Comments on: Somalia Piracy Followup http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/ Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:37:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Bye Bye Sovereignty http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-384049 ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Bye Bye Sovereignty Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:34:08 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-384049 [...] countries to violate Somalia’s territorial waters in pursuit of pirates (as discussed before here) has [...] [...] countries to violate Somalia’s territorial waters in pursuit of pirates (as discussed before here) has [...]

]]> By: Chirol http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383593 Chirol Mon, 05 May 2008 20:18:40 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383593 Jon: Totally agree. Jon: Totally agree.

]]> By: jon http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383591 jon Mon, 05 May 2008 16:17:05 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383591 I see this as a return to the past. It was the Royal Navy that ended the last great era of piracy. It did this chasing the pirates to their bases, it didn't matter where they were. To them, the fact that piracy was based in your territory meant, either that you unable or unwilling to stop it. The former meant you really couldn't be considered wholly sovereign, the latter meant you were lucky all the British wanted to do was wipe out the pirate bases. I'm not advocating going after the regimes, that would put western forces in the middle of the hornets' nest after it was poked a few times. If we stay a sea except for raids to destroy pirate infrastructure we can minimize the risks of a new Mogadishu. I see this as a return to the past. It was the Royal Navy that ended the last great era of piracy. It did this chasing the pirates to their bases, it didn’t matter where they were.
To them, the fact that piracy was based in your territory meant, either that you unable or unwilling to stop it. The former meant you really couldn’t be considered wholly sovereign, the latter meant you were lucky all the British wanted to do was wipe out the pirate bases.
I’m not advocating going after the regimes, that would put western forces in the middle of the hornets’ nest after it was poked a few times. If we stay a sea except for raids to destroy pirate infrastructure we can minimize the risks of a new Mogadishu.

]]> By: IJ http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383532 IJ Sat, 03 May 2008 12:20:39 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383532 Different views at the Security Council on peacekeeping? As at March, the five permanent members of UNSC contributed troops to Sudan: China 444, Russia 123, UK 2, France 0, US 0. Different views at the Security Council on peacekeeping?

As at March, the five permanent members of UNSC contributed troops to Sudan: China 444, Russia 123, UK 2, France 0, US 0.

]]> By: IJ http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383530 IJ Sat, 03 May 2008 09:26:19 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383530 It would certainly be a precedent if these rules were passed. But even then it is worth examining why protection passed in 2005 was not adopted. That required international intervention, subject to approval by the UN Security Council, if states failed to protect their own populations from abuse. The abuse was defined as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rwanda was one of the global catastrophes that prompted <a href="http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/" rel="nofollow">R2P</a>. What's holding up R2P? Essentially differing views at the UN Security Council on whether the 'international community' can violate the sovereignty of nation states to achieve the above aims. Moreover R2P is perceived by many governments as a ‘Western’ interventionist instrument. Apologies, not very pithy. It would certainly be a precedent if these rules were passed. But even then it is worth examining why protection passed in 2005 was not adopted. That required international intervention, subject to approval by the UN Security Council, if states failed to protect their own populations from abuse.

The abuse was defined as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rwanda was one of the global catastrophes that prompted R2P.

What’s holding up R2P? Essentially differing views at the UN Security Council on whether the ‘international community’ can violate the sovereignty of nation states to achieve the above aims. Moreover R2P is perceived by many governments as a ‘Western’ interventionist instrument.

Apologies, not very pithy.

]]> By: Simon http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383529 Simon Sat, 03 May 2008 08:29:22 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/03/somalia-piracy-followup/#comment-383529 Slippery slop if you ask me. Slippery slop if you ask me.

]]>