Tag: piracy

While I am happy to learn that the two MISC ships hijacked by pirates off the Horn of Africa earlier have been freed, the method — USD4 million was reportedly paid — to secure the freedom of the ships as well as its crew is far from ideal.^[1][2] There is no guarantee for the episode not to repeat itself.

It seems clear that the pirates based in Somalia are purely in it for the money and are not driven by some ideological struggle. Several other ships from different countries of origin have also been hijacked and the pirates’ demands are clear and consistent. They want money. Indeed, when the pirates hijacked an Ukrainian ship ladened with military equipments, the demand remains the same: money. They are uninterested in the cargo of the ship, at least, so far.^[3]

The act of succumbing to the demand of the pirates pays off the pirates’ effort. Piracy of the kind off the coast of Somalia will continue to occur as long as there are profits for them. For them to enjoy profits, their revenue from piracy has to keep coming in while the cost of doing so continues to be under control.

Revenue will continue as long as there are entities like MISC which pay off ransom and cost will continue to be controlled as long as no one fights back.

To stop piracy, piracy has to be turned into an unprofitable industry. Victims need to persistently refuse to meet the pirates’ demands while upholding private property and individual liberty. In other words, there is a requirement to fight back. Failure to fight back increases the cost of trade and affects economic growth.

France so far has been the only state resorting to force against the pirate. Their operations have been successful.^[4] The French did request for Malaysian aid in one of its operations but Malaysia turned down due to ongoing negotiation between MISC and the pirates.^[5]

There is already a multinational force patrolling the area. Among them are the United States, Russia, Germany and France.^[6][6a] There are also talks that South Africa — a regional power — might might be joining the force.^[7]

Malaysia had three military vessels active in the area after two MISC ships were hijacked but with the release, the Royal Malaysian Navy vessels are escorting the MISC ships back home.^[8]

Being a victim, Malaysia should really join the multinational force to convey to the pirates that Malaysia does not intend to see a repeat of the episode and that Malaysia is prepared to fight back. Presence in the area could also give Malaysian vessels passing through the Red Sea extra protection since we would have a say in the multinational force. Extra attention could be given to Malaysian vessels.

But are the presence of military ships in Somalian waters a violation of sovereignty?

No. These foreign vessels are there because the United Nations Security Council grants permission for foreign warships to enter Somalian waters to fight piracy.^[9] In fact, even the de jure government of Somalia allows these foreign vessels to operate in Somalia to fight piracy.^[10] This easily alleviates my concern regarding violation of sovereignty.

Whether it is a matter of time before the growing presence of heavily-equipped foreign navies around Somalia will reduce the incidences of piracy there, the state of anarchy is Somalia is beginning to adversely affect the neutral others. No longer countries like Malaysia which are reliant on international trade could sit idly and watch from afar. Active participation in effort to combat the piracy is required; the new Defense Minister which is also the Prime Minister needs to flex some muscle.

The surest way to reduce the threats of piracy is to have international force in Somalia, on the ground, or at least in the ports which these pirates operate from. Effective controls over these ports is a necessity in combating piracy.

Resorting to settlement with the pirates as MISC had done does little in protecting private property and individual liberty for Malaysians as well as for others. In fact, MISC will only establish a reputation of succumbing to ransom demand for itself, possibly making its vessels popular targets in the future. And since the MISC vessels fly the Malaysian flag, the implication is not pretty for any vessel flying the Malaysian flag.

^[1] — Hassan slammed Malaysia’s local media for speculating that a total ransom of US$4 million was paid. [Pirates off Somalia free second Malaysian ship. International Herald Tribune. September 30 2008]

^[2] — The release of MT Melati Lima on Sept 28 and MT Bunga Melati Dua yesterday brought about relieve and joy to millions of Malaysians and Muslims worldwide, preparing to celebrate Hari Raya Aidilfitri tomorrow. [MT Melati 5 release brings joy and relieve to Rizal’s family. Bernama via New Straits Times. September 30 2008]

^[3] — Pirate Sugule Ali told the AFP news agency by satellite phone that his group wanted a ransom of $20m (£11m) and were not interested in the weapons. [Warships surround Somali pirates. BBC. September 29 2008]

^[4] — France, which has troops in nearby Djibouti and also participates in a multi-national naval force patrol in the area, has intervened twice to release French sailors kidnapped by pirates.

Commandos freed two people whose boat was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden earlier this month and in April, six arrested pirates were handed over to the French authorities for trial. [US destroyer nears Somali pirates. BBC. September 28 2008]

^[5] — KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia’s help was sought by the French navy in Tuesday’s daring rescue of a French couple held by Somali pirates on their luxury yacht in the Gulf of Aden.

The Royal Malaysian Navy, however, had to turn down the request for fear of jeopardising ongoing negotiations to free two hijacked Malaysian vessels — the MT Bunga Melati Dua and MT Bunga Melati Lima, owned by Malaysian International Shipping Corporation (MISC). [France sought our navy’s help. Adrian David. New Straits Times. September 29 2008]

^[6] — See Combined Task Force 150 as well as Piracy in Somalia at Wikipedia. Accessed October 1 2008.

^[6a] — A Russian warship headed for the seas off Somalia Friday after pirates seized a Ukrainian freighter carrying 33 tanks, munitions and other weaponry, officials said. [Russia sends warship after Somali pirates. Japan Today. September 29 2008]

^[7] — Pirate Sugule Ali told the AFP news agency by satellite phone that his group wanted a ransom of $20m (£11m) and were not interested in the weapons. [Pirates die strangely after taking Iranian ship. Andrew Donaldson. The Times. September 28 2008]

^[8] — The Malaysian government later dispatched three Royal Malaysian navy vessels – KD Lekiu, KD Inderapura and KD Pahang – to escort MISC ships home. [MT Melati 5 release brings joy and relieve to Rizal’s family. Bernama via New Straits Times. September 30 2008]

^[9] — The UN security council has unanimously adopted a resolution allowing foreign warships to enter Somalia’s territorial waters to fight piracy. [Warships to combat Somalia piracy. Al Jazeera. June 3 2008]

^[10] — See Piracy in Somalia at Wikipedia. Accessed October 1 2008.

In the aftermath of the hijacking of two MISC vessels off the coast of Somalia, the Malaysian Royal Navy has dispatched two war vessels to the area.^[0] The military has indicated that the two vessels will not intervene in the case but the ships are there to monitor the situation and protect other Malaysian interest around the area, at least for now.^[1][2] Does this signal a greater willingness for Malaysia to flex its arms in the name of security in international waters far beyond Malaysian borders?

I am more interested in asking whether Malaysia should flex its arms at all.

The answer is, uncomfortably, I do not know. I say uncomfortably because I am unclear about the role of government in this issue.

The idea of small or limited government is based on the idea that the existence of a government is only to guarantee individual liberty of its citizens. The predicate necessarily limit the role of guardian of individual liberty to that if its citizens. Under this idea, sadly, tyranny abroad is no responsible of the state unless such tyranny clearly threatens the society which the state is answerable to.

In that sense, I am a dovish libertarians and this is how I rationalize my opposition to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies. In a discourse with hawkish libertarian, I have made it clear that I have no problem with unilateralism because I firmly believe in non-aggression theorem. Aggression will be met with aggression and there is no question in that. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq is the lack of credible threat which Saddam Hussein presented to the United States or other states, not unilateralism though perhaps in the past, I have cited unilateralism as a reason.

The fact that Saddam Hussein ruled despicably over the citizens of Iraq is deplorable but it remains that well being of citizens of Iraq is not the responsibility of other states. Unless, of course, we are prepared to have a world police to preserve individual liberty all over the world.

Yet, the idea of a world police does not sound too libertarian.

I fully comprehend the moral implication of my position and the more hawkish libertarians reserve no mercy in assailing my relatively dovish position. Yet, until I have found a convincing argument for a more hawkish position, I shall remain a dove.

Before I digress further, the hijacks off the Somali waters clearly threaten individual liberty of citizens of our state. Due to the functions of government under libertarian tradition, the state has to intervene to ensure the safety of the victims, which are citizens of our state.

But, do we need the state? Why do we not just let the employer of the victims, MISC, to act deal directly with the hijackers in all the glory of Coase Theorem? In the case that MISC intends to keep this issue private, why not let it?

But does a decision of a private firm to deal with the issue directly without intervention from the state absolve the responsibility of a libertarian state to preserve the individual liberty of its citizens which are also the employees of the firm?

The whole mess could be bypassed if MISC request for aid from the state. If such request is made, then military intervention from the state will be justified.

Where does this lead?

Any military action by our state in this case may threaten the sovereignty of another state. Does this mean war?

If it is, it would be a righteous war.

Then again, would it not be silly to go to war just because of two ships?

The problem presented by this problem must truly be appreciated because acceptance of this line of thought necessarily means agreeing to various military actions around the world. Two examples would be the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq^[3] and the Israeli action against Lebanon.^[4] Even the United States would have ra oute to attack Pakistan in order to eliminate threats presented by Al Qaeda.^[5]

We of course could request for permission to act freely but responsibility within the territory of those states but is there a government, for instance, in Somalia to start with?

The last thing we want is to get entangled in their civil war. Malaysia under a United Nations peacekeeping mission has a painful experience in Somalia and I think some Somalis would remember the Malaysian role in back in 1993.^[6]

^[0] — Malaysia will send two naval vessels to the Gulf of Aden after pirates hijacked two tankers operated by MISC Bhd., the country’s largest shipping line, in less than a fortnight. [No military ops yet to free crew. Bloomberg. September 3 2008]

^[1] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [No military ops yet to free crew. The Star. September 3 2008]

^[2] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [Najib: We need to protect four other vessels sailing in the area. The Star. September 3 2008]

^[3] — ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward a military operation in Iraq on Tuesday, as its top political and military leaders issued a statement authorizing troops to cross the Iraq border to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the northern region. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. New York Times. October 10 2007]

^[4] — See the 2006 Lebanon War. Accessed September 3 2008.

^[5] — WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. Reuters. August 1 2007]

^[6] — See the Battle of Mogadishu at Wikipedia. Accessed September 3 2008.