sirius Star (carrying US$100,000,000 worth of oil) would be willing to pay for the piracy security/insurance that costs "as much as $60,000 for a single journey through the Gulf of Aden." (Source: Al Jazeera.) But, the aforementioned Thai ship was transporting fishing equipment. I doubt Sirichai Fisheries can afford private security or insurance for every trip.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

How much is the average ransom? More or less than 60,000 dollars (max)?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You'd rather piss away millions upon millions of dollars in a shithole country that's been a mess its entire existence, all while our own economy is crumbling? Sorry to offend.

 

I would have rather we hadn't backed the overthrow of what was seemed to be becoming an actually effectual government in Somalia. But I would argue that, for a fraction of the money that we have pissed away in Iraq, we could go a long way toward preventing Somalia from becoming a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism.

 

The problem here is thieves on boats with machine guns, not the circumstances of the worst place on earth. Arm the crews of the cargo ships. That's the kind of thing private security firms could excel at. Any company that can afford to ship massive amounts of cargo like that, (tanks and weapons?), can surely afford a few dozen guys that are armed to the teeth and prepared for the situation. Considering that these pirates are well-armed fishermen turned to a life of crime that are motivated by money and not some kind of psychotic religious bent, losing their lives would be a pretty big deterrent.

 

See, was that so hard? You went a long way beyond a trite "blow shit up" response there.

 

Unfortunately, here's the latest example of private security firms' valiant protection against Somali pirates:

 

British security guards jump ship to escape Somali pirates

Men rescued from sea but Indian crew taken hostage / Deployment of foreign navies fails to curb attacks

By Daniel Howden in Nairobi and Toby Green

Saturday, 29 November 2008

 

The three security guards rescued by a German navy helicopter get in another aircraft to leave the French frigate Nivose for HMS Cumberland in the Gulf

 

The limitations of private security in protecting shipping from the rise of Somali piracy were cruelly exposed yesterday as three British operatives threw themselves overboard into the Gulf of Aden to escape hijackers.

 

The guards, from a UK-based shipping protection company, had to be rescued by a German navy helicopter, and they left the Singapore-operated MS Biscaglia unable to defend itself despite its "protection" and a distress call to a nearby warship. The pirates overran the Liberian-flagged chemical tanker, and kidnapped its mainly Indian crew of 28. The hijacking could have major implications for other firms trying to cash in on the piracy crisis...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/af...es-1040257.html

 

Also, as already stated...

 

Several affected companies and governments have argued that it is sometimes cheaper to pay the ransom than to mobilize a national navy or hire private security to properly patrol the region’s waters.

 

Also, private security firms have generally proven themselves pretty crappy recently in their prominent role in Iraq.

 

I actually do think some sort of multilateral force designed to deter, engage, kill, and capture pirates is a good short term idea. But it's a band-aid, and the problem is going to persist as long as the failed Somali state exists.

 

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I would have rather we hadn't backed the overthrow of what was seemed to be becoming an actually effectual government in Somalia. But I would argue that, for a fraction of the money that we have pissed away in Iraq, we could go a long way toward preventing Somalia from becoming a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism.

 

I'm not in favor of meddling in African civil wars, either, and I definitely think we should get the hell out of Iraq, but I don't see how the "stability" of an Islamic Theocracy would do anything to deter anti-american terrorism.

 

the latest example of private security firms' valiant protection against Somali pirates

 

Any stats mentioning a success rate for this kind of deterrent? One example doesn't build an argument.

 

Several affected companies and governments have argued that it is sometimes cheaper to pay the ransom than to mobilize a national navy or hire private security to properly patrol the region’s waters

 

Well, it's their dime, but I bet it's going to get a lot more expensive when they can't find guys to crew a ship unless there's some kind of security measures in place. How many times do you think Skipper is going to captain a ship through there when he has some toothless whacko point an AK at his face?

 

Also, private security firms have generally proven themselves pretty crappy recently in their prominent role in Iraq.

 

That's not new. I've never been in favor of mercenaries doing the job of soldiers. Protecting a cargo ship from pirates isn't a job for soldiers.

 

You went a long way beyond a trite "blow shit up" response there

 

It's the Hoosier in me, Baby.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

With respect to "meddling in African civil wars"--we fucking caused it! People are dying in large quantities in internecine fighting as we speak, and the humanitarian situation is worse than it was back in the Black Hawk Down days. Anyway, I'm not talking about some Bush style massive unilateral invasion and occupation. I'm talking diplomacy (cheap!) to try to tamp down conflict, possible peacekeeping operations--probably led by the African Union and Arab League with possible aid by the EU and US, possible war crimes investigations, and humanitarian assistance until the situation stabilizes. I'm talking Bosnia/Kosovo or Cyprus here, not Iraq.

 

With respect to the ICU (even though it's largely moot now)--obviously they weren't an ideal government, but frankly, I would much prefer on Saudi Arabia, or shit, even a Syria on the Horn of Africa than fucking Thunderdome.

 

Finally, with respect to the private security firms, no, I don't have any hard data. This stuff hasn't even been going on long enough to tell. But I still think it's the wrong approach.

 

This article discusses private security & pirates in some detail:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...acy-protection/

 

 

 

 

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'm talking diplomacy (cheap!) to try to tamp down conflict, possible peacekeeping operations--probably led by the African Union and Arab League with possible aid by the EU and US, possible war crimes investigations, and humanitarian assistance until the situation stabilizes. I'm talking Bosnia/Kosovo or Cyprus here, not Iraq.

 

Fine in theory, but isn't that what we're doing with Darfur that isn't getting jack shit in results?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BTW, right now we (the US) are obstructing efforts at bringing about a ceasefire or any kind of power sharing agreement in Somalia.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No, we really haven't done much of anything in Darfur besides talk a big game, for fear of ticking off the Chinamen.

[EricMM 0]

(it's all about oil)

[The Niggardly King 0]

Really?