NATO Is A Toothless Tiger!

The more I pay attention to what's happening in the world the less I understand. Take the matter of Somalian piracy. Ever since the U.S. Navy Seals took out three pirates to rescue an American cargo ship captain, piracy has escalated.

What is it about the fact that piracy is a crime under international law and that every nation in the world has the legal authority to take action, that isn't being understood? It does not matter that the pirates are, in many cases, teenagers, nor that they're doing it for the ransom money, not an act of war. Does that mean we shouldn't arrest any criminal unless their actions are deemed an act of war? Well, shut down our jails and prisons. Every criminal out there has been given a pass.

On the other hand I don't believe for one minute that Somali teenagers are savvy enough, nor wealthy enough, even with their share of the ransoms, to engineer these raids along with the acquisition of arms and boats. Rocket launchers aren't exactly front and center in your local gun store. Even in Somalia I wouldn't think. In other words, there are some heavy weight adults involved in this.

I listen to the explanations of why cracking down is so difficult. They're covering a whole lot of ocean. Well, yeah. So why not follow the advice of those who suggest snugging up the shipping lanes, form convoys and provide armed escorts for those ships? Any ship choosing not to join a convey does so at it's own risk. Pirates who approach a convoy do so at their own risk. What's so difficult about that?

It's a solution Dogwalk would have come up with! Too simplistic no doubt.

Cost? Negligible compared to what it's costing in ransom, grounded ships and crews and lost revenue. There are enough private security agencies like Blackwater to provide the personnel.

The recent episode that was carried out by Canadian forces and NATO ended up in letting the pirates go. Why? The ships were part of NATO's anti-piracy mission.

The Canadians said the pirates cannot be prosecuted under Canadian law because they did not attack Canadian citizens nor were they in Canadian waters. The explanation went on to say when the detention of a person is involved it quits being a NATO issue and becomes a national one.

Is this thinking skewed or what? We're talking about International law here. NATO is an international organization. If it's members become hostage to national law in an an international issue, what's the point of NATO even existing?

Would it make sense for NATO to sit down with it's member nations and sort this out? The numbers, as I write this, include at least 18 ships and 310 crew being held. Who knows what's happening today. I haven't had been parked in front of the television.

I don't know. Why do we have to make everything so difficult? Haven't we yet learned that hand wringing accomplishes nothing?

High Seas Piracy Is No Johnny Depp Movie

If Somalia was an oil rich nation would the United States allow the piracy on the high seas, that has gone on for years, continue? I doubt it. My guess is we would have invaded it long ago for some obscure reason.

However, this nation of 9 million, mostly Islamic, people is as poor as dirt. They're a nation of thuggery and war lords. The life expectancy for men is 47 and for women - 49. Their main exports are livestock, that which hasn't starved, bananas, hides - probably from the livestock that has starved, and fish. Their main source of income seems to be fishing and piracy.

So why has it taken an act of piracy on a U.S. flagged freighter to get our attention? Or is that reason enough? Fortunately, the Captain who was being held hostage has been rescued and three of the pirates are dead thanks to the Navy Seals.

I've been listening to the reports for days now with explanations of why this has been such a delicate situation. Other than the fact we wanted to get an American out alive, I'm not convinced the explanations are entirely valid. I don't have to be an expert in the shipping business nor an international whiz kid to know that this is costing the world billions in lost cargo and ransom, not to mention the cost of insurance and other sundries too many to list.

Here, from our very own Coast Guard is as concise a description of piracy as I could find:

Because piracy is a universal crime under international law, every nation has the legal authority to establish jurisdiction over piracy and punish the offenders, regardless of nationality of the perpetrator or the victims, or of the vessels involved. This has been a basic tenet of customary international law for centuries, and is also enshrined in treaties such as the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1846 and 1851 have recently extended this authority to include acts committed within the Somali territorial sea, and have sanctioned the apprehension of suspected pirates and their supporters found ashore in Somalia.

Sunday the Navy did what it should have done long ago. They eliminated the perpetrators. We're always looking for and bemoaning the lack of international cooperation when it comes to our national interests such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the conflict between the Islamic middle east and Israel. Why are we less concerned with the strife that runs rampant in countries like Somalia and the starvation and genocide running rampant in too many African nations?

Is it because we aren't "directly" affected? But we are! Think about what the shipping industry means to every nation in the world? How can we, in good conscience, turn a blind eye or a deaf ear? Consider all the ships that the pirates are holding, not to mention the crews. What's it doing to those awaiting the cargos and what's it doing to the families and loved ones of the crews? For that matter, it has to put a dent in the sum to be divvied up by the pirates when the ransoms are paid. It costs a lot to keep ships afloat, cargo's unspoiled and men alive.

The lack of comment from Obama on this particular incident was deafening. The lukewarm response from Secretary of State Clinton wasn't much better.

I'm glad this one has been resolved. Will there be another? Heck yes. As this was going on another ship had been taken. Is this not just as much an international crisis as the "possibility" the Iranians' will have nuclear capabilty all too soon or that Netanyahu, Israels' latest Prime Minister, is threatening to stop them if we don't?

This is happening now, in real time. We have the right, under international law, to act. Will we? Or will we keep the blinders on until it's another American flagged ship?