It seems a bit odd to be making a big ol’ thing about this American captain that was captured by pirates. Not to insult the man: he went through something awful, and obviously it is quite a big deal to him and his loved ones. However, the news media seems to be treating this as some sort of consequential American victory over piracy (and the Somali pirates in particular), which seems to obviously be not the case. Has America demonstrated a way to shut down pirate operations? Well, no. Has America demonstrated a coherent pirate harm-reduction strategy? Well, no. Has America addressed the root cause of the piracy problem? No, unless by “addressed” you mean “caused”.
The piracy situation will continue, and probably get worse, until the pirates no longer have a base of operations in an effectively lawless territory. Of course, no major powers want to intervene (which seems like a reasonable choice on their part), suggesting that no resolution is forthcoming. Yes, snipers shooting pirates in the head is an awe-inspiring display of American military prowess, but it’s hardly a policy. If I were placing bets, it would be on one of two outcomes: either the world gets used to a certain level of piracy, or the situation in Somalia stabilizes. Or most likely both.
As an aside, there’s a thoughtful article in (of all places) the Huffington Post about the origins of the Somali pirate problem, which does a good job summing up the rather complex situation. Granted, the author is a bit of a pirate apologist (arr-pologist). But he does tell the story of why the Europeans have more or less forced poor Somalis into it by destroying the local fish stocks. And by the way, if there was a sovereign nation in Somalia it would take advantage of its geography by imposing tolls on passage. Should we be surprised that pirates do it free-lance?
