The U.S. Navy has more than half the major warships in the world, and there is a pirate threat off the Somali coast. Now that the Navy has killed three of those pirates in order to free Richard Phillips, the kidnapped captain of an American ship, these two facts are coming together in a promising way.
Just to utter that phrase -- "a pirate threat off the Somali coast" -- is to plumb the depths of absurdity. What combination of incompetence and cowardice could have allowed piracy to become a threat to a major shipping route in the early 21st century? What are all those warships with their guns and missiles and radars and helicopters actually for?
To be fair, a couple of other countries have authorized their navies to use force against the Somali pirates: India did it once, and France has just done it for the third time. The French also go in shooting even when hostages are at risk, and this time one of them died. As President Sarkozy's spokesperson said: "France has a consistent policy to oppose all acts of piracy and make sure its citizens are never brought ashore as hostages."
But neither France nor India have enough ships to control what we are regularly told is "a million square miles of ocean." However, that is a deliberate exaggeration, designed to suggest that the job is not being done because it is undoable. The relevant area is really about 400,000 square miles, which is quite a large tract of ocean but certainly not too big for the U.S. Navy.
So the abortive Somali attack on the U.S.-registered ship Maersk Alabama last week may have a silver lining. It may get the U.S. Navy to take over the job of fighting the pirates.
The biggest problem other navies have faced in dealing with the pirates is the pitiful state of international law. The old rules on piracy were simple: Pirates were the "enemies of all mankind," and there was a right of "universal jurisdiction" against them. Any country could arrest pirates from anywhere, regardless of nationality, and try them for their crimes. If they were captured in battle, they were even liable to summary execution.
The new rules, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, require a warship to send a boarding party led by an officer onto any suspected pirate vessel to confirm its criminal intent. Until that has been done, the warship may not open fire. It is unlikely that the lawyers consulted with practical seamen before they wrote this clause.
But the United States has not ratified the Law of the Sea convention. This was not foresight, just the Senate's customary reluctance to ratify any treaty that limits U.S. freedom of action in any way, but it is useful in this case. Normally, the U.S. government acts as if it were bound by international treaties that it has signed even when the Senate is being obstinate, but it doesn't actually have to.