Threats to kill captives will backfire on pirates

Counter-piracy raids by the navies of France and the US led to the deaths of several pirates over recent weeks.
Somali pirates responded by threatening increased attacks against US and French interests, but of more concern, they also threatened to kill US and French captives in the event that any were seized on civilian vessels.
However, it remains to be seen whether these threats will be borne out.
At the time of writing, there has been no tangible increase in attacks against US or French vessels and no French or US citizens have been taken hostage since the freeing of the Maersk Alabama in early April.
Despite claims that Somali pirates are fighting against illegal dumping and fishing, they are largely apolitical in their motivations.
Attacks taking place as far afield as the Seychelles indicate that their motivations are increasingly unrelated to issues in Somali waters.
Furthermore, they have not singled out vessels for attack because they belong to a nation that has disproportionately engaged in illegal fishing in Somali waters.
There is, therefore, little precedent for Somali pirates targeting vessels on account of their identity. At present, the majority of targeting remains opportunistic and as such, the selection of vessels is a relatively random process.
Becoming a victim is largely determined by chance and whether a commercial vessel happens to stray into the line of sight of the pirates.
The technology available to pirates is increasing in sophistication – not least as their disposable income inflates with the acquisition of greater ransoms – but the majority of attacked vessels are still seized because they have come within attacking distance of a pirate vessel – an effective, albeit rudimentary method of target selection.
Even on being sighted, it is very difficult for assailants to know the identity of a vessel in advance of attacking it.
Vessels sail under a variety of flags and names, while crewmembers are rarely representative (in terms of nationality) of their managing company or the ship’s owners.
It can be very difficult to ascertain the ownership and national identity using visual methods alone and as such, it is highly unlikely that Somali pirates will start selecting vessels on account of their identity.
However, while the level of risk posed to a vessel passing through pirate areas is unlikely to vary according to the identity of its owners, operators or crewmembers, there is now an increased possibility that captive crews may face assault and even murder on account of their nationality.
Pirates may seek to harm sailors of French and US origin to punish the navies of the two countries and intimidate all international navies from intervening in future cases.
However, this would have several negative consequences for Somali pirates, which they are likely very keen on avoiding.
Firstly, the threat posed to crewmembers may prompt warships to intervene more readily in hijacking cases, beyond the point of full vessel seizure.
At present, once a ship is commandeered by pirates and the crew are subdued, warships are generally reluctant to engage the vessel for fear of compromising the safety of the captives (the sinking of a seized vessel by an Indian warship in the autumn left many of its civilian crewmembers dead).
However, in the event that the safety and lives of the crew are considered to be imminently threatened, warships may seek to take more radical action, as was the case in the freeing of Captain Phillips from the Maersk Alabama.
This puts pirates at risk and it is likely that they would be keen to avoid such a shift in naval tactics. That said, the adage is that a Somali is only scared of other Somalis, and the risk of more aggressive tactics by the international naval presence in the region is unlikely to deter pirates from their activities.
Secondly, the killing of crewmembers would significantly harm the image of the pirates as activists or Robin Hood figures seeking to disrupt over-fishing and illegal dumping.
It would tarnish their intended image as impoverished coastal residents seeking revenue from a seemingly faceless industry and would harm their domestic popularity in particular, especially if the killings invited more comprehensive security measures by the international community against interests on the Somali shore.
Finally, crewmembers are still regarded by pirates as somewhat of a commodity. They are the means of obtaining a ransom and it remains in their best interests to keep the negotiation process as smooth and potentially lucrative as possible.
The killing of hostages would complicate the deal-making process and could interrupt the steady flow of cash into pirate hands which is certainly something they would wish to avoid.
As a largely ruthless and almost purely financially motivated threat group, this could indeed be the most important factor in determining the level of risk posed to captive crewmembers.
In conclusion, pirates certainly have the capability of causing harm to crewmembers on account of their nationality, raising the importance of risk mitigation and protective measures against the threat.
However, the level of risk posed to a vessel on account of its French or US affiliations is unlikely to rise, despite pirate threats made against the two nations.

John Drake is a consultant at AKE Intelligence.