Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b
Dammit, paying them a ransom is just encouraging them. It's the same reason why you don't (theoretically, anyway) negotiate with terrorists.
|
I've recently read an article where it was recognized that the majority of the shipping companies that have had any of their ships hijacked by the Somalian pirates prefer not to report the aggression and solve the problem in a "more discreet way". Statistically, only one of each three hijacks are reported. The reason seems to be the fear of the shipping companies to see the prices of their insurances increased.
Every month, several ships are hijacked near the Somalian coast. If any information became known is only because the prey of the moment is an important one or the affected company or government can not take care of the problem with the proper discretion.
Ships are hijacked and liberated without the general knowledge because all of the affected parts think they win (or at least not don't lost too much) with an secret agreement. First, the pirates are, of course, happy to receive a ransom. Second, the governments are looking at another place with the hope that the problem could be solved in a civilized and private way without their political (or military) implication and without taking any risk in the always delicate matter of put in danger the hostage's lives. Third we have the companies. They want to preserve their ship, their cargo, hopefully their crew and their current insurance. Fourth we have the crew, that only wants a safe return to home and that obviously prefer to be liberated by the payment of the ransom than with a military intervention (specially if the operation is the kind of rescue of hostages operation in the typical Russian way)
. And finally, but not less important, we have the people who arrange the negotiation between the pirates and the shipping company. A discreet, experienced and unemotional law firm in the City of London. Don't imagine an exotic exchange in a remote and dusty African village!
