Mombasa, Kenya, Africa (harbor security - click here) Noted that Somalia 'holds' a great length of Africa's coastline. It is a strategic location. Directly west of Madagascar.
Mobasa Harbor is noted with this map (click to enlarge - thank you).
The footage of a returning crew member to the Kenyan port is rather graphic in its verbiage, however, I believe the crew may be misinterpreting the actions of the media. To some extent, the returning crew may be feeling shame for living through it when there Captain is still in peril. They don't stop to realize this isn't a media circus so much as media exposure of a serious set of circumstances with a dynamic that brings pressure to the kidnappers of the Captain.
To begin there is still a life 'at risk.' There are actually many lives at risk, including the pirates and their other hijacked ships and the crews. But, for the most part, the life that is most at risk is Captain Phillips and for that reason, the media and the people they serve have a vested interest.
Making too much of the Somali pirates? No, simply because the 'idea' of invasion into Somalia to stop the pirates completely and forever isn't even a viable strategy at this point. There are too many innocent people at risk for an operation like that and I doubt sincerely if the USA Navy is even considering such an agenda, although, they most certainly have a strategy that might include that scenario if the opportunity either allows it OR DICTATES it.
The focus on the pirates of Somalia and the international waters they operate in, is an important one. It focuses on the 'rights' of civilization to secure their transports WITHOUT being militarized. The real question is NOT "Are we making too much of the Somali Pirates?," but "Are we NOT making enough of the security of our ocean going transports?"
...Somalia's 2,300 kilometer long coast (click title to entry - thank you) is the longest in Africa and its waters are rife with pirates. Last year, they seized more than 100 ships. This year, pirates have already captured more than dozen vessels, including an Italian-flagged boat and its crew of 16 that were captured Saturday in the Gulf of Aden.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized nations to pursue the pirates beyond international waters "by land, sea and air" including onto Somali territory if necessary. But there has been no decision on what to do with the pirates once they are in custody....
To illustrate the 'vigilance' to safety of all involved, the USA sailors when fired 'upon' moved to safe distance and did NOT 'return fire.' Although. They had every right to do so. It was a valient and brilliant stance the USA Navy took in this regard, because, it showed the pirates were truly interested in 'a war' and not simply 'hijacking.' They wanted to invite war without regard to the people of Somalia. They proved once again they have little to no regard for human life except for it's fiscal value to their economy.
The statement above by the United Nations is a strategically important one. It provides 'safety' to allow 'benevolent transport ships' to protect themselves from the Somali pirates no matter what it takes to do so. There are lives in the balance and without such consent any 'move against' the pirates, their bases and their mother ships could be construed by some countries as unwarranted aggression rather than self defense.
The footage of a returning crew member to the Kenyan port is rather graphic in its verbiage, however, I believe the crew may be misinterpreting the actions of the media. To some extent, the returning crew may be feeling shame for living through it when there Captain is still in peril. They don't stop to realize this isn't a media circus so much as media exposure of a serious set of circumstances with a dynamic that brings pressure to the kidnappers of the Captain.
To begin there is still a life 'at risk.' There are actually many lives at risk, including the pirates and their other hijacked ships and the crews. But, for the most part, the life that is most at risk is Captain Phillips and for that reason, the media and the people they serve have a vested interest.
Making too much of the Somali pirates? No, simply because the 'idea' of invasion into Somalia to stop the pirates completely and forever isn't even a viable strategy at this point. There are too many innocent people at risk for an operation like that and I doubt sincerely if the USA Navy is even considering such an agenda, although, they most certainly have a strategy that might include that scenario if the opportunity either allows it OR DICTATES it.
The focus on the pirates of Somalia and the international waters they operate in, is an important one. It focuses on the 'rights' of civilization to secure their transports WITHOUT being militarized. The real question is NOT "Are we making too much of the Somali Pirates?," but "Are we NOT making enough of the security of our ocean going transports?"
...Somalia's 2,300 kilometer long coast (click title to entry - thank you) is the longest in Africa and its waters are rife with pirates. Last year, they seized more than 100 ships. This year, pirates have already captured more than dozen vessels, including an Italian-flagged boat and its crew of 16 that were captured Saturday in the Gulf of Aden.
The United Nations Security Council has authorized nations to pursue the pirates beyond international waters "by land, sea and air" including onto Somali territory if necessary. But there has been no decision on what to do with the pirates once they are in custody....
To illustrate the 'vigilance' to safety of all involved, the USA sailors when fired 'upon' moved to safe distance and did NOT 'return fire.' Although. They had every right to do so. It was a valient and brilliant stance the USA Navy took in this regard, because, it showed the pirates were truly interested in 'a war' and not simply 'hijacking.' They wanted to invite war without regard to the people of Somalia. They proved once again they have little to no regard for human life except for it's fiscal value to their economy.
The statement above by the United Nations is a strategically important one. It provides 'safety' to allow 'benevolent transport ships' to protect themselves from the Somali pirates no matter what it takes to do so. There are lives in the balance and without such consent any 'move against' the pirates, their bases and their mother ships could be construed by some countries as unwarranted aggression rather than self defense.
The reasoning could become completely bizarre, including ideas as far ranging as 'we recognize' this is how a 'warrior' society in Somalia addresses their economy. They do not kill people so long as their fiscal needs are met and ransom money is simply a part of doing business in this part of the world. An 'ideation' like that would raise questions to even the World Courts to attempt to intimidate civilization as to a 'lost culture' in Somalia and opening the door to questionable genocide if an invasion took place costing the Somalies children and women.
So, I find the statement by the United Nations refreshing and definitive. Already, the 'focus' by the media and the 'actions' of the USA Navy have paid off to the international shipping community.
Sometimes victories are won when not shedding one corpusle of blood, but, in the rooms of power and recognition of 'human rights.' This shipment on The Maersk Alabama was most egregeious to stop since it was food aid to countries within Africa. A delay could cost millions of people, including women and children, their lives and hence providing reason to believe the Somali pirates are indeed a grave danger to people and capable of mass genocide by starvation.
Let's take this one step further. What indeed 'defines' when a naval vessel of any country can 'fire upon' another vessel regardless of its cargo? There are methodologies to war that would include cutting off supplies, etc. So, then, what indeed defines these parameters?
One very logical and overt answer is, "A ship can be 'fired upon' if it is armed." NOW, with the permission of agencies/institutions such as the United Nations Security Council stating ocean going vessels can have 'prophylactic' volumes of arms to protect themselves and cargo OR hire such escorts is a huge jump to stopping this insane mess with the Somalian coastline. It doesn't matter, in this case, if indeed the Somalian people have this 'inane' definition of culture, we as civilized people can now define OUR RIGHT to protect our goods, ships, people and 'rights of way' in international waters.
In my opinion, the incident that still keeps Captain Phillips as a hostage has resulted in huge international steps to free merchant ships from such horrible circumstances and begins to set parameters to tolerance of aggression by people that see harming civilization as an option.
