Hijackers have already shown their ability to change their tactics
The decision by the European Union’s naval force combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and beyond to seek a “pirate cultural advisor” has unsurprisingly attracted media attention.
“Pirate culture” was the phrase that hooked most commentators for two reasons: the perceived oxymoron created by juxtaposing the two words, “culture”, suggesting to many art galleries, the opera and similarly refined loci of aesthetic appreciation, and “pirate” widely regarded as the former’s antithesis; and because of the opportunity it provides to reference historical and modern images of piracy – from Victorian melodrama to Hollywood hokum.
Despite the fact that the activities of the modern “pirate”, who hijacks ships and hold their crews hostage for ransom, have received wide if intermittent attention in the media, the image conjured by the word in most minds stubbornly remains the romanticised one rather than the brutal reality.
So stories covering the job advertisement for a pirate cultural advisor have been shot through with derision and liberal use of images such as those of the recent Hollywood series of piratical films. They also revived the criticism of what is seen as the disproportionate response by navies from predominantly European countries, with the action most criticised the release of suspects, albeit usually with weapons and other hijack paraphernalia confiscated.
What EU NAVFOR is actually looking for is someone with a military background and knowledge of piracy as currently practised. As an official told the media, it was simply following the well-known policy of knowing one’s enemy in order to defeat them more easily. To “get inside the mind” of a pirate might be another way of putting it, although the culture advisor would no doubt point out the mind in question is likely to be under the influence of khat, the amphetamine-like drug popular in the region.
It is a sign perhaps that those tasked with the job of defending the high seas have come to see it as, rather than a policing action, a military engagement, albeit an asymmetrical one and one not taught – yet at least – at naval colleges. (At the same time piracy is also being treated as a “transnational crime”, with incidents, particularly successful and failed hijackings, receiving the attention of Interpol.)
It is not clear whether the other naval forces – NATO and the US Navy’s Combined Task Force, for example – have similar experts on pirate culture working for them, but it would not be surprising if they did. No doubt, too, shipping companies and industry organisations also avail themselves, either directly or indirectly (perhaps via P&I clubs or law firms), of such expertise, although one imagines the supply of such genuine experts is limited.
Nor would it be surprising to learn the pirates themselves – described earlier this year by one expert in ransom negotiations as “cunning” – have engaged the services of a European cultural advisor, i.e. somebody familiar with the way in which EU governments, singly or together, and their military forces work.
Showing awareness of their enemy’s culture, they were also said to have viewed capture by European navies as an opportunity to claim asylum-seeker status and enjoy the benefits of living in liberal democracies, although they may have been disabused of that notion by increasingly robust responses from some countries An estimated 1,000 men accused of piracy are awaiting trial around the world, but the number of attacks in the region, albeit with a reduced success rate, does not appear to have diminished.
The high-seas hijackers have already shown their ability to change their tactics in response to those used by both merchant ships they prey on and their defenders. Their ability to board and capture large merchant ships at sea from flimsy craft has also no doubt won grudging praise from both victims and seasoned naval personnel, although that success may have prompted others around the world to consider following their example.
They have also become adept at ransom negotiations, during which they mercilessly deploy both physical and psychological torture techniques to put pressure on both hostages and those seeking to secure their release. The reports of increasing violence against hostages may be a reaction to what the pirates perceive to be a losing battle, although an alternative theory is that the hijacking hostage-takers have begun hiring armed guards who, rather than receive a share of the ransom, are paid a daily rate and so have less interest in the welfare of their captives.
If naval commanders are going to get to know pirates better and the latter in turn may already be wise to the former’s ways, the worlds of merchant shipping and naval shipping, between which there has long been an uneasy relationship, have perhaps too become closer than at any time since the Second World War, with both sides having to learn how the other works.
At governmental level those states providing the naval forces have been given a refresher in the realities of open-register shipping under which the majority of ships, while owned or controlled from the former, are now flagged in other countries that have no or little defence industry. Their crews too are for the most part foreign nationals whose own cultures are worthy of equal scrutiny, given that some hostages might be culturally predisposed to keep secret some details of their treatment at the hands of their captors.
At operational level, naval commanders have begun to appreciate the problems faced by shipowners, their management and crews, realising that, while the majority are willing to co-operate- in implementing best practices, reporting in and maintaining contact – as far as possible, a hard-core minority appears to be prepared to sail through high-risk areas with minimal anti-piracy measures.
Shipowners, for their part, have been re-acquainted with the constraints under which navies perforce work, although they must still despair at the lack of will among their political masters.
Knowing your enemy is one thing, but knowing your enemy also knows you means the winner will be the one who can keep one move ahead of the other.
Source: BIMCO, Andrew Guest
