On the first day of the week I was very busy celebrating the resurrection of the victim, Jesus, by the God who loves us enough to prove it to us.
On the second day of the week I read in the NY Times that Navy Seal snipers had executed the 3 remaining Somali pirates that were holding Capt. Phillips hostage, thus freeing him. In response, Abdullahi Lami, a pirate currently holding a Greek ship hostage was quoted as saying, "Every country will be treated the way it treats us. In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying.” Violence begets violence.
The difficulty of commenting on this is that Captain Phillips did nothing to deserve having his ship boarded by pirates. In fact, he offered himself as a hostage to spare his crew, none of whom had weapons to fight back with once they were targeted by pirates. I have no desire to disparage Captain Phillips actions; he acted non-violently in a potentially deadly situation. His care for his crew is to be commended, as is his attempted getaway from his captors when he jumped overboard and started to swim away earlier in the week. Clearly he was a man invested in his life, neither subordinating himself to the violence of others nor engaging in violence himself. To critique the violence of the US response comes perilously close to sounding like criticism of Captain Phillips, which I in no way intend. But to ignore our violence and the response it received is to contribute to it, something Captain Phillips tried to avoid. So....
How is it that we cannot understand the response of Abdullahi Lami? Because we don't understand it; we have judged him guilty and therefore deserving of violence because he is a pirate. He "asked for it" when he broke the law of the high seas and took what wasn't his at gunpoint. Who does he think he is to threaten the US with more violence in the future if/when US citizens are among those captured by pirates? Well, according the rules of the game we're all playing here, he is a man who has learned the lessons that violence teaches very well. The only antidote powerful enough to quell violence is more violence; that is, if you want to keep your position of power and privilege. It's not clear to me how much power and privilege Mr. Lami has; I'm not familiar with the life of a modern day pirate. It seems odd that he could be interviewed by phone by the Associated Press; do pirates have PR people? Certainly this man has risen to the occasion even if he is not a formal leader. The sentiment he expresses is one that we've heard over and over around the globe, especially post 9/11. It's also one that we largely choose to ignore. As the mighty ones, we are accustomed to deciding who will live and who will die. The fact of our might automatically makes us right in our own eyes. When others model themselves on us, become our rivals, and then challenge us, we are baffled and outraged. The bottom line response for many American citizens is, "How dare they?!" How dare the pirates think that they are as smart and powerful as we are? They cannot be allowed to get away with that. When approached by the Navy for direction as to how to proceed with this international crisis, President Obama made it clear that deadly violence must be limited to certain specific circumstances. It could only be used if the Captain's life appeared to be in immediate danger and if all three pirates could be eliminated at once. The presidents guidelines kept a tight rein on the situation, but they nevertheless allowed the use of deadly force. In the end, we killed three pirates and they killed no one.
The protest is that otherwise, Captain Phillips may have died. That's true. It's also apparently a risk he was willing to take when he offered himself as hostage. Why is it that as a nation we're more willing to exercise our power to choose the victims of violence than to respect the non-violent action of this man? What we did was to decide that the pirates would die instead of Captain Phillips; we simply chose a different victim than the plot initially looked like it had selected. If Captain Phillips had not been rescued with deadly force, he might have been killed. For anyone keeping score, that would have been one death, not three. And as for the value of a life- the Captain had decided his was worth spending in a non-violent manner on behalf of his crew. Allowing that decision to stand would have empowered his act. As it is now, his decision for a peaceful resolution (even if it resulted in his own death) was superseded by military force "on his behalf". The Captain and his family have said all of the appropriately grateful things about his rescue, and I'm sure they're sincere. Being grateful to be alive and his families gratitude for his safe return make perfect emotional sense. But in the long run, I wonder what he'll think of being pre-empted by power. He may simply be grateful for the restoration of his own life; it's pretty hard not to be distracted by that. But the increase in the level of violence in the future may prove to be a high price for his conscience to pay. It may be hard to justify the 3 lives and counting that were paid for his.
Much of our response to this depends upon our perception of the pirates as lawless, greedy, and willing to use violence to get what they want. It makes them sound very much like they deserve to die, if anyone does. In a related article the Times reports, "John S. Burnett, who was himself attacked by pirates in 1992 and wrote the book “Dangerous Waters: Modern Piracy and Terror on the High Seas,” said piracy currently poses an irresistible economic temptation to Somali fishermen, increasing their earnings from perhaps $50 a month to many thousands of dollars." I don't know anyone who can survive on $50 a month, never mind support their family on it, not here in the USA and not anywhere else on earth. $50 does not buy food and housing and medical care and education. All of which begins to make the pirates look more like victims than greedy aggressors. And if they're victims of our well camouflaged power already, then they are now doubly victimized by our violence. Their desire to hurt us in return is a predictable response; it's what we've taught them.
The remaining days of the week are looking a lot more like the second day in instant replay than like the first. For those with eyes to see, both hold real truth. The only insight I can offer is to point to the first day and say, "yeah, like that". We need to be like that if we don't want to be like this. Not just on the first day of the week, but every day. Then perhaps we'll live to see the day when fishermen can feed, house, heal, and educate their families without resorting to violence and its myth of life that conceals the death behind it.
nancy hitt.
Well said Nancy. Thank you for expressing my own response when I heard and I heard it on Easter day here in Portland.
Posted by: Tom Truby | April 13, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Thank you for this commentary. Please also see "Democracy Now" broadcast today, Tuesday 4-14 (the third day of the week) which includes a detailed, insightful interview with a Kenyan journalist with respect to (1) the historic acts of radiation and toxic waste dumping off the Somali Coast by "First World" nations, (2) the chronic overfishing of Somali waters by the same, (3) the failure of the world community to hear or heed the pleas of Somali fisherman and coastal residents with respect to this, and (4) the resulting impoverishment, resentment, and despair on the part of many Somalis, leading to their toleration of a "Robin Hood" form of piracy. The journalist interviewed by no means justifies the greed and violence of Somali-based piracy. But he does offer some important reasons as to the economic and cultural conditions which have given rise to such violence, as well as important insight as to what might be done to keep such violence from occurring again in the future. Unfortunately, most of the media thus far seems to treat this as if it were a John Wayne western, rather than a tragic sign of ongoing impoverishment, oppression, and violence against Creation. Invading or bombing Somalia will obviously only further aggravate this ongoing tragedy. Engaging in creative nation-building and economic development with the people of the region, including the "First World" nations, will much more likely save lives--both American, European, and Somali--and likely plant the seeds for a more secure and peaceful future--for their children AND ours.
Posted by: Grant Bakewell, Jr. | April 14, 2009 at 08:58 PM
Thank-you, Grant, for the additional resources that help round out the picture here. You're right; this has been treated like a John Wayne movie, and clearly it's not that simple. I appreciate the broader picture you've provided; it gives me a very effective teaching tool in regard to the "tangled web we weave" by our own (US) actions in the world. Again, not excusing piracy, but taking responsibility for ourselves.
Posted by: nancy hitt | April 15, 2009 at 05:26 AM