The Global Business of Crime

Take one part economic downturn. Add another part unspectacular terrorist movement. Then mix with cache of weapons and whatever tactical training remains from previous visits to radical camps in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Let fester overnight, figuratively. Then, in the cold bitter morning of discontent, add to this mixture a combination of nothing-to-lose boldness and a smidgeon of any lessons learned from the FARC in Colombia about how best to extort money from multinationals. What does this recipe produce? Somali pirate hostage-taking and hijacking. A look at this Wall Street Journal article on a recent case (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123335651246634995.html) yields some insight into how to run these operations with businesslike efficiency.

Why assume that these activities are informed by the FARC or any other international experiences? True, the article makes no such claim. Nevertheless, the article does reveal that the firms victimized in this case made use of British security guards and of crisis management advisors. The first company to go into business in this specialized world of responding to international kidnap for ransom and negotiating with the hostage-takers was a British firm with close ties to the insurance industry, specifically with one or more syndicates of Lloyd’s of London. And how did Lloyd’s get its start? Insuring international shipments. It should thus come as no surprise that if the shipping industry now being victimized by Somali pirates is looking to specialists to advise it in both securing its shipments and in managing hijackings and ransom payments, that the hijackers are also using their own jungle drums to share tribal knowledge within the ranks of like-minded villains.

If there is any good news about all this, it is that putting this crime and its response on a business footing this way is much less dangerous to human life. The pirates, as the article underscores, wanted only money. Their corporate victim wanted the release of both crew and cargo. By working to negotiate resolution professionally, both parties arrived at an understanding they could live with and no lives were lost – at least this time.

In a world overshadowed by the fear of terrorism and acts of carnage and brutality, it is occasionally refreshing to see even a bad thing resolve itself without bloodshed by being run on a business footing. This is what one British security service officer has referred to as, “ordinary, decent crime” as contrasted with terrorism. Both sides know what to expect, and the event follows a certain pas-de-deux from overture to denouement. Eventually, the victimized firms learn how to make it too unprofitable for the pirates to hijack freighters. Then the pirates move onto other criminal opportunities with a better payoff.

- Nick Catrantzos

A Troubling, One-off Appointment

There are times when filling the less visible, low-marquis-value vacancies tell more about a leader's judgment than more prominent selections for his high profile cabinet. The Obama selection of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel for the executive branch supplies one such time. It sends a signal of an executive branch poised to be hesitant, anemic, tentative, self-limiting, and more inclined to dithering that action when the hour of crisis arrives. Mark this down as a moment for intense scrutiny and debate that will form a chapter in some eventual successor to the present 9/11 Commission Report. In placing the activist, executive-hobbling, and sanctimonious academic, Johnsen, at the head of the office that is supposed to defend the executive branch in its legal tugs of war with the legislative and judicial branches, Obama has hobbled himself. Instead of carrying forward the robust dynamic tension which the founding fathers felt necessary for sustaining a balance of power among the three branches, Mr. Obama has entered this fray limping and apologetic. Having bought himself a crutch, he seems about to break his leg in order to get full use of it.

This is discouraging news for homeland security. Starting an administration faced with seemingly limitless challenges is no small undertaking. One of those challenges is to deter adventurism and cutthroat initiative on the part of adversaries. This is best done through presenting a consistent image of strength and just enough of a hint of menace to suggest that villains who dare to attack would definitely end up worse off than they started. One does not achieve this end by elevating an inveterate and emotive second-guesser to a position where she can spay and neuter every executive branch dog before it enters the fight. And this is precisely what Ms. Johnsen will do. Her programming makes it inevitable. So now, when Sheriff Obama one day decides to pin on his star in the morning and clean up the saloon in Dodge City where the cow hands are mixing whisky and weapons, he will have to first take certain steps.

1. He will have to see Judge Johnsen for his gun.
2. He will have to show cause why she should let him have the gun at all.
3. Ditto for each bullet to go with the gun.
4. If Judge J disagrees or wants to deliberate, Sheriff O cannot even approach the saloon unarmed until she has had a chance to puzzle the matter out.
5. If the saloon ends up burned to the ground and its owner and bartender shot dead, well, that's the price Dodge will have to pay for its civilized self restraint.

But don't take my word for this. See what the Wall Street Journal says on the matter ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154838577269937.html.)

- Nick Catrantzos