Somali Piracy No Longer a Threat?

[SGOS]

I've wondered lately, why we don't hear much about piracy in the Red Sea anymore.  Small skiffs of AK 47 carrying skiffs stealing large ships at will?   I've also wondered in the past why they didn't just arm cargo ships and put more Navy vessels there.   It seemed so fundamentally simple, and apparently that was pretty much exactly what needed to be done, according to the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/captain-phillips-strikes-back-off-horn-africa-pirates-120004638.html

Things are changing in East Africa’s high-profile pirate business: A combination of greater force at sea and swifter justice on land means the bottom has fallen out of the kind of Somali piracy vividly depicted in “Captain Phillips,” the 2013 film about the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama.

In 2011 at the height of piracy, 237 attacks took place in the zone of the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea, and the northwest Indian Ocean. So far in 2014, there have been seven attacks, all of which failed, according to the International Maritime Bureau.

The number of pirate hostages has also dropped, from 1,206 in 2011 to 38 today.
..............

What has changed: The world has fought back. Three coordinated international naval forces run antipiracy patrols off Somalia.

One is the US-led Combined Task Force 151, with navies from six nations. The second, Operation Atalanta of the European Union Naval Force, has a special mandate to protect aid shipments to Somalia. The third flotilla is NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield.

Across the three deployments, dozens of warships from more than 40 countries have been involved. Patrols can include vessels from otherwise antagonistic nations: South Korea and North Korea have taken part, as have Ukraine and Russia. At any one time, an average of 20 warships are at sea.

Changes have occurred on land, too. Most important, justice systems in Indian Ocean countries including Kenya and the Seychelles have been boosted so their courts can process suspected pirates and their prisons can host them while they serve their sentences.
.............

WARNING SHOTS

Yet by far the most successful tactic contributing to the drop in successful attacks has been sending commercial ships out to sea past Somalia with armed private security on board. [See related interview here.]

Teams of three or four guards â€" usually former British, American, South African, or Russian military â€" join vessels for the few days that they will be in what is known as the “high-risk zone” off the Horn of Africa.

For most, the passage is routine. But if a suspicious skiff approaches, under new “best practices” that most firms follow, they have a series of protocols designed to thwart a hijacking. Some are simple. Captains increase speed, trying to accelerate away or churn up a wake that is tough for a small speedboat to navigate. Decks are festooned with razor wire or electric fences to deter boarding. Powerful sonic devices have been used to repel pirates with directed, unbearable noise.

If a skiff continues to advance, security guards first show their weapons, then fire warning shots, or as a very last resort, use lethal force.

[aitm]

That would pretty much explain it. Course it took so long I imagine due to some dick waving among different countries.

[SGOS]

That would pretty much explain it. Course it took so long I imagine due to some dick waving among different countries.

I suspected leaving it go on was probably some type of political bullshit.  The cost of arming a cargo ship can't be that much considering the value of the cargo, and I would guess that the original reasons for navies was to protect shipping interests at sea.  It's like we enter the 21st Century, and we no longer use navies to protect shipping routes?  WTF?

And how could untrained bands of such inept second rate thugs simply take control of the sea and end up owning beachfront homes?  It's like an alternate reality.

[stromboli]

A lot has to do with rules and regulations about international shipping laws. there is a very large book of rules concerning classifications of ships and their uses, vis a vis commercial vs military. I suspect that has something to do with why commercial ships and tankers aren't mounting defensive weapons.

[Solitary]

Another example of solving a secondary problem rather than the primary problem: poverty and guns.

[Moralnihilist]

Another example of solving a secondary problem rather than the primary problem: poverty and guns.

Not to be "that guy" but guns are neither the problem nor the solution to any problem. They are inanimate objects incapable of causing issues on their own. The crushing poverty, lack of food/water, lack of education availability, and no way out of this situation is what leads to the issue of piracy.

If you were living in a dirt poor place with not enough food or drinkable water and big fat unarmed boats kept sailing by loaded with goods worth more than the national GDP of wherever you are living, would you not want to get a piece of that action? Even if it means breaking the law? Now combine this with a lack of an education and now remove any way out of that situation you are in. Now look at those boats. If it means that you can continue living AND improve your economic situation to allow you to buy lives basic needs. Those boats are the only way out of this situation for you. Now then, how important are someone else's laws to you?

Guns or not, this would have happened because of poverty.

[SGOS]

A lot has to do with rules and regulations about international shipping laws. there is a very large book of rules concerning classifications of ships and their uses, vis a vis commercial vs military. I suspect that has something to do with why commercial ships and tankers aren't mounting defensive weapons.

I do remember reading something along those lines a few years back, where some countries were so opposed to self defense of cargo ships, they would not let them use ports if they had security teams.  For whatever reason, that has apparently changed, and 4 man security teams using protocols that include deadly force are being used in dangerous zones.  I don't know if such forces board the ships at sea when a ship is entering a dangerous zone, or if they stay with the ship for the whole trip.  But compared to the value of the cargo, it seems like a very cheap and effective solution.

[SGOS]

Not to be "that guy" but guns are neither the problem nor the solution to any problem.

Guns or not, this would have happened because of poverty.

Looking at it from a pirate's perspective, this is more than a way out of poverty.  It was a very lucrative pursuit with no risk or investment, and it provided extraordinary wealth to criminals that weren't  helping their poor brethren that much, at least according to one article I read a couple of years ago.   It became a problem, because it met no resistance.

If the article is correct, guns do seem to be a solution to the problem.  I agree that they do not address the basic problem of poverty, not by a long shot, but they do seem to be solving this particular problem of piracy, kidnapping, and theft.

[Poison Tree]

I never understood why they didn't run convoys with a bunch of cargo ships and a couple of escorts. It seems like every ship that got captured was way out on its own even when the anti-piracy actions had first started.

[stromboli]

I never understood why they didn't run convoys with a bunch of cargo ships and a couple of escorts. It seems like every ship that got captured was way out on its own even when the anti-piracy actions had first started.

Some of the vessels targeted have been private yachts, which puts them out of the realm of a convoy. A large shipping company could probably do that, and I expect some of them do. The variation of performance, size, propulsion, maneuverability and so on is vast, so the only way to sensibly convoy is to have similar ships of similar performance. 

[Moralnihilist]

Looking at it from a pirate's perspective, this is more than a way out of poverty.  It was a very lucrative pursuit with no risk or investment, and it provided extraordinary wealth to criminals that weren't  helping their poor brethren that much, at least according to one article I read a couple of years ago.   It became a problem, because it met no resistance.

If the article is correct, guns do seem to be a solution to the problem.  I agree that they do not address the basic problem of poverty, not by a long shot, but they do seem to be solving this particular problem of piracy, kidnapping, and theft.

With the level of poverty rampant in Somalia there would be pirates even if they had to do it with sticks and stones, swords and cannons, or mobile ied's. Guns aren't the problem, merely a tool used by those affected by the problem.

[SGOS]

With the level of poverty rampant in Somalia there would be pirates even if they had to do it with sticks and stones, swords and cannons, or mobile ied's. Guns aren't the problem, merely a tool used by those affected by the problem.

You're identifying the problem as poverty.  I agree poverty is bad, but I'm talking about piracy (defined as acts of theft, with or without the use of guns, in a maritime environment), which may or may not be a result of poverty.

Yes, sticks and stones would be adequate for poor pirates if the ships' crews refuse to defend themselves, so this isn't really about guns.  It's not even about poverty, except indirectly, although your reference to one of the underlying causes is noteworthy.   

I actually don't want to get into the gun argument.  It's not my thing.  The point I'm trying to make is that taking actual measures to defend against acts of piracy (while not solving the issue of poverty) is having a positive affect against piracy. 

The dynamic here is that pirates don't want to get shot, and they don't even want a fight, and they don't want to go to jail.  They just want to take stuff that doesn't belong to them, and they are happy to do it if they can do it with impunity.  But it's not so much fun anymore if shipping companies create an element of risk for pirates to think about.  Add to that enforcing anti-piracy laws in courts, and posting military ships in high piracy waters.  Then taking other people's stuff loses its appeal.

[stromboli]

I don't know what percentage of Somalis are piarates, but I'm guessing like every other culture, they are not the rank and file of Somali citizenry. Somalia has a long history of warlords and and armed strife, so turning to violent means to make a buck pretty much comes naturally. And they have been a weapon laden culture for some time, so this is kind of a logical outcome of the aforementioned.

[SGOS]

I don't know what percentage of Somalis are piarates, but I'm guessing like every other culture, they are not the rank and file of Somali citizenry. Somalia has a long history of warlords and and armed strife, so turning to violent means to make a buck pretty much comes naturally. And they have been a weapon laden culture for some time, so this is kind of a logical outcome of the aforementioned.

Yes, most people in Somalia are just ordinary citizens, poor of course, but not criminals.  And like other countries there is a stratification of classes.  Among the upper class are the pirates, the backers of piracy, and probably the political leaders and gun runners, and a few legitimate businessmen here and there. 

[Nam]

That would pretty much explain it. Course it took so long I imagine due to some dick waving among different countries.

Tiny dicks are rarely seen.

-Nam