Piracy Coverage Still Lacking

Root Causes Still Missing

The comedy continues in the coverage of piracy, perpetuating the dearth of perspective that has been emblematic of the media’s performance thus far. It seems most commentaries have focused on the correct military response, maybe hoping the Pentagon will come across their shoddy work and take their suggestions to heart. Well, probably not. But that’s certainly the sense one gets (or maybe it’s just me). Take this piece from the Wall Street Journal for example:

“Pirates, like the Nazi submarines of World War II, do not hunt for their targets; they lie across the sea lanes where ships are likely to travel and simply wait for a victim to come over the horizon. And the same tactic which defeated the U-boats can put an end to the majority of pirate attacks. Merchant ships can be ordered to form convoys for their own protection.”

Great. Tell the Secretary of the Navy. Or do you expect us to start writing our Congressman, begging them to adopt you innovative tactics – that is, if you call a 60 year-old game plan innovative. How about giving this rather complicated issue some much-needed context instead of scoring cheap points with readers by regaling us with drivel.

This LA Times op-ed sits on the fence, urging reconsideration of an aggressive American response, but clearly too timid to bring light to the other injustice off the Horn of Africa, illegal fishing and waste dumping by affluent nations:

“U.S. officials hope that the tough stance and successful rescue will discourage pirates from attacking American ships. Maybe, but it's more likely that it will just spur the pirates to bring more crewmen and bigger guns the next time around, and to be more inclined to use them. The threat of death isn't much of a deterrent to hopeless young Somali men who face a choice between potentially making millions on the high seas or starving on shore.”

Of course, there have been occasional gems. At first, the post on the Compass called 'Adding Context to Piracy Debate' seemed to offer hope. Though offering an interesting take, it was off target:

“Despite the mythologizing of the U.S. response to Barbary piracy, the U.S. paid off the Barbary Coast pirates under two U.S. administrations until the cost/benefit analysis finally tipped in favor of attacking them… Unlike jihadists, who can't be deterred, military action might raise the costs enough to make pirates think twice. But let's at least have a full accounting of the costs and benefits before the shelling begins.”

Appreciating the author’s historical analogy, his argument nonetheless has a fatal shortcoming. First, the pirates won’t be deterred as easily as he suggests because they are absolutely desperate and two, the causes of that desperation will not be undone by the doling out of booty. So long as the developed world continues its selective enforcement of international law, vehemently condemning Somali piracy while ignoring its own, there will be no peace on the seas.

This article in The Guardian, while guilty of neglecting piracy's origin, does deserves credit as an all-around quality piece that puts the notion of an aggressive response in historical perspective, rather than acting as a cheerleader for military reprisals:

“What we have recently seen far more often is what a New York Times headline on the piracy story said last Thursday: 'US power has limit'. We're dealing, that's to say, with one of the most important discoveries of our time: the impotence of great might.”

Those searching for a refreshing antidote to the typical take on piracy would do well to consult alternative media resources. Rebecca Macaux and Philip Primeau did some outstanding work on Tuesday for Counterpunch. Warning: This analysis is certain to sting a bit, especially for those skeptical of the view that American foreign policy has played a major role in fomenting some of world’s worst crises. Here is an excerpt:

“With the explosion of Somali piracy, America is reaping what it has sown. In many ways, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the emergence of high-seas crime threatening to disrupt important lanes of trade.

America’s support for a violent strongman during Somalia’s formative post-colonial years hindered the development of stable political institutions and severely complicated its capacity for effective self-rule and sustainable growth.”

The main flaw in the thesis (or implication) that America is solely to blame for piracy is that it disregards how the criminal activities of others nations (including practically all of southern Europe, France, Spain, Greece, the UK, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Korea, China… you get the idea), has provided the immediate impetus for the scourge we see today.

In any case, the article is an outstanding piece, casting a lens of introspection at Americans who feel they are simply the latest victims of a dastardly phenomenon sweeping the Gulf of Aden.

The video below offers a firsthand account from someone of Somali origin, a perspective that has yet to be incorporated by a mainstream media outlet. I would urge watching the interview below (start at 13:22) to get a good idea of what’s going on in the waters off the Somali coast. If you don’t have the time, you can check out the transcript right here. This is one part that caught my eye:

“…It reminded me of a controversial memo that was leaked from the World Bank—this was when Lawrence Summers, now the chief economic adviser, was the chief economist at the World Bank—in which it said, ‘I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that. I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted.’ He said he was being sarcastic.”

I sure hope so.