Piracy presents opportunity
In the past decade we have witnessed the return of a scurge that seems as 18th century as a smallpox outbreak. Pirates once again cruise the high seas–especially off the Horn of Africa and around the busy Strait of Malacca between Indonesia and Malaysia. It is such an anachronism that until the Maersk Alabama was seized this week, most Americans were probably more likely to associate piracy with illegally copied music, movies, and software.
The last time that Americans were concerned with actual pirates–the Barbary Pirates who raided ships off the coast of North Africa at the turn of the 19th century–it was so long ago that the event is immortalized in the first line of the Marine Song: “To the shores of Tripoli.” But there is one memorable sentiment from that era that bears repeating today. It is echoed in the words of a South Carolina Congressman, Robert Goodloe Harper, who when debating what ransom to pay pirates who had seized American ships said, “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”
That prompted this then-third-world nation to stand up to the Barbary Pirates even while the two largest powers on the planet, England and France, paid ransom. Thomas Jefferson launched the first Barbary War to retaliate against the pirates. A decade later the European powers, having seen the success of American endeavors, launched their own invasions to finally put an end to centuries of piracy off the North African coast. The result of the invasions was that for two centuries, pirates, where they still remained, did not dare to attack an American ship.
The fact that a US-flagged ship has been seized is itself a stunning indictment of how rampant piracy has become. American vessels are so uncommon that by 2001 there were only 239 merchant ships flying under an American flag, less than half the number of just a decade before. Only 3% of commercial cargo originating in American ports travels overseas on US-flagged ships. Most shipping, even most American-owned shipping, now flies under a “flag of convenience,” usually that of Liberia or Panama. They do so to save money, since shipping under an American flag requires a mostly American (and usually unionized) crew, as well as higher fees and taxes. On average, American-flagged shipping costs about 80% more per ton.
But there is an advantage to flying an American flag; it’s an advantage that has been forgotten during our 200-year holiday from piracy history: vessels flying the American flag carry with them the implicit protection of the United States Navy. It is an advantage that the navies of Liberia and Panama cannot possibly offer.
There is one thing about pirates that has not changed over the centuries: they do it for the money. Pirates have no incentive to attack a ship that won’t pay ransom–particularly if by doing so, they know that they run the risk that the American Navy will blast them to the bottom of the sea while the United States Marines raze their towns and cities. For a long time, the extra premium charged to ship under the American flag hasn’t seemed worthwhile to the world’s shippers. Depending on how the Obama Administration responds to the current situation, it may be so again.
And if the Administration is not motivated by the fact that a swift and severe response is the right thing to do, perhaps this will encourage them: when the world’s merchants realize that American-flagged ships always reach their destinations, thousands of new unionized American jobs might be created.
RELATED:
Here, here and here. And, yes, pirates captured on the high seas should be hanged without benefit of a trial to which they are not legally entitled.
ALSO:
Joseph Murphy, the father of the Maersk Alabama’s second-in-command, is himself an instructor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. He stated that he sees pirates all the time, but that he thought the pirates “knew better than to go against the American ships”
I think the pirates are going to regret this. The Americans will respond . . . There will be an aggressive response.
I hope he’s right.
April 9th, 2009 at 8:47 am
You had most of it right until you turned your back on the issue of protecting trade from piracy, and turned the discussion toward a jobs programs for sailors. As one who remembers when the US flag fleet was far larger that it is today, I also recall how government subsidies helped drive the industry to near extinction.
And your suggestion that the mere presence of the US Navy will stop the pirates is not supported by recent events. Even in the case of the Maersk Alabama, the destroyer is standing by until the cornered pirates decide what to do.
As compared to most industries, banking comes to mind, global shipping functions reasonably well. The problem now facing us is is how to address piracy in a few critical regions. It is an international problem which will require both military action and diplomatic will. A new jobs program for merchant seaman, as desirable as that may be, doesn’t address the problem.
Ed: I think you misinterpret my point. I think it is about protecting free trade in international waters. If, however, the Administration is less interested in that point, then perhaps their interest will be piqued when they realize that successfully resolving the situation might result in American union jobs.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I think you may have missed my point. Creating more American jobs will do nothing to fight piracy. Likewise creating more US flag ships doesn’t address the problem either.
How exactly did a US flag on the stern protect the Maersk Alabama from attack by pirates? The only reason that the Alabama is the first US flag ship to be attacked by the pirates is because there are so few US flag ships out there. The flag didn’t protect her and neither did the Navy.
We did see on the Maersk Alabama that training makes a huge difference, but that has little to do with the flag.
And oh by the way, even if flag did make a difference, if we create a mandate which significantly increases the number of US flag ships it would take years to train the officers and crew. Not likely that the pirates would wait for us.
Ed: A US flag did not protect the Maersk because it’s been 205 years since pirates have been reminded what happens to them when they attack an American ship. A fierce response now might make it another 205 years before it happens again. It will certainly make pirates think twice when they see an American ship if they know that they won’t get a ransom and they risk death.
As for a mandate, no way. If ship owners come to think that US-flagged ships are much less likely to be attacked, mandates won’t be necessary to encourage them to consider re-flagging.
April 9th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Interesting to think… when pirates first appeared on the horizon, the crew had to have gotten together to decide what to do. I can imagine the conversation went something like:
What do we do when they come on board?
Fight?
With what?
Right
Run?
Where?
What happens if we are captured?
We’ll go to Mogadishu and rot in a mud hut
What will the US do to get us out?
(long silence)
They would get us out, right?
(more silence)
Repeat: Who will get us out? Obama? Clinton?
(longer silence)
(finally) We’re gonna have to resist or we’ll be underground gardeners in Somalia. Just don’t throw one of these guys overboard or we’ll be hauled up by International Court for torture.
Right.
The best protection is self-protection. We need to arm merchant vessels sailing in dangerous waters.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:21 am
follow up:
International Human Rights lawyers are indeed digging into the facts surrounding the unfortunate demise of three would-be pirates.
Stay tuned… the lawyers won’t let this issue die and neither will the pirate community that Obama so dreadfully offended.