Countries want to fight the Pirates -- but Not Too Hard!
From George Handlery, "Duly Noted: Distortions, lies and history" at Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3942)
1. As an anticipatory kowtow to third world sensibilities prior to their articulation, some countries consider sending forces to” protect” high-sea shipping. The terminology implies that attacks are to be reacted to in ways that make pirates retreat without needing to harm them. The implication is that when such actions dissuade perpetrators from completing their attacks, strikes will be postponed to be repeated once the conditions are more favorable. This means, like in the case of the slap-on-the-hand persecution of domestic crime, that an alternative future victim is created.
This is an example of everything that's wrong with the European view of the world. Note first the assumption that "third world sensibilities" dictate that we go easy on pirates. Third World countries may well be hurt worse, relative to their resources, by pirates than are First World countries. Certainly, when whole ares of the ocean become dangerous to legitimate commerce, this can't be helping the trade of those countries fronting on those waters.
Secondly, it's an insulting assumption. The premise is that "Third World countries" are so stupid that they can't see past the fact that the pirates are non-white and the navies (mostly) white; so stupid that they would rather have the pirates preying on their own shipping than be put down. This is based on the idea that "they're all alike anyway," since in fact only a few Third World countries actually base pirates, and of course Third World nations do not consider each other "all alike."
Thirdly, the notion that we should consider (alleged, unexpressed) Third World sensibilities ahead of actually suppressing the pirates. This is an abrogation of the duties of states to their citizens. Why even bother to maintain navies, if the navies are to be restrained from protecting their own national shipping for fear of annoying weaker Powers?
Finally, the ridiculous notion that making pirates retreat without harming them really does anything to solve the problem. The implication is that the pirates are acting impulsively rather than making rational cost-beneft decisions. In fact the pirates have decided to make money through piracy, and if they are forced to retreat from one ship, they will simply pick another, and another, until eventually they find a ship unguarded. Indeed, such a ship is more likely to belong to one of the Third World countries whose delicate sensibilities this tactic is meant to prevent, than it is to a First World nation.
But then, of course, it's not as if Europe really gives a damn about the Third World.
1. As an anticipatory kowtow to third world sensibilities prior to their articulation, some countries consider sending forces to” protect” high-sea shipping. The terminology implies that attacks are to be reacted to in ways that make pirates retreat without needing to harm them. The implication is that when such actions dissuade perpetrators from completing their attacks, strikes will be postponed to be repeated once the conditions are more favorable. This means, like in the case of the slap-on-the-hand persecution of domestic crime, that an alternative future victim is created.
This is an example of everything that's wrong with the European view of the world. Note first the assumption that "third world sensibilities" dictate that we go easy on pirates. Third World countries may well be hurt worse, relative to their resources, by pirates than are First World countries. Certainly, when whole ares of the ocean become dangerous to legitimate commerce, this can't be helping the trade of those countries fronting on those waters.
Secondly, it's an insulting assumption. The premise is that "Third World countries" are so stupid that they can't see past the fact that the pirates are non-white and the navies (mostly) white; so stupid that they would rather have the pirates preying on their own shipping than be put down. This is based on the idea that "they're all alike anyway," since in fact only a few Third World countries actually base pirates, and of course Third World nations do not consider each other "all alike."
Thirdly, the notion that we should consider (alleged, unexpressed) Third World sensibilities ahead of actually suppressing the pirates. This is an abrogation of the duties of states to their citizens. Why even bother to maintain navies, if the navies are to be restrained from protecting their own national shipping for fear of annoying weaker Powers?
Finally, the ridiculous notion that making pirates retreat without harming them really does anything to solve the problem. The implication is that the pirates are acting impulsively rather than making rational cost-beneft decisions. In fact the pirates have decided to make money through piracy, and if they are forced to retreat from one ship, they will simply pick another, and another, until eventually they find a ship unguarded. Indeed, such a ship is more likely to belong to one of the Third World countries whose delicate sensibilities this tactic is meant to prevent, than it is to a First World nation.
But then, of course, it's not as if Europe really gives a damn about the Third World.