The piracy scourge appears to have evolved partly out of an attempt by Somali fishermen to protect their waters against illegal foreign trawlers who were destroying their livelihoods. Some of the vigilantes morphed into pirates, lured by the large profits they could win in ransoms.
I'm glad that the captain is safe and unharmed. I am also not terribly sad for the passing of pirates. The trouble comes from the origins of piracy the passage above mentions in passing. At least some pirates started out as fishermen driven to desperate measures by the lawless conduct of other countries' fishing fleets.
Given the poverty and non-existent government in Somalia I suspect that going to "proper authorities" never looked like an option for poor fishermen. Not to defend lawlessness, piracy or killing, I only want to point out that the "lawlessness" started with far more powerful people taking advantage of weaker ones. And or course, many of the people most directly affected by the problem had nothing to do with its causes. Let's let transnational corporations run roughshod over poor people. What could go wrong? What can poor people do about it? Well, now that piracy has proven a booming business, certain of them are no longer poor.
One of the hardest parts of examining origins of the present problem of piracy intelligently comes from the very dishonest responses we can anticipate to posts like this one. The counter-argument goes something to the effect that anyone who points out these cause and effect relationships somehow supports piracy, lawlessness or killing. This conceals the lawless behavior of corporations which do not have to clean up the messes they make. Laws matter hardly without enforcement.
(Note: I wrote this ages ago then forgot to post it. No link to the AP story)
