One can scarcely turn on any cable news channel without hearing vociferous demands for the world’s governments to “do something” about the Somali pirates.
Those who have suggested that the market may have a far cheaper solution have been dismissed out of hand. Market oriented people have pointed out that the ships which are being attacked by these pirates have a great deal at risk. So why would these commercial vessels not simply hire private security forces to protect their interests and lives? The answer is simple. No one wants to pay for something which one can get one’s neighbor to pay for.If the owners and operators of these vessels believe that they can get a government (thus taxpayers) to foot the bill for protecting their private interests, they have little incentive to solve the problem themselves.
A recent episode involving an Italian cruise ship showed that the vessels can and will be protected even without spending untold millions of taxpayer dollars. According to this BBC report, pirates attempted to take over an Italian cruise ship and fired approximately 200 rounds into the ship. The pirates numbered only half a dozen men and were in a small boat. Fortunately, the ship had hired a security service.
The cruise ship’s security service began firing their weapons in the air and spraying water on the pirates. The report indicates that a few passengers even started hurling deck chairs at the attackers. After 5 minutes of conflict, the pirates abandoned their attempt and fled.
To recap, the pirates were beaten back by a few deck chairs, well aimed hoses, and shots fired in the air, all in 5 minutes! Not a single life was lost, not a hostage was taken, no ransom was paid and not a taxpayer dollar was spent!
In light of the ease with which some passengers and security guards defended the ship, why are the talking heads still clamoring for more government protection? Clearly the vessels are able to do the job better and at a lower cost.
{ 12 comments }
I’m not well versed in maritime law, but I remember reading that most world governments look down on these ships carrying guns and other weapons. This is probably partly because said governments need to justify their Navies, but also so pirates can’t easily confiscate those weapons.
Petraeus agrees.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/24/petraeus.pirates/
“We need the maritime shipping companies to do more than they have. We started off by saying if you would just speed up when the pirates approach, that will help; if you take evasive action, that’s even better; and if you un-bolt the ladder that allows the pirates to climb onto your ship before you set sail, you get extra credit for that. These were not being taken before,”
“They are going to have to take a very hard look at not just taking additional defensive preparations in terms of simple things, like concertina wire to make it harder to climb over the side, or again over a railing, but also looking at the employment of armed guards or security forces,”
So how would the free market respond if the Somali pirates start to sink ships if they don’t get paid instead of just capturing and ransoming then? Hire patrol boats?
Sovy,
I apologize but the idea that these pirates could straight up sink a ship with little more than kalashnikovs and a few RPG’s seems a little far fetched. Also if there was a properly armed crew aboard the ship they would be able to easily and effectively repel the pirates every time. We’re not dealing with Blackbeard here, these are not evil people they are just desperate young men who have known nothing but violence their entire lives. We don’t need destroyers with hundreds of men aboard powering around the Gulf of Aden literally burning my money (yes my money I’m a tax payer and I am getting more and more fed up with how my money is wasted every day) to beat these guys. All we need is a little common sense and these “pirates” will be stopped in their tracks. A fishing boat with 6 poorly armed teenagers on it is only a threat if you are completely unarmed, and as the cruise ship story illustrates it only took a water cannon and shots fired IN THE AIR to make the pirates turn tail and run.
America wonders why it’s in so much debt maybe it’s because we use 2 billion$ warships to hunt fishing boats off the horn of Africa. We are going to hell in a hand basket and almost all of us are to ignorant to realize anything of the sort.
And who is the real pirate to me, some 15 year old in Somalia attacking U.N. ships carrying food to Somalia (irony right) or the entity taking away 20 or so percent of what I earn under threat of imprisonment (or if i choose to resist, like a rational person, i’d be killed in cold blood on the spot) to pay their friends at GE another few million dollars for engines for their shinny new destroyer that can’t even stop the 15 year old from hijacking ships.
It’s outrageous…..
There are a number of reasons that the sundry governments do not wish to allow these ships to defend themselves.
One may be that the state needs events like this to show how badly they are needed.
One particular point, though, is that it is not in the states’ interest to allow people to feel like they can defend themselves from aggressors. We might actually one day realize that we could defend ourselves from our own “pirates.”
For anarchists: Aren’t these pirates just homesteading nomansseas and protecting their turf?
For minarchists: You can consider them as custom agents of a budding local government effort. They are a little rude but isn’t that what you expect from governments?
USS Cole.
The USS Cole was brought down precisely because the men on board (who were heavily armed) did not fire a single shot at the boat that attacked it. That’s what is so sad about the Cole incident, the terrorists should have never gotten near that ship in the first place. Also these are not Muslim extremists they are not looking to sink these ships they are pirates who want to capture the ships and their crews for a ransom. There is definitely no comparing the two.
Another hole in that argument is that if the pirates were actually using that sort of aggression (indiscriminately sinking merchant ships, murdering those on board) the military reaction would be swift and immediate.
Let me say again these pirates are not evil people they are just desperate young men (some as young as 15) trying to get ahead in life the only way they’ve ever known how. They have even referred to themselves as the Volunteer Somali Coast Guard.
As true as that is, I don’t think it’s that simple. Apparently the liability and insurance for having weapons on board is huge. Something is wrong with the insurance business if it makes financial sense for ships to travel past Somali, but it’s too expensive to arm security and your sailors.
The pirates want money. They don’t care if they get it from capturing the ship or from threatening the owners that they will destroy it unless they pay a “toll”.
Sovy,
That’s all well and good, but the argument is that the pirates would not be able to capture or destroy the merchant vessels if they were appropriately armed.
Mark,
I have heard about the high insurance costs associated with arming crews but I think it was said before that the companies want to try to avoid this cost of security by passing it on to the taxpayers of the U.S., France, India etc.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }