The Somalis that attack innocents are not adventurers, and there is nothing admirable about their cruelty.

There was little to nothing admirable about pirates a couple of centuries ago. They were killers too. Francis Drake got knighted and became a "sir". He wasn't a pirate at the time, but in the service of the Royal Navy, which needed his skill in fighting Spaniards; but there is no need to be overly technical is such matters. Pirates became privateers and privateers became pirates when the mood and the money were right. We are entitled to our myths. They help get us through an otherwise boring day, but we should not mistake myths for reality. Long John Silver and his pirate progeny may be devilish rogues, but the Somali pirates are merely devils. There is no romance in a beheading or a ransom. These are acts of cruelty and cowardice.

The U.N. Security Council, in a unanimous vote, passed a resolution allowing foreign navies to combat Somali pirates along the 1,800 mile-long coast of the country. Unanimous? Warships? The U.N. did this?

Where then is the confusion?

The resolution is limited to Somalia, and a slam-dunk for the U.N. because piracy is a violation of international law. The combating of piracy does not require a permit. Somalia need only invite other countries to enter its territorial waters and the navies can come. The controversy is what did not pass, which countries were left out of the resolution -- like, for example, all of the countries on the rest of the African continent. China, Vietnam and Libya, according to the BBC, only voted for the resolution because it will not affect the sovereignty of other countries. Why risk the good will of dictatorships by expanding the resolution to apply to -- let us say -- West Africa, which is also beset by pirates? And which, as coincidence would have it, has untapped natural resources . . .

Here is where all three parties meet at the crossroads. They, thoroughly confused, cannot determine the difference between what is right and what is in their best interests.

By way of coda, the Somali government -- such as it is (or isn't) -- is fighting Islamic terrorists. The Ethiopians are fighting al-Qaeda in Somalia and helping to prop up the current rulers. The terrorists won’t talk to the U.N. or meet with representatives of the Somali government until the Ethiopians leave. The Somalis are, of late, willing to try this bargain. Of course there may be no need for talks if the Ethiopians leave, because terrorists tend to shy away from talking after they take over a country. They prefer to toss true believers strapped with bombs at dissidents.

Terrorists are not confused. They want Somalia, have no romantic notions about pirates and no fear of the U.N. It appears, then, that the only condition worse than confusion is a lack of confusion. Doubloons anyone?

©2008 Edward Chupack

Author Bio Edward Chupack is an attorney for a major law firm. He lives near Chicago. His first novel, Silver, is available now from Thomas Dunne Books.

Page 2 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next