The saga of the American ship, the Maersk Alabama, briefly held hostage by Somalia's pirates has nearly come to its conclusion with 19 of the 20 crewmen having returned home early this morning.
Much to reflect upon. One thing was the American media's rah-rah "We took those suckers out" boosterism of the U.S. Navy. Surely, the simultaneous sniper shots were an impressive feat, but it was hard to escape the feeling that the American media got a little too caught up in the narrative, what with its talk of "Three shots, three dead pirates," and "take-downs," and "high-seas drama," and forgot the fact that there were three poor kids who got bullets to the head. Whoever said the media doesn't like a good-news story was wrong.
Then again. While the American newspapers shook their pompoms, it was equally impossible not to detect the sour note that rang forth from the coverage by outlets such as the BBC, Reuters and AFP. Within minutes after Captain Richard Phillips had been freed, reports began debating the possibility that the U.S. operation would only encourage more attacks, or more violence by the pirates against their hostages. The suggestion was clear: The 200 or so hostages still being held off Somalia are in greater danger because of the American action (though French commando raids seemed to get less attention). Several quote-unquote pirates were interviewed saying how cruel the Americans were, and how they would strike back to avenge their fallen brothers. One Reuters report even mentioned how some Somalis were too scared to go to the latrine in the middle of the night because helicopters were flying over their heads. As if they didn't have more immediate things to be scared of _ like the pirates themselves.
It is sad that the standoff could be resolved no other way, but there is no equivalency. The way much of the media almost seems to be siding with the pirates _ "Hey, let the shipping companies just keep paying ransom, no one's getting hurt here" _ is seriously flawed logic. For one thing, you're taking hostages. That's bad. Sure, poverty may drive you to do it, but it's still bad. For another, and more importantly, the Maersk Alabama, like several other cargo ships hijacked by pirates, was delivering food aid meant for Somalia. Every day that food aid does not get to Somalia, more starving people die. So those pirates are holding their own people hostage just as much as they're holding a crew hostage. Giving any credence to claim that the American Navy somehow wronged Somalis by killing three pirates seems awfully disingenuous.
Do you have a solution on how the Americans should have acted? Do you think the Maersk Captain should have been kept and killed? That the pirates because of their circumstances, youth and personal needs, should have been given a pardon, money and anything else they wanted? I don't agree on the press stance of boasting nor on any journalistic biased on both sides.
Posted by: Yoli | April 20, 2009 at 08:21 PM