Piracy off the coast of Somali is serious business -- one source has reported that pirates were paid over $150 million in ransom just from November 2007 to November 2008.
Why the prevalence of the piracy? Because the area in question is enormous -- over a million square miles -- making it very difficult for navies to patrol. Also, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency of the United Nations, prefers military action to be initiated by nations, rather than by the individual ships.
As I watched the saga of the Maersk Alabama unfold, I could not help but notice a parallel to the gun rights debate in this country.
Consider this: Various organizing bodies prefer that individual ships' defense against piracy be limited to escape measures; should a ship be taken captive by pirates, the preferred course of action is to let national governments' militaries and hostage-negotiation personnel handle attempts to recover the personnel and the ship.
Translation: If piracy is threatened, undergo escape or defensive -- but nonviolent -- measures to prevent a ship takeover. However, if such actions are unsuccessful, do not resist with force. Leave follow-up negotiations and any potential military responses to the countries' armed forces. Do not try such efforts yourselves.
How similar to the current, state-supported approach to crime: Undergo preventive measures -- install security systems, locks, etc. -- but, should an invader enter, or threaten to enter, your home, try contacting 911 and wait for the police response.
In both situations, waiting for the so-called 'cavalry' to arrive is, all-too-frequently, going to be too late. By the time a country's navy, or a precinct's police force, is able to respond to the crime, the aggression has already occurred -- and any casualties tend to be weighted unfavorably to the unarmed parties.
However, should a merchant ship, or a person's home, be stocked with people trained to respond to aggression with aggression, not only does the ship or home stand a better chance to remain secure, but the chance of future attacks is reduced, as would-be criminals will pass up an armed camp in favor of a defenseless one.
Such a stance, however, is not favored by States, because that takes power and authority out of their hands, and into the individuals' hands -- thus limiting their reliance on the State for protection. (And what authority wants to yield influence and power?)
Posts
