Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
You Are Being Lied to About Pirates
Who imagined that in 2009, the world's governments would be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this, the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more than two dozen nations, from the US to China - is sailing into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there is an untold scandal. The people our governments are labeling as "one of the great menace of our times" have an extraordinary story to tell -- and some justice on their side.
Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the "golden age of piracy" - from 1650 to 1730 - the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that lingers today was created by the British government in a great propaganda-heave. Many ordinary people believed it was false: pirates were often rescued from the gallows by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we can't? In his book Villains of All nations, the historian Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out. If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked from the docks of London's East End, young and hungry - you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the Cat O' Nine Tails. If you slacked consistently, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.
Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains - and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains, and made all their decisions collectively. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls "one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the eighteenth century." They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed "quite clearly - and subversively - that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy." This is why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.
The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young British man called William Scott - should echo into this new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina, he said: "What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live." In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa - collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.
Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury - you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."
At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia's seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish-stocks by over-exploitation - and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300m worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster and other sea-life is being stolen every year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia's unprotected seas. The local fishermen have suddenly lost their livelihoods, and they are starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: "If nothing is done, there soon won't be much fish left in our coastal waters."
This is the context in which the men we are calling "pirates" have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax' on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia - and it's not hard to see why. In a surreal telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was "to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters... We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas." William Scott would understand those words.
No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies. But the "pirates" have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent "strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defence of the country's territorial waters." During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America's founding fathers paid pirates to protect America's territorial waters, because they had no navy or coastguard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?
Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn't act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world's oil supply, we begin to shriek about "evil." If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia's criminals.
The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarised by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know "what he meant by keeping possession of the sea." The pirate smiled, and responded: "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor." Once again, our great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


260 Comments so far
Show AllSo why do you refuse to address any of my points directly? If they are false, you should be able to demonstrate that, and you wouldn't have to rely on crayon tags.
Didn't the USA just back the invasion of Somalia by a neighboring country?
War is what this is and how it came about. This all relates to war and to end war we must make all the connections.
"Didn't the USA just back the invasion of Somalia by a neighboring country?"
Yes, I think there was some support for that, to the extent that Somalia is even a country. That doesn't justify independently operating pirates commandeering ships of nearly all flags for *ransom*.
"There is absolutely no evidence that the "pirates" in this incident have "grievances", or that their actions stem from such grievances."
The article quotes a UN envoy to Somalia, who said there was nuclear waste dumping and stealing of food resources from the sea. I suppose you could always ask him yourself for his evidence. However, you could be right that this particular pirate attack had nothing to do with it...you'd have to ask the one who was captured on the ship. But a previous article on this from Jeremy Scahill stated that the Maersk Alabama has top secret clearance and has previously been contracted by the Department of Defense. If it had been carrying weapons or equipment for, say, Predator drone attacks in Somalia, then I wouldn't call the ship an innocent target. If they did however, how the pirates would find out is anybody's guess.
"The article quotes a UN envoy to Somalia, who said there was nuclear waste dumping and stealing of food resources from the sea."
Why should we beleive the envoy?
" I suppose you could always ask him yourself for his evidence."
That is the job of the author.
"However, you could be right that this particular pirate attack had nothing to do with it"
Thank you.
But Fox news, now that is a reliable source.
They correctly reported that Harry Kalas has died, corraborated by this ESPN article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4064793
Vern, if you don't want to discuss the issues on the table, such as whether Gitmo has anything to do with Somalia pirates, I understand.
So what news source would you consider trustworthy enough to not seek facts on your own, or demand the reporter do so on your behalf? Obviously you don't consider this one to be at that level.
"So what news source would you consider trustworthy enough "
No single one, I use various sources.
"Obviously you don't consider this one to be at that level."
This was an opinion piece, and offered the word of one person about toxic waste dumping. That's better than nothing, but we should hardly just beleive it without question.
I know it's opinion, and I know much of it is either from Scahill's article or from the same source...I've had trouble learning more on my own. If the MSM doesn't cover something, it can be bloody hard to find out more details about something.
"If the MSM doesn't cover something, it can be bloody hard to find out more details about something."
This is correct, and until you or I are able to make the additional effort "I don't know" is the correct answer, even if you suspect one thing or another to be true.
So did you just graduate from high school or do you always sound like a little prick with zits ?
"So did you just graduate from high school or do you always sound like a little prick with zits ?"
Name calling. You think it's funny to poke at people with acne. Classy. Now, who is more likely to be in high school still, a "name caller" or a contributor who has yet to call someone a name?
Everybody has grievances.... Somalia has been racked with war with the CIA backing the invaders.
Do you think you might try Piracy if it was the best way to survive or the only way to make some money?
"Everybody has grievances.... Somalia has been racked with war with the CIA backing the invaders."
The point is if there is any reason to think that the piracy acts stem from alleged grievances. There is no evidence.
"Do you think you might try Piracy if it was the best way to survive or the only way to make some money?"
I don't know. I know I would not take the considerable risks involved with piracy as a means of airing "grievances" without making my grievances very clear in some way.
So... the violent and illegal actions of the US government somehow justify the violent and illegal actions of these pirates? By that logic, no act of violence could ever be condemned while somewhere, someone is also acting violently.
That's a stretch and it's a straw-man to accuse the original poster of supporting those actions because he thinks that the pirates were guilty of violent and illegal actions.
You're missing an important part. The "Pirates" (according to the article) are trying to DEFEND their seas. So yes, violence is usually accepted when it's in defense of your own country. Shouldn't be, but all human history says it is. The fact that we may be the offenders doesn't change that.
"The "Pirates" (according to the article) are trying to DEFEND their seas."
This seems contrary to the history of Somalian pirates taking hostages and holding them for *ransom*. That is hardly "defence". He also doesn't make a case that illeagal taking of fish or dumping has taken place, rather he assumes it to be true based on hearsay.
He also says:
"Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a 'tax' on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia -"
Well I am sorry but I don't see the universal agreement and it isn't true just because he says so. Google the term "Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia" and you get back to this article. So his case that this is defence is weak on a number of points.
"So yes, violence is usually accepted when it's in defense of your own country."
And directed specifically against civilian seamen?
Well, Somalia lacks the capability to operate warships to defend its territory...and Somali citizens obviously can't do that either. I suppose holding ships for ransom is the only way they can deter illegal activity in their coastal territory. Would it be better for them to simply execute the crews of each ship they capture and steal all the goods aboard and press the ships into service for them? It could be far worse.
"I suppose holding ships for ransom is the only way they can deter illegal activity in their coastal territory."
I would deny that holding ships for ransom is a deterent to alleged illegal activity in any case, or that holding ships for ransom stems from any desire to deter illegal activity. They just want the money.
Well I don't think you would know that unless you were involved in that illegal dumping. As for the last part of my comment, apparently the Somali pirates have vowed to kill any American or French crews they come across, so I guess it's not just about money now.
zmann, thanks for your comments. The Somali pirates have vowed to kill any American or French crews they come across after some of their own got killed after commandeering a ship containing humanitarian aid for Kenya. I can see where they may indeed be effective in defending Kenya from getting humanitarian aid.
Haha nice way of looking at it. Their revenge against French crews probably stems from a recent French rescue of a commandeered ship in the Mediterranean where a few pirates and one hostage were killed...I don't know what kind of ship it was though. Maybe a family yacht, I think the dead hostage was a kid.
No pirates in Texas, huh?
So which source of news would you prefer? Fox news? CNN? MSNBC? You have a hard time swallowing the truth I see...
"So which source of news would you prefer?"
The above item is an *opinion* piece.
So are most of the MSM news. They are no longer objective as news should be. This "opinion" has more facts than all of the MSM combined!
"So are most of the MSM news."
Nonsense, there exists "straight" reporting of news in the MSM.
"They are no longer objective as news should be."
That's besides the point, there is *always* bias in straight reporting.
"This "opinion" has more facts than all of the MSM combined!"
What would be your best example from the above piece?
"Nonsense, there exists "straight" reporting of news in the MSM."
that is news to me? Which one???
Johann Hari has been proven right most of the time. Unless you just watch the MSM.
"Which one???"
Example, I just heard on Fox News that sportscaster Harry Kalas has died. That's straight reporting. You aren't being stupid on purpose are you?
And you obviously are being deliberately obtuse I see. But I see that you choose to watch FAUX news. Shows where your ignorance comes form.
At issue is whether there exists straight reporting of news or not. I gave you an example.
"But I see that you choose to watch FAUX news. Shows where your ignorance comes form."
Does it give you a boner when you type out "F A U X"? This is a very poor argument. Fox News, for all of your legitimate complaints about it, has reported today that Harry Kalas has died. You should be able to verify that on any news source that you choose. It's a straight news item, and I offered it as an example. You claimed no one reports straight news anymore, and you are simply wrong about that. *shrug*.
You must be very thick up there as you constantly miss the point.
The only point I have with you is your apparent denial that straight news reporting exists. *shrug*
That's straight reporting on an issue of nil importance for a site such as this.
So Fox News will report an easily-verified fact of almost no importance, and that's your test for reliability and truth about world-shaking events?
"So Fox News will report an easily-verified fact of almost no importance, and that's your test for reliability and truth about world-shaking events?"
I will help you regain your focus: The claim was made that there is no_longer_any_straight_reporting. I disproved that by providing a single example. That I heard of the death of Harry Kalas from a FoxNews report matters little since all the news outlets carried it as well. I have already stated that I rely on a number of sources for news.
But did they report that any number of other people had also died that day? Who they report about and in what way and why always colors the news. The mindset and the intent are embedded and thus deliver the fortification of the belief systems that organize most peoples' lives.
"Who they report about and in what way and why always colors the news."
I agree. I earlier stated that there is always bias in even "straight news" reporting.
Commentary regarding Gitmo may be opinion pieces but is based on facts on the ground.
The reality of events discussed in the article are not disputed--however you may claim that the authors defense of defenseless, powerless abused and exploited & starving people is an opinion that you disagree with.
What does that say about you?
Vern, you are losing your focus. There is *no* mention of Gitmo in the article.
"The reality of events discussed in the article are not disputed"
I have not disputed any facts stated as such in the article, but I notice that there was no evidence presented to support toxic waste dumping oiff the Somalia coast, can you suggest the very best evidence that that is true?
"however you may claim that the authors defense of defenseless, powerless abused and exploited & starving people is an opinion that you disagree with.
What does that say about you?"
Vern, the problem is that I never did as you stated above, that is disagree with anything the author said at all. What does that say about you, that you seem to claim I did? Vern, you are new at this, let me try and help you: Google "straw man".
I have to chime in to say I'm skeptical too. This is turning into a nice alternative narrative. We need to save Somalia--let the conservatives have their guns and naval actions; let the progressives donate green computers and install solar power. Either way one stupid story 9/11ed all over the place gets us agreeing. In the words of Livingstone, "Christianity, Commerce, Civilisation!"
The Third World will become market saturated.
I think the authors point is that BEFORE they became pirates, when they were just fishermen banded together to protect their fishing stocks from overfishing and pollution, no one gave a d*mn about their plight. They could, of course, have continued following the law and died of starvation if the radiation didn't kill them first.
I know what I would have done... (and what the punishment for doing it would eventually be). Better to die on your feet. Of course, it became extraordinarily lucrative and so, being good capitalists...
Once again we see that Madoff and the Somali pirates are the amateurs, step back and watch a Wall Street bankster pro teach ya something about piracy...
"Once again we see that Madoff and the Somali pirates are the amateurs, step back and watch a Wall Street bankster pro teach ya something about piracy..."
...the BEST concise one sentence comment on this page.
Double post due to glitch. Sorry.
I find Johann's journalism and commentary impeccable. He recently wrote a piece exposing the Disneyfied mirage persona on Dubai.
On please, his recent article on Dubai was nothing more than a racist hatchet job against a peaceful gem of a city that has made itself one of the most successful economies of the Middle East, and all Hari can do is tirade against it. Journalism at its most pathetic.
Yeah a drug warrior's paradise wet dream allright. People have been jailed just for bringing melatonin, or having a spec of hash on their shoe, or sesame seeds while they go through customs. Might I add that Dubai treats having traces of street drugs in your urine or blood as grounds to criminally prosecute drug possession. Keep your "peaceful gem" and as you call it along with your self righteous holier-than-thou attitude, because I want no part of it, ok?
Would you rather be associated with peaceful Dubai or a bunch of marauding pirates. Nobody forces you to read my posts.
"Would you rather be associated with peaceful Dubai or a bunch of marauding pirates"
Neither, thank you.
Hey hey hey: Dubai is nothing but a polished shithole--much worse than Disney's worst nightmare.
It's constant gridlock, obscenely expensive, no one there should have a driving license, there is NO culture, and now that the world economy is on the skids folks are leaving in droves.
Despite the general lack of geographical knowledge rampant on this site, some of us do spend a fair amount of time in the Gulf--and do know the truth.