Sooner or later it was bound to happen. Over the past several years, American ships and crews had evaded the rising tide of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. But on April 8, pirates off the coast of Somalia seized a U.S.-flagged container ship, the Maersk Alabama, with a crew of 20 Americans. However, the American seamen were unwilling to join the crews of 18 other ships who are being held for ransom by the Somali pirates. In what is believed to be an unprecedented action in the Somali pirates’ sphere of operations, the unarmed crew fought back and overpowered their attackers.

Although the details of the struggle are still sketchy, various news organizations have reported that the Americans used fire hoses and strength of numbers to overpower one or more of the pirates. The fight resulted in a standoff, with several pirates holding the ship’s captain, Richard Phillips of Underhill, Vermont, and the crew holding one of the pirates. The crew and pirates negotiated a deal that involved an exchange of prisoners and the pirates using one of the ship’s lifeboats to depart, since they had scuttled their speedboat when boarding the cargo ship. However, the pirates reneged on the deal and took Capt. Phillips hostage with them aboard the lifeboat.

The USS Bainbridge, a destroyer, arrived on the scene this morning, where the lifeboat with the pirates and Capt. Phillips is still floating near the Maersk Alabama. We hope this high seas drama ends with Capt. Phillips safely returned to his ship. But what to do about the escalating problem of piracy, not only around the Horn of Africa but in the busy Strait of Malacca and other troubled waters as well?

The LOST “Solution”

Our globalist-minded policy elites have the solution, of course: more empowerment of the United Nations. If you haven’t already heard of the LOST prescription for piracy, you soon will. Ratification of the UN Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST, also called UNCLOS, for UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) is a “top priority” for the new Obama administration, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The push for ratifying LOST heretofore has relied largely on environmental propaganda: LOST is “essential” for global cooperation to save the whales, the seals, the polar bears, the penguins, the plankton, the icebergs … (pick the endangered critter or object de jour). However, the age-old scourge of piracy has always been a back-up argument. Articles 100-107 and Article 110 of the UN Law Of the Sea Treaty deal with piracy.

The administration of George W. Bush broke with past Republican opposition to LOST and strongly endorsed the convention, which would dangerously undermine national sovereignty and transfer vast new powers to the United Nations to control and/or regulate virtually all human activity on, over, or under the oceans, including the seabed, coastal areas, and inland waterways (rivers, streams, and lakes) that empty into the oceans.

Shortly before leaving office, the Bush State Department issued statements supporting UN peacekeeping and LOST as a remedies for the Somali pirate problem. In a December 17, 2008 “Fact Sheet” entitled “United States Actions on Somalia Piracy,” the Bush State Department declared:

The United States remains deeply concerned by the continuing threat of piracy in the Horn of Africa and its impact on commercial shipping … and overall stability in the region…. The United States believes that a proper United Nations supported peacekeeping mission is necessary to combat piracy in the Horn of Africa.

The document goes on to say:

The United States, along with the international community, continues to use the legal framework provided by international treaties for addressing piracy. The UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives authorities the power to arrest or deter pirates on the high seas.

And, furthermore:

The United States recognizes piracy is a symptom of the lack of stability, security, economic development, and rule of law on the ground. Addressing these deficits in Somalia. Therefore, the United States recognizes the need for the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation.

Then, on January 14, one week before handing over the reins of government to the new Obama administration, the Bush State Department issued a new fact sheet stating:

Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1851, the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) was established on January 14, 2009 to facilitate discussion and coordination of actions among states and organizations to suppress piracy off the coast of Somalia. The CGPCS will report its progress periodically to the UN Security Council.

The Contact Group notes “with deep concern that piracy off the coast of Somalia grew significantly in 2008, and that attacks on shipping vessels can be expected to increase without enhanced international efforts.”

So, what will this UN Contact Group, of which the United States is a member, do about Somali piracy? Again, the State Department informs us:

As an international cooperation mechanism created pursuant to Security Council resolution 1851 to act as a point of contact between and among states, regional and international organizations on aspects of combating piracy and armed robbery at sea off Somalia’s coast, the CGPCS will inform the UN Security Council on a regular basis of the progress of its activities, including through providing relevant information to the UN Secretary General for possible incorporation into his periodic reports to the Council.

But here’s where it gets to the crux of the matter:

The CGPCS calls on state parties to implement their obligations under relevant treaties and applicable international law, including in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea with respect to suppressing piracy.... [Emphasis added.]

How will LOST assist in “suppressing piracy”? It won’t. In fact, it will cripple any effective U.S. action by binding us down with “international law” — as defined and interpreted by anti-American forces in the UN and their allies in our media and our government.

Article 110 of LOST, for instance, states: “The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State.”

So, if the pirates slip their speedboats into the territorial waters of Somalia, Kenya, or Ethiopia, they’re home free. Their pirate bases are likewise protected.

Luckily, the infant U.S. republic was not burdened with the UN or LOST when the Barbary Pirates were the scourge of the Mediterranean. The great European sea powers — Britain, France, Spain, Holland, Portugal — paid tribute to the murderous brigands and slavers of Tripoli. So did America, until our new nation finally said, “Enough!” — and built its own navy and sent a force to deal with the villains. The intrepid exploits of Commodore Edward Prebel, Lieutenant Stephen Decatur, Consul William Eaton, Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, and Captain William Bainbridge are legendary. Against incredible odds, and against difficulties far greater than those we face today from the Somali pirates, they triumphed — without sacrificing U.S. sovereignty and independence of action to a global authority.

Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson, the most eminent naval hero of the time, praised Decatur’s raid on Tripoli as "the most bold and daring act of the age."

Pope Pius VII effusively praised Preble's attacks on the pirates, saying the American offensive "had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages."

The inspiring story of America’s earliest experience in dealing with piracy on the high seas is brilliantly told by Thomas Jewett, in an online article entitled, “Terrorism In Early America: The U.S. Wages War Against The Barbary States to End International Blackmail and Terrorism.” The present generation of Americans should read this stirring and instructive chronicle of the good sense and heroism of our forebears in dealing with international criminals. The captain and crew of the Maersk Alabama appear to be imbued with some of the same sense and courage; they didn’t wait for a UN resolution or a LOST tribunal to tell them that it was OK to resist their captors. We need some of that good sense and courage in the halls of Congress, in the White House, and the State Department.

Photo: AP Images

Related articles from The New American:

LOST: Law of the Sea Treaty

Who Wants the U.S. to Get LOST?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Charles Byrd said:

Thank you. Thanks for that informative link about the Barbary pirates, I will share this with my friends.

April 10, 2009

Thom Beresford said:

Vice President We are including Jasper's piece into Sunday's (Easter Sunday) bulletin at Jupiter Presbyterian!

April 10, 2009

Robert McManus said:

... Mr. Jasper may have some unstated reasons to oppose US accession to the LOS Convention, but its provisions on piracy shouldn't trouble him, including its provisions on "hot pursuit" (actually, Art. 111). Reflecting longstanding international law, they apply on their face to a coastal state's ships chasing violators (e.g., unlicensed fishermen) from its own territorial sea. But under Art. 105, any state may seize a ship engaging in “piracy” (defined in Art. 101) on the high seas, and may also do so in a coastal state’s 200-mile "exclusive economic zone," as provided in Art. 58. Also, under Art. 100, all parties (including Somalia, which ratified 7/24/89) are required to cooperate "to the fullest possible extent," etc. Mr. Jasper demonstrates that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Beyond that, I’m tired of those who spread falsehoods about treaties that affect our national security. It is a flat falsehood to state that the LOS Convention gives the UN any substantive powers whatever, let alone in our inland waters. Nobody even slightly familiar with the text of this treaty would say that. And contrary to Mr. Jasper, the main push for US accession has never come from environmentalists; he is apparently ignorant of the long-standing support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the American Petroleum Institute, the Bush-appointed National Ocean Commission (unanimously), and the Sen. Foreign Relations Comm.(twice!). Of course, if the treaty did what Mr. Jasper claims, nobody would support US accession, let alone Bush 43. Fortunately, it doesn't. Not even close!

April 13, 2009

Jim Obenschain said:

Say No, no, no! to LOST Robert McManus may think the United Nations with it's Law of the Sea Treaty has all the necessary provisions to handle 'piracy,’ but just what has that world abomination ever successfully accomplished in it's entire 60 year history? Face it LOST is an out right sovereignty robbing global power grab. In March 2004 Tom Deweese summed up the reason America should fear LOST. He Said: President Ronald Regan refused to sign the LOST Treaty. And the Law of the Sea Treaty remained justifiably dead for the next 12 years until Bill Clinton pulled it out of the trash bin, dusted it off and signed it. Then, in the spirit of Reagan, a courageous Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, bottled it up until the Clintonistas were driven from power. But today there is no Ronald Reagan and no Jesse Helms, and so the Law of the Sea Treaty has again reared its ugly head and now stands on the verge of passage in the Senate under the forceful hand of the Obama administration. Freedom of the seas has been the guiding principle recognized by sovereign nations since ancient times. It means all nations recognize that ships, government owned or private, are free to sail the seas wherever they like, carrying their cargoes to ports of call for free trade among nations. Freedom of the seas also means the right to mine and fish the resources of the seas, unhindered. That's all about to change. In the name of "social equity," a euphemism for "redistribution of the wealth," the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty will replace the freedom of the seas concept with central control from an international body, specifically the United Nations. There you have it – a hundred ninety-one nations who can’t agree on anything administering everything under, on and above the oceans. Say No, no, no! to LOST

April 14, 2009

Robert McManus said:

... Facts matter. I identified a central "falsehood" in Mr. Jasper's piece -- that the LOS treaty would give the UN control over the oceans and everything in them, plus US internal waters. I don't see any rebuttal from Mr. Obenschain, who prefers to rant. Second, I did not say, nor is it the case, that LOS will solve the piracy problem, which is largely due to a failed state in East Africa. I don't believe LOS will make much difference one way or another, but it certainly does not limit our options, and it may help. Finally, it is dishonest or ignorant to claim that Reagan rejected the treaty and that Clinton "dusted it off." Reagan refused to sign the 1982 text and specified his objections, which were limited to Part XI on seabed mining; he generally approved all the rest, and indicated the US could support a text that met his detailed objections. During the ensuing decade, the treaty was in fact renegotiated, culminating in the 1994 Protocol that addressed the Reagan objections -- successfully, according to recent statements of George Shultz, Reagan’s Sec. of State. And by the way, successive Joint Chiefs of Staff and all living former Chiefs of Naval Ops supported US accession long before anyone ever heard of Obama. Facts, Mr. Obenschain, facts. They will mess you up every time.

April 15, 2009