Piracy at Sea or Terrorism?

In international waters, the line between piracy and terrorism is becoming blurred, with stark implications in the way the United States decides to take action. According to Vice Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, who was in Pittsburgh yesterday at the Soldiers & Sailors National Military Museum & Memorial, “[a]n international effort that includes the U.S. Navy has prevented potential terrorist attacks in Asian seas and waterways aimed at disrupting global commerce.”^[1] Adm. Greenert has been the commander of the US Seventh Fleet^[2] since August 2004.^[3]

One of the targets of the international effort is “a strain of al-Qaida in Southeast Asia, called Jemaah Islamiya, [which is] actively pursuing a maritime terrorism capability."^[4] While there have been no Jemaah Islamiya-linked attacks have occurred in the Seventh Fleet’s theater of operations, Adm. Greenert claims that “a host of them” have been defused.^[5]

The importance of that region, which includes the Strait of Malacca, is international commerce. 40 percent of Asia’s oil, and 80 percent of Japan’s oil, travels through that strait, and “if there were a maritime terrorist attack in the Strait of Malacca, it would have tremendous negative impact" on the world’s economy.^[6]

As we have pointed out a number of times, piracy is rampant in that part of the world, and presents every bit the threat to commerce that maritime terrorism does. Where, then, does piracy end and terrorism begin? And to what extent will the United States involve itself in either activity?

On November 21, 2001, at a press roundtable in Kuala Lumpur, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, the then-Commander-in-Chief of the US Pacific Command, was asked whether the US was “going to redefine piracy as some sort [of] evil terrorists.”^[7] At that time, Adm. Blair delineated piracy and terrorism by suggesting that pirates are primarily interested in stealing money or cargo, while terrorists, though not explicitly stated, seem to be aimed at the destruction of vessels.^[8] This bifurcated approach seems to be echoed with the announcement of the National Strategy for Maritime Security on September 20, 2005. In the announcement, terrorist threats were treated separately from “transnational criminal and piracy” threats.^[9] In a way, the Strategy suggests that piracy is a precursor to terrorism: “The capabilities to board and commandeer large underway vessels—demonstrated in numerous piracy incidents—could also be employed to facilitate terrorist acts.”^[10]

A number of influential commentators, however, have suggested that maritime terrorism and piracy should be “coupled”^[11] and treated as one in the same. Such issues raise the question of whether the United States has jurisdiction to deal with individuals not classified as pirates; as we have mentioned a number of times, universal jurisdiction can be had against pirates, but only perhaps against certain forms of terrorism. This is not merely an academic question; it raises issues of due process rights, rules of military engagement, and international comity.

---

[1] David M. Brown, Admiral Warns of Terror Threat, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Feb. 14, 2006.
[2] “The 7th Fleet's area of responsibility includes more than 52 million square miles of the Pacific and Indian Oceans -- stretching from International Date Line to the east coast of Africa, and from the Kuril Islands in the north to the Antarctic in the south.” US Navy, Commander 7th Fleet, The Region, last visited Feb. 14, 2006.
[3] Brown, supra note 1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] US Pacific Command, Transcript Nov. 21, 2001.
[8] Id.
[9] See The Whitehouse, The National Strategy for Maritime Security 4-5, Sep. 20, 2005. (PDF)
[10] Id. at 5.
[11] See Graham Gerard Ong, ”Ships Can Be Dangerous Too”: Coupling Piracy and Maritime Terrorism in Southeast Asia’s Maritime Security Framework,, 1 Intl. Pol. Sec. Issues (2004). (PDF)