Maersk Alabama vs Pirates: 2-0

[rowyn]

Armed security really earned their pay in this case. The Maersk Alabama -- the same ship that was attacked by pirates in April, whose captain was taken hostage and rescued by the US Navy -- was attacked by pirates again. Eeep! But this time they had a security detail for protection, and the pirates were scared off. Which makes me happy.

But this bit in particular caught my eye:

"Armed security is not the preferred route," Mr. Speers said, but added that the company had decided to hire the guards because the Alabama regularly sails in the high-risk waters to deliver food aid [emphasis added]. He said that the move had been approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. "It's something they encourage," he said.

So that's what these sailors are risking their lives to deliver, and pirates working so hard to steal: not gold or oil, but food aid. I wonder if the pirates even know what the cargo is, when they attack. I wonder if they're so desperate, or food so scarce, that it wouldn't make any difference if they did know. Makes me doubly proud of the crew, though. I'm glad they're okay.

Comments

[rowyn]

This is the link Circuit Four left me last time I posted about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html .

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I think that article has some of its facts wrong. Or more likely, glossed over to make it sound better. Timesonline and wikipedia say that, basically, European firms shipped toxic waste to Somalia because the warlords there agreed to take it off their hands for $2.50 a ton.

...then the warlords dumped it off the coast, or dumped it in huge piles inland, and it started killing everyone.

Later on, the same warlords subverted the vigilante coast guard trying to scare away illegal fishermen and convinced them to turn to full-time piracy.

[rowyn]

That makes sense. And I suppose "we paid some guys in Somalia to take it" maybe lets the firms off the hook legally, but it's still sounds really sleazy. I'm not entirely sure that it does make the firms' part in it legal; now I'm curious.