After much research and reading on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that Somalian Pirates are no longer justified in their actions. However, to a certain extent, they once were. At the start, the pirates were attacking ships that went through the Gulf of Aden. This could be deemed acceptable if they had serious concerns about illegal dumping or fishing in their seas by huge ships. For this country, food is scarce and survival is on the top of their list of priorities. But, once the pirates began attacking ships that were hundreds of miles off of their shorelines with violent tactics and profits in mind, their actions became unjustifiable.
It is one thing to act as an unofficial Coast Guard for your seas. Especially when the pirates are in such an unstable government and the people are essentially fending for themselves. In this case, if you are concerned about your food, prominently fish, from the surrounding seas, it is understandable to want to protect their living conditions from illegal dumping. It is also understandable to want to keep foreign fishermen out of your seas because you want to maintain all of the food for yourself, especially when you might not know where your next meal is going to come from.
This becomes an entirely different issue when the pirates are venturing very far out from their coast line and using violent tactics as a way to make a profit from the foreign vessels. This, unfortunately, is the case a lot of the time. When pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama, the ship that Captain Phillips was leading, they were not justified in their actions for a multitude of reasons. First of all, the ship was about 280 miles off the Somali coastline. Being this far out, their concerns probably did not include illegal dumping or fishing in their waters. The environment was not in their list of worries. Furthermore, the Maersk Alabama was carrying food and water to the people of Somalia. They were traveling those waters for humanitarian reasons. In return, they were boarded by pirates, held at gun point, and one the Captain was held hostage for several days. This is not what a coast guard would do. Therefore, their actions cannot be justified in this case.
The United Nations held a Convention on the Law of the Sea where they decided what the formal definition of piracy ought to be. They concluded that piracy was, "any illegal acts of violence or detention, any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft...against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state;" (United Nations). Basically, the acts that these pirates commit are usually for private reasons (i.e: ransom), and therefore their actions are certainly not justifiable.
The question remains, what is the most effective way to deal with the pirates illegal actions? The United Nations Law of the Sea definition of piracy certainly helps but the troubling fact is that the pirates who are committing these illegal acts believe they are justified in what they are doing. They think that they are protecting their waters and acting as a coast guard, or at least they are claiming that this is what they believe to be true. It is unclear if anything can be done to stop these occurrences other than to arm the cargo ships traveling through so that they can defend themselves properly.
I agree and think they are not justified in their actions of attacking ships and engaging in violent tactics. Especially when they are going very far out from the Somali coastline. The pirates think that their actions are justified and they shouldn't be judged for defending their waters, however, when is holding innocent individuals at gun point a justified act? I don't understand the purpose of pirates and the point of holding individuals hostage. They are contradicting their actions and the reason why they believe they should be justified. I don't think these ships that are going through their waters pose any immediate threat to the Somali coastline, so they shouldn't attack and engage in their violent tactics.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time saying that they are completely justified or unjustified but overall I really like the first part of your argument. They once were pretty justified but then it grew out of control. Their focus became more on money rather than on protecting their seas. In the comment on my post I wrote about how heavily their economy now lies on piracy. This is an issue. Although the piracy has greatly reduced, many people could starve if they just completely stopped right when they were told to. So do you think that we just shouldn't care about it because some Somalis are criminals and it isn't really our problem? Should developed countries be doing something to work with the locals there to try to end the piracy?
ReplyDeleteI also want to point out that I think there is a distinction between justifying something and saying it is wrong. If someone kills another person in self-defense, they can be justified. They murdered someone, which is wrong, but most people would agree that it can be justified. So yes, what the pirates are doing is wrong but there is a difference between the definitions of something being wrong and being justified.
I agree with you that today the Somali pirates are not justified in their crimes on the seas. Many of the attacks that take place are far from what could legally be considered Somali waters, which leads to the conclusion that the goal is acquisition and not justice. However, I do not agree that they could have been justified in the past either. The Somali pirates consider themselves to be a Navy, but their ultimate goal is not safety. The people they consider to be polluting their waters are not punished in jail, but are held for ransom. Their goal, in the end, is money and looting goods. If they want to be considered a Navy, there is a sense of respectable authority that must come along with it, even if they are disadvantaged. I believe they have been using titles equivalent to 'guardian of the seas' to their advantage as a tool to justify crime, not as a tool to produce a just governmental authority.
ReplyDelete