| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Why is New Labour so reluctant to arrest Somali pirates? |
| 2010-01-25 |
| No doubt I will return to the question of the EU, multiculturalism and all that, but I thought that it would be a change to descend from great historical issues of principle to a closer look at how the morass of human rights laws, political correctness and the floods of illegal immigrants claiming political asylum are undermining efforts to put down piracy off Somalia. On 11 November 2008, the frigate HMS Cumberland intercepted a suspected pirate dhow. Eight suspected pirates were arrested. It all sounded a rather well conducted operation, but curiously the Government spinmasters were not out telling us all of this NuLab triumph. I tried to find out more from the private office of the relevant Defence Minister, but was passed from one telephone extension to another, finishing up at one stage with the security guard at the main door. Eventually I found a friendly official who told me that there was a problem because the Home and Foreign Offices were in a state of (I think she used the word "concern", but "panic" seemed closer to the truth) over the possibilty that if the suspect pirates were brought here for trial they might claim political asylum. I began to feel that the Government was not best pleased that the Royal Navy had interpreted a brief to put down piracy as a brief to put down piracy, rather than as a brief to look as if they were putting down piracy, subject to the overwhelming need to avoid bringing pirates to justice here in Britain. A friendly Foreign Office Minister half-heartedly defended the policy with the question, "What else could we do?" I suggested that they could be put into the care of Haringey social services department, but we both agreed that might constitue a cruel and unnatural punishment. In fact, a deal was done with Kenya to put the pirates on trial in Mombasa. Over a year later, on 2 December 2009, in reponse to a Parliamentary Question, I was told by the Foreign Office that the prosecution case was coming to a close and the defence was expected to be heard shortly. More recently, I enquired on how many occasions Royal Navy units had made contact with pirates off Somalia, how many suspects were involved and whether they were armed. Back came the answer: the Navy had carried out "compliant boardings" on seven suspected pirate vessels, involving a total of 74 pirates, all of whom were armed. The spin masters had been at it again. By choosing to interpret my expression "made contact with" as meaning "boarded", they had airbrushed away the incident in which the crew of the Cumberland had to watch the kidnapping of a British couple rather than risk their lives by engaging with the pirates. That couple are still being held hostage and their lives are still at risk. The pirates have run no risk at all to their own lives. Another curious fact emerges from all this. In the first incident in November 2008, the Navy arrested all eight suspects and brought them aboard a Royal Navy ship, in essence within British jurisdiction. That caused the panic in Whitehall over possible applications for asylum here. Since then, I am told, there has not been "sufficient evidence" to charge any of the 66 pirates involved in the six further compliant boardings. How convenient. Indeed, how curious. All the suspects were armed. Again by use of Parliamentary Questions, I discovered that in three cases hostages were found on the suspect pirate vessels. In all three cases those hostages were released. Now that sounds to me as if they were kidnap victims, and kidnapping at sea is piracy. But it seems there was "insufficient evidence" to charge the suspect pirates. How odd. Do not blame the Navy. Our men are doing their best. Since October 2008 they have "seized and where appropriate disposed of 39 assault rifles, six rocket propelled grenades, four pistols, a quantity of ammunition, five ladders, several grappling hooks, numerous fuel barrels and four skiffs". Not much evidence there then, so no need to embarrass anyone by arresting the "suspects", was there? So why were these poor innocent sailors deprived of their hostages and their property? The Government tell me they had the right to do it under Article 105 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. But as I (and a distinguished lawyer) read that, the suspect pirates must be arrested before their property can be seized. After all, your local bobby, sorry Community Police Officer, can not just relieve a "suspect burglar" of his jemmy without taking the matter a little further. Oh, and if all this was not enough, the Foreign Office tells me that "there have been four instances where water, fuel or food has been provided to suspected pirates". Well, that's fair enough, I suppose. If you take away the equipment they use to earn a living they should be entitled to welfare, shouldn't they? Any more for the NuLab madhouse? |
| Posted by:Bright Pebbles |
| #5 "Why is New Labour so reluctant to Fixed. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-01-25 19:37 |
| #4 Arresting people is so judgmental. Best to express one's maritime disapproval with the deck gun. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2010-01-25 11:15 |
| #3 Silly Brits, you don't arrest pirates. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2010-01-25 07:55 |
| #2 Another example of the Eric Holder Doctrine of Maritime Law. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-01-25 06:58 |
| #1 see a pirate boat.. sink it don't rescue anybody no political problem |
| Posted by: 3dc 2010-01-25 00:15 |