Pirates are not terrorists?

Got some interesting feedback on my previous article "Kudos to the Maersk Alabama." One inferred that my knowledge of world affairs and the shipping industry in general is somewhat lacking. That may be, but no less than the limited scope of any other finite human being. Another said that the pirates are not to be classified as "terrorists" because they are plying one of the oldest businesses in the world, and also because they do not intend to sink ships. Isn't that nice of them? One guy classified the pirates as "unfortunates." Must be a "root causes" guy. Piracy is a legitimate business? Hmmm...

Let's take this one at a time, shall we? It's true that I have never served aboard a ship, and my working knowledge of the industry is limited. However, how much does one really need to know in order to comment on simple security measures? About the shipping industry: a ship is loaded with a cargo, which presumably carries a monetary value. The cargo is loaded onto the ship from a dock by longshoremen who are probably union members. The ship sails to its destination along designated shipping lanes, manned by a captain and a crew. When the ship docks at its destination, the cargo is off-loaded by more longshoremen onto trucks or trains for delivery to merchants who pay the shipping company for the goods which they have delivered. The company is paid for services rendered. Pretty simple.

As with any other business, shipping companies have overhead. The ships must be fueled and maintained, employees must be paid. There are insurance fees, licensing fees, and probably a million other concerns too numerous to detail in this short space. In short, we're talking about running a business. It isn't that complicated.

There are designated shipping lanes which ships use. They use them because they may be the shortest distance between point A and point B, maybe because of prevailing currents. Shipping lanes also offer a measure of security because more than one ship uses them at any given time. The crews, however, unlike the Maersk Alabama, are not generally protected by trained security teams. 

Now, let's talk about the "unfortunates." Pirates are, by definition, nothing if not murderous thugs and bandits. Their targets are unarmed civilians, some of whom they have killed. They know that most of the cargo ships that they target do not have security teams aboard to offer resistance. That alone defines them as terrorists. It isn't necessary to fly an airplane into a building or blow oneself up in a crowded marketplace in order to qualify for terrorist designation. That they are interested in money that doesn't belong to them rather than in forwarding a radical religious cause does not change what they are.

OK, they come from poor societies, but they apparently have enough monetary resources to buy a boat with a motor powerful enough to outrun pursuit. They can buy automatic weapons large enough to cow a much larger ship into submission. True, their incentive is to collect ransom, but that must be small comfort to the murdered victims and their families. Ransom has been paid amounting to millions of dollars, costing shipping companies equal amounts of lost profit and driving up insurance premiums and the cost of the goods shipped as well. Ransom is but another word for extortion, which, the last time I checked, is bad.

Then there would be lawsuits against the shipping companies involving settlements to the families of crew members either killed or injured or subjected to mental stress. The shipping companies would be held responsible because it is their duty to protect their crews. What do those payments do for the company's profit margin? For their insurance premiums? Wouldn't a crewman demand increased pay for increased risk when the company ship again takes to the high seas? Wouldn't you want more money if you thought that you might be taken hostage? Or murdered? Would the shipping company turn away an experienced crewman because he wanted more money or would it rather invest in the training of a new crewman?

The issue is not a military one involving a military solution. A merchant ship can no more expect a private naval escort than a citizen can expect a police officer to stand guard at his door while he sleeps. There are not enough naval vessels in the world to provide that kind of security any more than there are enough police officers to man our doorsteps overnight. The issue is one of the God-given right that any man is born with to defend himself and his property.

One guy commented that if the pirates experience enough failure, they will stop. True enough, but what caused them to fail if not the armed security team aboard the Maersk Alabama? What stops a criminal from invading my home except the knowledge that I have a big dog, a black belt, and may have a gun? Pirates, like criminals, are bullies. They don't want to fight. They want to beat you up. If a bully thinks that you will fight back, he will let you alone. This is a lesson that most of us have learned by the time we graduate high school. One would think that the "international community" would have learned it by now. Terrorists attack "soft" targets.

Maybe I lack the experience of sailing the high seas and the risks involved. Perhaps I do not have the detailed knowledge of all that is involved in running a shipping company, or any other business for that matter. What I do know is that it must be much more economical to pay a trained, armed security team to protect an ocean-going vessel than to pay out millions in ransom. These terrorists will only stop when enough of their boats have been blown out of the water and their dead bodies wash up onto the shores of their poor countries for all of their friends to see the awful consequences of pertrating evil. More guns at sea, less piracy. So there.