5 ms·

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Your idea is interesting. Perhaps impractical, though. The ocean is monstrously big, and the US Navy is insufficient to

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Your idea is interesting. Perhaps impractical, though. The ocean is monstrously big, and the US Navy is insufficient to cover it at all times. Especially in its current size and state. Even just the Gulf of Aden is 438,000 square kilometers, which is roughly the size of California. Admittedly you don't need to cover all that area, as the effective range of pirate speedboats is limited, so you're really just covering the coastlines. Even still, that's a lot of space. Satellites, sensor networks, etc., could help virtually shrink that playing field, so to speak. Just-in-time response is still a manpower issue, though. Strong signaling and prevention is more effective than constant response, though I'm not sure how you apply a blanket of prevention selectively to the ships that are paying for it. Flags or color signals, perhaps. [EDIT: Seems you're back in black. Your comment was greying when I first came across it.]

_delirium 12y ago
I agree it's an interesting idea. Two complications are: 1. In many cases the US Navy has its own interests in combating piracy, and isn't interested in providing an opt-out from its police services. Somalia is one area, where one of the goals of the anti-piracy initiative is to cut off the funds flowing to militant groups who use piracy as a source of income. On the other hand, this means the question of freeriding is less important, because the US Navy is providing and paying for the patrols for its own reasons, not (primarily) as a service to shipowners. 2. Some kind of maritime-law reform would be needed. Traditional maritime law has at least some kind of emergency-assistance duty. Launching a heroic rescue with helicopters and special forces is almost certainly not part of it, so that could be withheld. But under current maritime law you couldn't just completely ignore a distress signal and refuse to attempt to help, even when in a position to easily do so.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Yeah, I'd imagine you run into #2 a lot with any sort of selective-policing policy. Not only that, but you create economic incentives for the pirates to focus their attentions on anyone not under US protection, thus selectively making piracy worse for everyone else, which in effect pressures them into buying your insurance program. This feels deviously brilliant, but ethically suspect. It also racks up a protective burden that may grow to outweigh the tax revenues. I suppose another deviously brilliant solution would be to send some CIA fixer types out to the Somali warlords, bribing them to avoid ships with X, Y, Z symbols on them (whoever's paying the Navy Tax). Probably less money spent doing this than building and keeping loads of gunboats in the water at all times. Again, though, this creates its own negative externalities and perverse incentives. Plus, you're now in the business of keeping certain warlords in power, and we all know how well that usually works out for us.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Not only that, but you create economic incentives for the pirates to focus their attentions on anyone not under US protection, thus selectively making piracy worse for everyone else, which in effect pressures them into buying your insurance program. I don't see why - people could also buy protection service from non-US navies, or simply arm the crew. It's not as if the US Navy is the only way to ward off pirates. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading about the Chinese navy taking out a few pirates a while back. (No dramatic rescue of crew held hostage, however.)
  - saryant 12y ago
    > I suppose another deviously brilliant solution would be to send some CIA fixer types out to the Somali warlords, bribing them to avoid ships with X, Y, Z symbols on them (whoever's paying the Navy Tax). Probably less money spent doing this than building and keeping loads of gunboats in the water at all times. Again, though, this creates its own negative externalities and perverse incentives. Plus, you're now in the business of keeping certain warlords in power, and we all know how well that usually works out for us. America has been down that road before. After the revolution, American merchant ships lost the protection of the British navy and had to fend for themselves in the Mediterranean against pirates from Barbary States of North Africa. At first, the young republic tried precisely what you advocate—send over some fixer with a big bag of cash. In 1795 the tribute came to 1/6 of the nation's entire budget, leading to the creation of the American Navy in order to end the problem by force rather than with cash. This led to the First Barbary War. Some historians (like Michael Oren) even claim that the issue of piracy was one of the catalysts for revising the Articles of Confederation and forming a stronger central government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
    - jonnathanson 12y ago
      The First Barbary War is a fascinating subject, and it's interesting as a point of reference. Not that I'm necessarily advocating the bribe or tribute system, per se; I'm just thinking about it as an intellectual exercise. But in theory, a key difference between the US today and the US in the 1790s is that we have the world's most impressive and dominant navy, and if push came to shove, we could retaliate pretty aggressively. So our bribe would be backed by a credible threat: take this payment, but don't bite the hand that feeds you. Now, as I mentioned, this creates all sorts of perverse economic incentives. First, it encourages infighting among the warlords, further destabilizing the region as each band or group jockeys for top position. Second, it could just as easily be taken by the pirates as a sign of weakness. They'll want to test the limits of that weakness, either by raising their prices over time, by taking more ships for ransom. Finally, it legitimizes some no doubt unsavory leaders, whose American ties would cause deeper sociopolitical problems for us when they got out.

_delirium 12y ago

I agree it's an interesting idea. Two complications are: 1. In many cases the US Navy has its own interests in combating piracy, and isn't interested in providing an opt-out from its police services. Somalia is one area, where one of the goals of the anti-piracy initiative is to cut off the funds flowing to militant groups who use piracy as a source of income. On the other hand, this means the question of freeriding is less important, because the US Navy is providing and paying for the patrols for its own reasons, not (primarily) as a service to shipowners. 2. Some kind of maritime-law reform would be needed. Traditional maritime law has at least some kind of emergency-assistance duty. Launching a heroic rescue with helicopters and special forces is almost certainly not part of it, so that could be withheld. But under current maritime law you couldn't just completely ignore a distress signal and refuse to attempt to help, even when in a position to easily do so.

jonnathanson 12y ago
Yeah, I'd imagine you run into #2 a lot with any sort of selective-policing policy. Not only that, but you create economic incentives for the pirates to focus their attentions on anyone not under US protection, thus selectively making piracy worse for everyone else, which in effect pressures them into buying your insurance program. This feels deviously brilliant, but ethically suspect. It also racks up a protective burden that may grow to outweigh the tax revenues. I suppose another deviously brilliant solution would be to send some CIA fixer types out to the Somali warlords, bribing them to avoid ships with X, Y, Z symbols on them (whoever's paying the Navy Tax). Probably less money spent doing this than building and keeping loads of gunboats in the water at all times. Again, though, this creates its own negative externalities and perverse incentives. Plus, you're now in the business of keeping certain warlords in power, and we all know how well that usually works out for us.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Not only that, but you create economic incentives for the pirates to focus their attentions on anyone not under US protection, thus selectively making piracy worse for everyone else, which in effect pressures them into buying your insurance program. I don't see why - people could also buy protection service from non-US navies, or simply arm the crew. It's not as if the US Navy is the only way to ward off pirates. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall reading about the Chinese navy taking out a few pirates a while back. (No dramatic rescue of crew held hostage, however.)
- saryant 12y ago
  > I suppose another deviously brilliant solution would be to send some CIA fixer types out to the Somali warlords, bribing them to avoid ships with X, Y, Z symbols on them (whoever's paying the Navy Tax). Probably less money spent doing this than building and keeping loads of gunboats in the water at all times. Again, though, this creates its own negative externalities and perverse incentives. Plus, you're now in the business of keeping certain warlords in power, and we all know how well that usually works out for us. America has been down that road before. After the revolution, American merchant ships lost the protection of the British navy and had to fend for themselves in the Mediterranean against pirates from Barbary States of North Africa. At first, the young republic tried precisely what you advocate—send over some fixer with a big bag of cash. In 1795 the tribute came to 1/6 of the nation's entire budget, leading to the creation of the American Navy in order to end the problem by force rather than with cash. This led to the First Barbary War. Some historians (like Michael Oren) even claim that the issue of piracy was one of the catalysts for revising the Articles of Confederation and forming a stronger central government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    The First Barbary War is a fascinating subject, and it's interesting as a point of reference. Not that I'm necessarily advocating the bribe or tribute system, per se; I'm just thinking about it as an intellectual exercise. But in theory, a key difference between the US today and the US in the 1790s is that we have the world's most impressive and dominant navy, and if push came to shove, we could retaliate pretty aggressively. So our bribe would be backed by a credible threat: take this payment, but don't bite the hand that feeds you. Now, as I mentioned, this creates all sorts of perverse economic incentives. First, it encourages infighting among the warlords, further destabilizing the region as each band or group jockeys for top position. Second, it could just as easily be taken by the pirates as a sign of weakness. They'll want to test the limits of that weakness, either by raising their prices over time, by taking more ships for ransom. Finally, it legitimizes some no doubt unsavory leaders, whose American ties would cause deeper sociopolitical problems for us when they got out.