Britain’s Pirate Problems
- 04.18.2008 - 10:11 AMThe London Times reports that the Royal Navy has been ordered by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so “may breach their human rights.” The problem, you see, is that many of these pirates operate off Somalia, and the Somalian punishment for piracy, under sharia, is the removal of heads, arms, or other appendages. Such punishment would not only be inhumane–it would potentially entitle the pirates to asylum in Britain.
Gilbert and Sullivan could hardly have done it better: poor Frederick, the Dudley Do-Right hero of Pirates of Penzance, wriggles out of his indenture to the Pirate King by aiding (however ineffectively) in his capture. The Foreign Office can’t even manage this: in response to Conservative criticism, the best Britain’s diplomats could come up with was the claim that “There are issues about human rights . . . . The main thing is to ensure any incident is resolved peacefully.” (No wonder the Iranians found it so easy to knock off the Royal Navy last year.)
The Foreign Office’s grasp of law is as feeble as its morality. Piracy is a universal crime: indeed, it is the first universal crime, older even than slave-trading. All states have a duty to punish it as harshly as their law allows. This obligation is included in many relevant international conventions, including the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, to which Britain has been party since 1960, and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, to which Britain acceded in 1997 by act of the Labour Government.
The Foreign Office’s delusion has two parts. One is a simple error: that pirates captured on the high seas have to be returned to the nearest country for trial. The second fallacy flows from the first. It’s more subtle, but it’s typical and pathetic: that international law descended from on high, and we have to obey all of it to the letter even if the other guy–Somalia, in this case–is unwilling or unable to live up to its commitments. Nonsense: “international law” is a fancy phrase for treaties between states, or for treaties that establish institutions that arbitrate between states. If Somalia cannot control its own waters–never mind the high seas–we are released from any obligation to do anything with them.
Britain–and all the other nations participating in the various anti-piracy patrols around the world–should exercise a healthy unilateralism. A blanket declaration that all pirates will be pursued, shot if they fail to surrender, and held over for trial if they are captured would do lot of good. Putting that policy visibly into practice would do even more. And no, I don’t rule out returning pirates to Somalia for trial: I’m not a fan of sharia, but in this case, it may just have found punishments that fit the crime.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
April 18th, 2008 at 11:55 AM
This could have been predicted from last year’s incident wherein an Iranian lawn bowling team grabbed some inflatable boats and kidnapped British Marines off the high seas, held them for ransom, and made them cry.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:25 PM
France in the Sarkosi era has seen the light, with Entebbe-like response to piracy on French ships near Somalia.
Britain has wonderful Special Forces and naval assets around the world, plus good friends in American intelligence. It needs a spinal transplant in its diplomatic and Foreign Service offices, as do we.
April 18th, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Well, I do enjoy the London Times’ history lesson about the Royal Navy eradicating piracy in the 19th century. It didn’t, first of all; it suppressed piracy to an extent that enabled the maritime commerce of the great nations to proceed unmolested in the most-trafficked sea lanes. That’s what the US Navy does today. To get pirated off Somalia (or in Philippine waters, or in the South China Sea), you have to go outside the normal maritime transit lanes. Well-maintained, ocean-going commercial vessels flying the flags of major nations, or the flags of convenience favored by global shipping firms, are very unlikely to be attacked by pirates even in proximity to the most heavily pirated waters. This relative suppression of piracy, which obtains today, is about what the Royal Navy achieved in the 1800s.
But of course, English privateers were some of the world’s leading pirates, back in the Day (the 16th-17th centuries). Ask the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and French about that. Mr. Bromund’s very just comment that “international law” is a pastiche of treaties and conventions is thrown into strong relief by the fact that, as little as 200 years ago, it was quite conventional for nations at war to plunder each other’s cargo ships — using their navies. It was the lethality of modern weapons that changed the mindset of maritime warfare to sinking cargo ships, rather than seeking to seize and plunder them for monetary gain (and “bonus” remuneration to sailors).
Don’t forget either: Lloyd’s of London, which commands higher maritime insurance rates where piracy is a growing problem, is, well, Lloyd’s of… London. Maybe the Brits are just up to their old tricks.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:11 PM
“Well, I do enjoy the London Times’ history lesson about the Royal Navy eradicating piracy in the 19th century. It didn’t,”
The Times used a qualifier: “_largely_ eradicated”. The Royal navy got rid of most of it - enough to eliminate it as a major problem. The Times is largely right!
…It would be nice for the Foreign Office to expand its “guidance” as follows: don’t _detain_ them, kill them in place. The “asylum” issue would thus be avoided.
Instead, the FO clarified as follows: “The main thing is to ensure any incident is resolved peacefully”. Peacefully? Incident? With pirates?
…This clarification brings to mind yet another Gilbert & Sullivan classic, _Ruddigore_:
“I believe I may say, without exaggeration, that the marciful little Tom-
Tit has spared more French frigates than any craft afloat!”
…But doesn’t this clash with Britain’s obligations as “part of a coalition force that patrols piracy stricken areas”?
April 19th, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I am reminded of the eradication of the slave trade, largely done by the RN. As I recall, if an RN vessel intercepted a slaver, the following would occur:
1. The crew was hung from the rigging;
2. The captives returned to Africa & released;
3. The vessel was condemned, sold, & the proceeds given over to the crew as prize money, thereby
— Enriching the crew
— Bankrupting the owners
Why so squeemish now?
April 20th, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Actually Frederick did not “wriggles out of his indenture”. When he turned 21 he thought his indenture had ended and vowed to make war against his former pirate brethren. Actually though, it turned out he was born on Feb. 29 and the terms of his indenture was his 21st birthday – so his indenture would not be up until 1940. After that he rejoins the pirates.