This is a guest post by Ben Little, former Navy SEAL, author of The Sea Rover’s Practice: Pirate Tactics and Techniques, 1630-1730, The Buccaneer’s Realm: Pirate Life on the Spanish Main, 1674-1688 and the forthcoming Pirate Hunting: The Fight Against Pirates, Privateers, and Sea Raiders From Antiquity to the 21st Century, and long time friend of this blog.

Regarding the argument that the pirate is a terrorist, or that piracy is equivalent to terrorism, we should very briefly examine the ultimate purpose of both terrorism and piracy. In the case of terrorism, the purpose is political, and its means, including the use of violence to create a state of terror, are focused on that end. Many analysts tend to forget that terrorists do not kill people and blow up buildings primarily to get attention. They do it to get a reaction, preferably one that will turn a local or even an international population against a government, people, corporation, other organization, or idea, which in turn helps fill terrorist ranks and helps achieve political ends. For example, Al-Qaeda must have seen the US invasion of Iraq as a gift from heaven. Attention via violence is just the vehicle. (This critical aspect of terrorism was emphasized in a course I took in "Political Warfare" taught by Army intelligence specialists at the Naval Amphibious School in Coronado in the 1980s.)

Piracy, on the other hand, is simply armed theft on the sea (and in the past, from the sea as well). It lacks a political purpose, although it can of course be used as a tactic or strategy to finance or otherwise support terrorism, unrelated criminal activity, insurgency, or even (in the past) state- or empire-building. Ideally, as Matt pointed out, the pirate would prefer that no exceptional knowledge of his activity come to light. His goal is not to become a martyr or spend his life in jail, but to enjoy his spoils. In most cases, when the pirate does use "terror," he is not engaging in terrorism, but is simply using fear make his job easier, as does any armed thief. The incitement of fear, even to the extent of terror, helps prevent his prey from fighting back, and thus makes piracy more profitable, not to mention helps keep the pirate alive so that he can spend his gains. Beyond this, the pirate has no use for fear or terror. Were he to routinely engage in violence on the level of the terrorist–in terrorism, in other words–every hand would soon turn against him. Lacking a political purpose and a political base, he would soon find himself violently ostracized, except by those who rely immediately upon him for economic sustenance. There is a good reason, for example, that Somali pirates have so far treated their prisoners well. Further, the pirate generally does not seek to destroy states or economies, although on occasion in the past he has had a hand in this. He requires functioning states and well-ordered economies, for they are the source of his prey–of his "profit by plunder," in other words.

Continue reading “Guest Post: Pirates are not terrorists but the prevention of both are similar
“ →

Two days ago Abu Muqawama asked whether piracy is terrorism: 

What? This guy seems to think so:

Are pirates a species of terrorist? In short, yes. The same definition of pirates as hostis humani generis could also be applied to international organized terrorism. Both crimes involve bands of brigands that divorce themselves from their nation-states and form extraterritorial enclaves; both aim at civilians; both involve acts of homicide and destruction, as the United Nations Convention on the High Seas stipulates, “for private ends.”

Here, meanwhile, is Bard O’Neill’s definition of terrorism:

[T]he threat or use of physical coercion, primarily against noncombatants, especially civilians, to create fear in order to achieve various political objectives.

If you can think of an alternate or better definition for terrorism, chime in. But I don’t think you’re going to find any reputable terror scholar who would say piracy is necessarily a form of terror. (Unless he or she is a ninja.) Just because the two groups have things in common — or that piracy could be used as a terror tactic — doesn’t mean piracy equals terror.

I really hate it when people throw the "terror" label around to serve their purposes. It confuses the public. If you want to make an argument that piracy should be outlawed under international law, great — knock yourself out. But don’t start confusing terms. . . .

That post generated a lot of comments arguing that yes, piracy is terrorism. There were some arguments that because piracy funds terrorism it is terrorism. That’s a lot like saying “I breathe when I sleep is the same as I sleep when I breathe.”

Let’s get something straight here: piracy is not terrorism. Recall what is the critical component of terrorism: knowledge of the act. Remember the old saying that “media is the oxygen of the terrorist.” If you don’t know an act was terrorism it isn’t and it’s simply an accident or a criminal act. Imagine if no one knew the Earth Liberation Front was behind the burning of a Hummer dealership (could have been regular ole’ arsonists) or mansions in the forest (electrical spark)?

Terrorism requires knowledge of the purpose lest no fear or concern is generated (besides mandating better fire prevention, for example). In contrast, piracy doesn’t benefit from increased knowledge of the act. Pirates would prefer what they do not become public knowledge lest navies get mobilized, shippers chart different courses, or become harder targets. Generating fear and awareness of who they are and of their activities is bad for business. 

To be sure, piracy could be many things, depending on the perspective. American privateers sent against English shipping during the Revolution intended to cause fear in civilians, namely rich people involved in trade, and take the fight to the British homeland. That fear was manifested in higher insurance and pressure on the Crown to do something. The English (probably) called it terrorism be we would definitely classify it as insurgency, but the activities were in support of a political act (as well as providing financial support to several New England towns).

Lastly, piracy is already illegal. Read The Abolition of Privateering and the Declaration of Paris for a historical perspective (that’s directly related to mercenaries). For more interesting reads on the subject, see Ben Little’s books.