Piracy off the coast of Somalia is getting serious. Even the supply of video games for the Christmas season may be in danger. Should this happen, more attention may well be paid to the problem.
On 15 November 2008, Somali pirates captured their biggest prize thus far, a very large Saudi owned oil tanker.
The attack on the Sirius Star, three times the size of a US aircraft carrier and capable of carrying 2m barrels of crude oil, is the most audacious in recent times. It took place 450 nautical miles south-east of Mombasa, Kenya more than twice as far out to sea as other recent attacks on shipping.
The tanker is apparently now near the Somali "town of Eyl, which has become a haven for pirates." A representative of the U.K. Seafarers' Union commented,
"This has come as a massive shock. It's the biggest ship that's ever been taken, and it's a long way away from the area which up until now has been regarded as the dangerous region, where the previous attacks have been," he said. "Tankers of this size are usually safe from attacks. It's a worrying escalation."
In September, Somali pirates attacked a U.S. Navy supply ship. Warning shots were fired, and the pirates ran away (OK, sped away in their speed boats). Somali pirates recently took command of a Ukrainian cargo vessel bringing military equipment to Kenya. It was "crammed with $30 million worth of grenade launchers, piles of ammunition, even battle tanks." They were able to capture the ship two hundred miles off shore by "surrounding" it with three speedboats.
Meanwhile the U.S. Fifth Fleet is "evaluating" the situation, as acts of piracy escalate — despite the concerted efforts of several countries, including the United States and Russia. According to a Navy Lieutenant, spokesperson for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, the Navy is very concerned about this sort of thing. Nevertheless, the rules of engagement must, of course, be determined through international consensus before much more can be done.
Surely, the combined Naval forces of the U.S., Russia and a host of other countries could bring this mess to a screeching halt if they really desired to do so, if the consequences of doing so were acceptable, and if the necessary resources were available. However, such seems not to be the case.
Who, besides the Somali pirates, is serious about this? Why were mere warning shots fired by the U.S. Navy in defense of its supply ship? Have too much time and effort been devoted to "evaluating the situation," and too little to making the piracy stop? The pirates have a lucrative business going and are unlikely to cease and desist as a gesture of good will. Their business is certainly more profitable than that of the Big Three auto makers.
Some thought has even been given to hiring the "notorious" Blackwater to help deal with the problem. However, that might be seen as unkind, since the pirates are just a bunch of guys out to make a buck while helping to save the planet. According to Sugule Ali, a pirate spokesperson aboard the captured Ukrainian cargo vessel stuffed full of weapons,
so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” [Sugule] said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard. . . .Killing is not in our plans,” he said. “We only want money so we can protect ourselves from hunger.”
When asked why the pirates needed $20 million [the amount demanded in exchange for the Ukrainian ship and thirty million dollars worth of armaments] to protect themselves from hunger, Mr. Sugule laughed and said, “Because we have a lot of men.”
He claimed that they didn't really want to off load the weapons, because that could harm world peace, particularly in Somalia; they just wanted the money. And, undoubtedly, offloading a bunch of eighty ton battle tanks could present logistical difficulties.
It is of course true that when piracy off the coast of Somalia first began to be noticed, the pirates were simply going after rogue fishermen.
The piracy industry started about 10 to 15 years ago, Somali officials said, as a response to illegal fishing. Somalia’s central government imploded in 1991, casting the country into chaos. With no patrols along the shoreline, Somalia’s tuna-rich waters were soon plundered by commercial fishing fleets from around the world. Somali fishermen armed themselves and turned into vigilantes by confronting illegal fishing boats and demanding that they pay a tax.
Activities and aspirations, do change, and any claim to such legitimacy was long ago forfeit — similar to that of Colombia's FARC, still often labeled in the press as "Marxist guerrillas," whose ideology seems largely to have been displaced by a strong desire for profits from drugs and kidnapping people for ransom. According to a BBC report, residents in the Somali region of Puntland, where most of the pirates come from, say that the pirates
"have money; they have power and they are getting stronger by the day . . . They wed the most beautiful girls; they are building big houses; they have new cars; new guns . . . Piracy in many ways is socially acceptable. They have become fashionable."
This is evidently the case even though the pirate attacks adversely impact the delivery of food and other aid supplies badly needed in Somalia.
The old sailors' lament, "the ocean is very big and my boat is very small" rings true. It would be quite difficult for even a massive international armada effectively to patrol some two and one half million square miles of ocean looking for speedboats. Even the small mother ships from which the pirate speed boats deploy would be very difficult to find.
There is another viable approach, and perhaps some guidance can be had from Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance. It is, of course, a spoof, in which the pirates are not bad guys at all. The Pirate King introduces himself as follows:
Oh, better far to live and die
Under the brave black flag I fly,
Than play a sanctimonious part
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;
But I'll be true to the song I sing,
And live and die a Pirate King.
For I am a Pirate King!
And it is, it is a glorious thing
To be a Pirate King!
For I am a Pirate King!
Here is a not bad video of the Pirate King's song.
As is the character of all Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas, all is well in the end:
POLICE.
We charge you yield,
In Queen Victoria's name!
Pirates kneel, Police stand over them triumphantly.
KING. We yield at once, with humbled mien,
Because, with all our faults, we love our Queen.
POLICE. Yes, yes, with all their faults, they love their Queen.
ALL. Yes, yes, with all their faults, they love their Queen.
Police, holding Pirates by the collar, take out handkerchiefs and weep.
GEN. Away with them, and place them at the bar!
Enter RUTH.
RUTH. One moment! let me tell you who they are.
They are no members of the common throng;
They are all noblemen who have gone wrong.
ALL. They are all noblemen who have gone wrong.
GEN. No Englishman unmoved that statement hears,
Because, with all our faults, we love our House of Peers.
I pray you, pardon me, ex-Pirate King!
Peers will be peers, and youth will have its fling.
Resume your ranks and legislative duties,
And take my daughters, all of whom are beauties.
Like the the Pirates of Penzance, the Pirates of Somalia are heroes of a sort. Pirates are the stuff of song and story, and stories of pirates often seem to evoke such feelings, particularly among those who haven't walked the plank or otherwise been seriously mistreated. Children wear pirate costumes at Halloween. The Pirates of Somalia have been, to a large extent, tolerated; that will probably continue to be the case until, if ever, they do something very, very bad. Sure, there have been a very few deaths (about three) over the years; overall, however, the Pirates haven't seemed to be bad sorts at all — until recently.
Somehow, I suspect that a whimsical notion of this type may thus far have prevented the Pirates of Somalia from being taken terribly seriously and stopped. True, they have offended the sensibilities of shipping companies and others financially embarrassed by them, but until recently very little has been done to stop them. Something should be done, before things escalate and they cause more real harm than they already have.
Arming merchant ships, as was often done in the past, is probably the best solution realistically available. When approaching potential victims, the Pirates of Somalia tend to be scared off by even modest shows of force. Warning shots fired from the recently attacked U.S. Navy supply ship scared them away, with no further consequences to anyone. It would seem that even a small force on board an attacked ship could frighten away three speed boats "surrounding" a large cargo vessel. Possibly, detachments of marines from various cooperating countries could be offered for use, or even suitably trained and led employees of Blackwater or other commercial security services, well armed and with authority to use all necessary force. The goal would be to prevent pirate capture of ships, rather than to recover ships after capture. There would be no need to go looking for the Pirates of Somalia; the pirates themselves would continue to search for their victims, just as they presently do. Perhaps they might eventually stop. The costs of providing this protection should be borne by the commercial interests protected.
This approach presents some quite minor administrative problems, but they should not be terribly difficult to resolve and appear to be insignificant in comparison with those associated with other possible solutions. Were this approach to be used, in a dramatically expanded way, it might just do the trick. It probably wouldn't completely solve the problem, only diminish it substantially. Still, there are two principal advantages. First, it would be difficult if not impossible, not to mention extraordinarily expensive, to deploy serious naval forces adequate to the task throughout the more than two million square miles in which the pirates operate; finding pirates about to attack in a big ocean is quite onerous, just as is finding a rapist about to attack in a big city. The potential victims are many, and only the pirates and rapists know which of many potential victims is about to be attacked. Second, after a ship has been seized by the pirates, recovering it is extremely hazardous and first, the seized ship has to be located. Lives are almost certain to be lost if a serious attempt is made to recover a captured vessel, and there is often the potential for a major oil spill, in the case of an oil tanker, or for a big explosion in the case of a munitions carrier. These consequences are so substantial that little effort has been made to take this approach.
The Pirates of Somalia have been much in the news lately, and the reports have not been pleasant. The Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, a navy Admiral, is stunned that they have become so audacious, but recognizes that
there . . . [are] limits to what the world's navies could do once a ship has been captured because national governments often preferred to pay pirates ransom.
He presumably recognizes as well that a naval attack on a ship which the pirates have managed to capture can lead to all sorts of mischief, transcending the mere sinking of a very expensive ship and deaths of crewmen as well as pirates. If so, he is of course correct. Oil tankers spill oil all over the place when sunk, and ships loaded with armaments make loud noises and worse. Two million barrels of crude oil (the cargo of the Saudi super tanker recently captured) washing ashore would create a big mess. Munitions would be bad as well. That's the beauty of preventing the capture of ships, by shooting at the pirates before the boarding process begins and before the ships are captured. Deal with them as soon as the pirates are within range of weapons aboard the victim ships. Surely the combined resources of the countries whose shipping is under attack can provide better weapons with greater range than are available to the pirates.
The Saudi Foreign Minister finds the pirate capture of the Saudi oil super tanker outrageous and promises that "his nation would join the international effort to eradicate piracy. . . .Piracy is against everybody. Like terrorism it is a disease that has to be eradicated." All of this is well and good, but a more definitive proposal would be better.
Meanwhile,
a NATO flotilla of seven ships — destroyers from the U.S. and Italy, frigates from Germany, Greece, Turkey and Britain — and a Russian missile frigate are already fighting piracy around Somalia. NATO, however, says its priority is escorting World Food Program ships that deliver basic rations for 3 million hungry Somalis. . . .India says it is sending warships to the area, and South Korea is considering dispatching vessels
I find all of this more than a little puzzling. The mucky-mucks are pissed off, and want to "do something." The something they seem to have in mind, however, is unclear. Are they willing to send ground troops into the area of Somalia where the pirates hang out? If so, they should reconsider. The United States went into Somalia several years ago with the very best of intentions, and it was a fiasco. There is no reason to believe that doing so again would produce better or longer lasting results than it did then. A massive naval war against the pirates would cost an enormous amount of money and probably many lives, as well massive oil spills and loose armaments washing ashore somewhere. To characterize this as silly would be a gross understatement.
Sometimes the simplest and least expensive solutions are the best. Charging the Pirates of Somalia to yield in Queen Victoria's name won't work, and a massive Naval presence probably won't be very effective either. That's why I would very much like to see a concerted effort to convince ship owners (a) to spend the relatively minor sums needed to place small detachments of well trained and well armed troops on board their ships to fight off boarders and (b) to cease paying ransom. Warning shots first, but if that doesn't work, the troops should shoot to kill. As noted elsewhere in this article, the mere firing of warning shots by a U.S. Navy supply ship was enough recently to make the pirates run away. If necessary, the little speed boats which the pirates fancy should be blown out of the water. With sufficient repetition of these defensive actions, the pirates might well take the hint and stop. If not. then perhaps the Saudis and others can try other more drastic and far more expensive tactics. With a concerted effort to take steps (a) and (b), these more drastic and far more expensive steps will most likely be unnecessary.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jim Ryan
I like how you summarize the issue and lay out a solution. However, I'm not entirely convinced what you suggested is a long-term answer.
The Somali pirate presence has made itself such a fixture on the coast that there's too much at stake for them to forgo their livelihood. While having marines stationed aboard commercial ships might deter some of them, there's a hard core faction that could never give up the sweet trade even if every oil tanker had a Nimitz-class carrier providing protection.
There's also the two unintended consequences of such an action: One, many of the pirates who suddenly find themselves out of work but still armed may turn their attention to Somalia's continuing chaos on the ground, making a bad situation even worse. There's also the matter of all these private security forces suddenly aboard ships should they solve the problem who may have trouble standing down when the action's over; in fact, historically many a pirate went into their trade when their privateering licenses were not renewed.
It's not a bad idea, arming merchants, but we probably need to come up with a Phase II as part of an overall plan here.
2 - Jet
The problem is that they're holding other already captured and valuable ships on their coastline. Any threats and all they have to do is threaten to blow up what they already have, like the super tanker with $100 million with saudi oil on it.
3 - Dan(Miller)
Jim Ryan,
Unfortunately, even going after the mother ships in this way will require coordination at the international level, and that is usually a time consuming and tedious process. In the meantime, I still like the idea of stationing well armed and well trained protective forces on board cargo ships, with orders to try to scare the pirates away and, failing that, to kill them.Thanks for the comment, which I appreciate. I agree that I presented no long term solution, and I haven't thought of one. Somalia has been a mess for a long time and seems unlikely to change for the better anytime soon. Recently, piracy has escalated dramatically, and each successful attack provides additional and more sophisticated resources for subsequent attacks. Unless equally dramatic actions are taken, and soon, the situation will likely worsen, perhaps exponentially.
For the moment, getting lots of pirates before they get more ships seems to me to be the important thing. For the reasons stated in the article, I don't think a massive naval effort of the sort generally being discussed is the best way to proceed. However, this article offers a tactic which might be useful: go after the mother ships from which the pirates deploy their speed boats. The article says that warships can find the mother ships which, if accurate, makes the idea worth considering.
I'm not sure that they can find them readily, unless they are pretty close. Even then, how is a mother ship to be distinguished from something else -- a fishing boat, for example? I assume that the naval powers have sophisticated technology and that there are all sorts of possibilities; I have no idea whether the available technology is suited to identifying pirate mother ships. Nor do I know what technology the pirates have on their mother ships. They certainly have GPS and most likely have radar. They have probably become sufficiently adept to use whatever they have effectively. In any event, locating mother ships (as distinguished from positively identifying them) would certainly be easier than locating the speed boats from which they deploy, and to the extent possible it should be done.
After a mother ship has been located what should be done? Making sure it is actually a pirate mother ship would probably be the first thing to do, and perhaps this could be done through visual observation, satellite imagery or otherwise, while staying out of harm's way: having a helicopter shot down by pirate missile attack would not be good. Then what? Blow it out of the water, or take prisoners?
This article suggests that if pirates are captured, substantial legal difficulties are involved in doing something about them.
I have few concerns about private security forces being successful and then going rogue. Many are very well trained and disciplined, and there will always be legitimate work for them in other venues.
Dan(Miller)
4 - Condor
Dan,
Problem is international law and using a military force against ships from other countries, whether they be the pirate vessels or the pirated vessels. To use the Navy (any Navy) is an act of war. And could be construed or manipulated legally as such.
In the U.S. we use the Coast Guard to board vessels. The Coast Guard can ride Navy ships, but the boarding is done in accordance with international law using a law enforcement branch or the armed services which is not part of the DoD.
The days of putting ordnance on targeted pirate vessels are over and have been for many decades.
The other reason the piracy has been successful (worldwide mind you), is that it truely is a "Big O" out there. Even the straits of Malacca has problems, which are hit and run in nature with sheltering ports no one can touch without constituting an act of war.
5 - Dan(Miller)
Condor,
I don't quite take your meaning.
Using force within the territorial waters of any country would present problems. What Somalia, lacking any effective government, would or could do about it is perhaps a different kettle of fish.
Be that as it may, the pirate attacks are not taking place within the territorial waters of Somalia. It is indeed a B(F)O out there, and the Pirates of Somalia are now attacking 200 - 400+ miles off shore, in international waters.
Assume the following not completely hypothetical scenario: a Saudi owned cargo ship with Panamanian registry and a multinational crew is attacked by a Somalian speed boat (regardless of registry, if any). The cargo ship defends herself by employing deadly force. Somalia might construe the actions of the cargo ship as an act of war. But by whom? Panama? The Saudis? The various countries of which the multinational crew members are citizens? In these circumstances, I suppose it is perhaps within the realm of possibility that the Somali Government could, Brigadoon-like, spring briefly into existence and find a way to complain and an entity to receive the complaint. Again, whether it would do so and what the result might be are different kettles of fish.
Conceivably, these issues might take on more substance were the attacks on pirate activity to be made offensively, rather than defensively, by naval forces, rather than by attacked cargo vessels.
Unfortunately, the use of force in self defense is the only viable option I can think of; were there something better, perhaps it should be tried. Any suggestions? I mean, you know, beyond charging them to yield in Queen Victoria's name.
Dan(Miller)
6 - Robert Barga
Didn't we once go to war for a country doing this? I have yet to see why our argument for dealing with the Barbary Coast should not be held in this case.
7 - Dan(Miller)
Robert Barga,
I don't think there are many U.S. registered ships plying the area where the Pirates of Somalia are active, and thus far I haven't heard of any being attacked there. A cargo ship under the U.S. flag is much more expensive to operate than one under a flag of convenience, and there are not many U.S. registered cargo vessels engaged in international trade these days.
Somehow, I don't think that any of the countries providing flags of convenience would have much interest in the sort of thing you suggest. Nor, I suspect, would the United States have much interest even if one of the few ships of U.S. registry were to be attacked.
Dan(Miller)
8 - Robert Barga
I am not saying if A US ship is targeted, but if one we need for our security (oil is a national security issue) is attacked, we have the duty to stop it. Send some cruisers into the area, that should stop it (or march through it with like 4 marines and make a song)
9 - Dan(Miller)
Robert Barga,
What would a U.S. warship do in similar circumstances? The same thing, I hope, but I'm not sure.On an emotional level, I agree. However, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, chance of that. So, it is necessary to figure out not only what the United States could do, but what the United States is willing to do. At this point, I don't think the United States is willing to do much more than go with the international flow and be inoffensive. If the U.S. did as you suggest, there would probably be cries of "No [pirate] blood for oil! Not only internationally, but domestically.
Even India, on her way to becoming a naval power, is cautious. An Indian naval vessel just sank a Pirate mother ship, but only after coming under attack.
Dan(Miller)
10 - Robert Barga
If we are being charged one can hope we would, but the Cole showed that we wouldn't
that said, I would think that if we got attacked and lost (or did nothing) to the pirates, the populace would demand we go 'kick 'er ass'
11 - Dan(Miller)
Robert Barga,
I sure hope so. On the other hand, I hope we don't find out. Being disillusioned is not enjoyable.
I adhere to the view that U.S. troops are as brave as any and better than most. They also tend to follow orders. I assume, but don't know, that orders currently permit the use of deadly force only in limited circumstances and perhaps then only with the consent of higher authority. Would that consent come in time? Again, I hope so but don't know.
Dan(Miller)
12 - Deano
Piracy! 'tis a rum thing, that the Brethren be still plying their trade anon.
Navy? Stop the Brethren you say? Aye, they kin do that, but swat one down and t'others spring forth. Opportune treasure and plunder be the cause. It be a rum profession, piracy on the Main, quick money or quick death but success builds you an empire in a place with few choices.
Arrrhhh, belike no Crown nor high-handed government be stopping these lads, so long as their own be allowing the shore operations to continue! No pirate likes to be without a Dry Tortuga or a Kinsale port to busy themselves with rum, khat and women. So long as the lands be lawless, pirates will florish as they bring the gold and ready cash to cross the palm.
So loose yer navies, hire your privateers! Gibbet the pirate kings! The Brethren will melt away like spring ice for a time, until you turn yer back...
So if you be sailing the deep blue, keep your powder dry, yer guns hot and yer sails well-kitted, or ye may find yerself faced with the worst bunch of scury, gibbet-deserving knaves to ever float a boat.
13 - Dan(Miller)
Here's the latest. Rule Brittania!
Dan(Miller)
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan and Barga -
The U.S. ships will - if they have time - attempt to contact the closing vessel by radio and loudspeaker. In any case if the vessel does not stop, the ship will fire one and only one warning shot across the bow of the incoming ship or boat. If that doesn't make them change their mind - or if the enemy is closing too quickly to worry about a warning shot - the ship will fire upon and sink the incoming vessel.
The Cole does not apply because she was inport in a supposedly fairly secure location. In the situation she was in, there was simply no time to react.
I was on the Abraham Lincoln at that time. Two months before - just before we deployed - we received a call to my office (I worked in Security at the time) in which the caller told us we would be attacked by a boat while we were inport overseas. We informed our command, NCIS, and all applicable intel agencies. We pulled in to Jebel Ali in the UAE and we had our eyes peeled - we were nervous, but the port visit was essential. Four days after we pulled out, the Cole was attacked.
We thought it was going to be us - we were the highest-value target in the hemisphere. But it was the Cole. We were relieved that it wasn't us...and ashamed that it wasn't us - survivor's guilt.
The Cole was never to blame - if anything, the blame would go more towards our intel agencies.
15 - Dan(Miller)
Glen,
That is very encouraging. However, it seems likely that the Pirates of Somalia may have some pretty sophisticated weapons on board; they certainly have enough money to buy just about anything available on the market now, but I have no idea what is available. My guess, however, is that they may not need to close with a ship to attack it.
It seems unlikely that they would attack cargo vessels with rockets before coming into view, since they want ransom money. But what about naval vessels? Do you have any idea of what the SOP may be in those circumstances?
Dan(Miller)
16 - Jim Ryan
Dear Dan, et al.,
Some interesting ideas have come out of this exchange, with calls for solutions requested. While not exactly serving as the vessel to the spirit of Stephen Decatur, there are a few ideas I might suggest:
* Blockade: As the discussion above considered the issues involved in finding and engaging the Somali pirates, it became clear that taking on such a large theater with comparatively few forces is a daunting prospect. Without the ability to draw say the Seventh Fleet and enough assets from other navies to equal that commitment into the area, the best solution becomes shrinking the playing field. Using the established definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles from the coastline at low tide, the international community could declare that any ships exiting this zone are subject to search and seizure until the situation has been stabalized; at this point getting the world to agree to this would be a very easy sell.
As for how to engage in such action, the recent experiences of the INS Tabar demonstrates that no matter what, even the best of plans have a high Murphy factor to consider. Suffice it to say, even with better training and armament (the Somalis relying on AK-47s and RPGs left over from the time the Soviets were playing in their yard), things could get ugly at moments. Even with the odds in favor of the established navies, leading to their eventual victory, there will be those bad days to suffer.
* Stabalization: In concert with this action, there must be the establishment of a functioning state in Somalia. Admittedly, the best chance for this at the moment is through a group that follows strict adherence to Sharia, which is an unpopular option in the West. Given the choice between staying on station indeffinitely or a clean house on shore, this may be the best short term solution available.
* Enagement: Once whoever is in charge on shore is established, that player and her people need to be made part of the world community as quickly as possible. One of the underlying causes of the conflict (and the root of most pirate outbreaks throughout history) was the marginalization of the coastal population through lack of stability coupled with economic exploitation by large corporate fishing fleets that depleted their stocks. A state that is able to keep these people satisfied must be encouraged so as to keep piracy from taking root there again.
A side consideration might be to directly engage these people once they have a stable situation back in port. You have a number of talented ruthless individuals who are being asked to give up their ways; what better means of doing that is there than to find them work detering pirates off Nigeria and Indonesia, the two other major theaters?
My two dubloons, FWTW...
17 - Dan(Miller)
Jim,
I wish that I had a better solution than that merchant vessels arm themselves, and someone in a position to implement it to whom suggest it. I fail on both counts.
Somalia is a real basket case, and if stabilization there is to be awaited it will be a very long time before anything productive can be done about the piracy problem. Ditto awaiting an international accord on how to proceed absent a stabilized Somalia.
Aside from armed merchant vessels, the only potential solution which seems viable from a U.S. perspective is to offer that all vessels (a) headed to the U.S. and (b) willing to go as far off shore as possible upon exiting the Gulf of Aden and thence around the horn, be given destroyer escort by the U.S. from the time that they enter the area where the pirates operate and until well out of harm's way. Under this approach, vessels heading toward Europe or elsewhere could seek protection from the countries to which they wish to deliver goods. Like it or not, the U.S. is neither likely to be a leader in this endeavor nor to be able or willing to protect foreign vessels headed other than to the U.S. Very few if any U.S. flag vessels are engaged in offshore trade these days, so protecting U.S. flag vessels is not a problem.
I realize that the Indian Ocean can have very bad weather, which can present problems. Nevertheless, it seems a viable alternative to having the merchant ships armed should that (superior, in my mind) idea be rejected.
Dan(Miller)
18 - Deano
"be given destroyer escort by the U.S. from the time that they enter the area where the pirates operate and until well out of harm's way"
Dan,
Given that the recent tanker pirating occurred some 450 miles out into the Indian Ocean, it is somewhat undefined just what "harm's way" might consist of.
There are several factors in consideration - first that the US navy isn't technically required to escort private ships (the majority of which are not US-flagged vessels in any case). Second, most maritime commercial vessels want to take the fastest, most direct route to their destination to save on fuel and time, so they probably are reluctant to either skirt the region or to divert. Getting them to convoy (like WWII) would be possible but you would need to wait for the convoys to form up and most would not cooperate due to the costs.
Lastly international law of the sea is somewhat ambiguous on the whole topic. You might have a Liberan freighter, owned by a Dutch holding company, crewed by a Norwegian captain with a Filipino crew, insured by a London firm, sailing international waters, captured by a Somoli raider, intercepted by a US warship. Who decides what?
The reality is (and I mentioned it in my previous "piratically prosed" post (which regretably noone seems to have replied to (sigh))- is that without some development of stability on shore (i.e. government or authority) that can work to alleviate the operations, you won't be able to effectively surpress piracy on the coast, unless you want to burn and sink everything with an outboard on a 500 mile stretch of coast.... It is a money-making operation and as long as it is profitable, it will grow and spread.
That leaves two possible solutions -
1). Increased aggressive action from various navies and military forces to actively intervence and discourage piracy or
2). the rising cost of insurance premiums forces ships to hire private escorts and/or security for their vessals (armed merchantmen) to ensure their passage through the regions. Private security firms are already scrambling for this one!
Even in either of these situations you won't end the piracy, merely surpress it to a degree.
19 - Dan(Miller)
Deano,
I recognize the problems. That's why I suggested that the merchant vessels arm themselves, with whatever assistance the various naval forces and/or private security companies are willing to offer (if any) or, as a second choice, that the U.S. Navy unilaterally provide destroyer escorts to those vessels which are delivering stuff to the U.S. and which agree to go seriously off shore and which ask for it. Perhaps they should also pay for the escorts. If they do not wish such assistance, and are unwilling to arm themselves, then I don't feel their pain.
Armed merchantmen and destroyer escorts for vessels which want such assistance obviously will not eliminate the problem. However, either would be a useful step, and a better one than I have heard suggested thus far. The idea of going after vessels after they have been captured is not a good one, as suggested by the recent sinking of a captured merchant vessel by the Indian Navy, which thought it was a pirate mother ship. Prevention seems to be a far better solution.
Dan(Miller)
20 - STM
Dan writes: "Charging the Pirates of Somalia to yield in Queen Victoria's name won't work".
Actually Dan, it did work. One of Her Majesty's ships did just that and killed some pirates in the process.
A few days before you wrote this, Royal Marines commandos in rigid inflatables from the British frigate HMS Cumberland chased a pirate dhow they had earlier chased away from a Danish merchant vessel.
A firefight ensued on the open sea as the Marines were fired upon during the chase, fired back and killed two pirates and wounded a third, who died later, before they boarded and captured the remainder of the crew.
The Marine party on Cumberland specia-lises in non-compliant boarding raids, and described the pirate crew as "compliant" after the shoot-out in a classic piece of British understatement.
A week later, the Indian frigate INS Tabar sank a pirate mothership in the same area after it was challenged and answered by firing upon the Indian vessel. The Indians replied without hesitation and sent the mothership to the bottom.
Both ships are part of the international naval anti-piracy taskforce operating in the Gulf of Aden and off the horn of Africa, which also includes ships from the US.
While I don't take any delight in seeing people get killed, the pirates have no respect for human life and taking tough measures against them will be the only way to get the message through.
It's not like these guys are poor starving buggers ... as Dan points out, they're living high on the hog on the proceeds of crime, but what they are doing is ruining anything good that might come for the rest of their countrymen as the place is now basically in anarchy.
21 - STM
As for everyone carrying on about the US Navy not being equipped to escort ships, etc, and perhaps not even being morally obliged to do so because most aren't US flagged, that's an absolute nonsense. Sorry guys, but it helps to know what's actually going on up in the Gulf of Aden before you comment.
Here's the facts: The USN is part of the anti-piracy task force and will be called upon to carry out operations like those described above, and will probably have similar rules of engagement that allow them to do the exact same stuff should the need arise, especially if they're fired upon or threatened. Escorts and protection of ALL merchant vessels in the GA and HOA are part of this work by the task force.
That's why they're there ... and doubtless they have naval party units on board just like the British to carry out non-compliant boarding. The USN is not just peacocking around up there on its own. It's currently very actively engaged along with its international partners.
22 - Deano
Stan,
Oh I don't doubt they can and will do it, alongside everyone else, and do it well. They have the training, the expertise and the weaponry. If they wanted to, I have no doubt they could take back any hijacked ship they wanted to.
All the navy guys of my acquaintence would LOVE to take on some pirates, just so they can brag about it over beers later.
The question is whether that will be effective. It's a big ocean, a fairly high traffic region and most of the small boats currently being used by the pirates are low enough that they are hard to spot on radar. Given most commerical vessels don't have large crew, don't do an effective job watchstanding for smaller vessels anyway, and that the usual notice of a pirate attack is generally 15 minutes (from my understanding, given the vast areas involved (1.5 million sq. miles of ocean), the chance of a naval vessal (American, Indian, Canadian, etc., which are all in the area) being in a position to respond quickly and effectively is limited.
So yes, the Navy can intervene, however it may not be able to do so frequently enough to impact and impede the piracy.
By the way, apparently that "Mother ship" the Indian Navy sank, was apparently a hijacked Thai fishing boat the Ekawat Nava 5, a deep-sea trawler. One crew survivor has been found, 1 crew confirmed dead and 14 crew still missing. - all apparently tied up below by the pirates.
23 - Dan(Miller)
STM,
This incident, confirmed by the Indian Navy, suggests one of the difficulties in going after the pirates after they have taken a vessel. To the extent possible, the efforts should be directed to prevention.I agree with the notion that vigorous action should be taken against the Pirates of Somalia, and also that the U.S. Navy has very substantial capabilities to do just that. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much interest in the U.S. in going after them. That's why I suggested that the ships vulnerable to attack make themselves less so by carrying well armed and trained security types or, alternatively or perhaps additionally, that the U.S. provide destroyer escorts to ships bound for the U.S. and willing to go far off shore.
Incidentally, the "pirate ship" sunk by the Indian navy was actually a Thai vessel which had been captured by the Pirates of Somalia and which thereafter attacked the Indian Navy vessel.
Dan(Miller)
24 - Deano
Some additional thoughts:
The policy of paying out ransoms and payoffs currently being carried out by ship owners and insurance companies is ineffective. Paying Danegeld generally only gets you one thing - more Danes. The more money paid out, the more people get attracted to the trade. My guess is that the "success" of the Somoli pirates will spur more piracy in other places like the gulf of Tonkin, the Phillipines, Sumatra, even the South American coast.
I suspect that the days of relatively "safe" commercial transit across the oceans may be coming to an end. You can get cheap, small,and fast boats now, with good range, that can run under a radar profile easily. You have readily available, highly powerful handheld weaponry that can take out a reluctant freighter very quickly (RPG's can easily hit a large target like a freighter at more than 1,000 feet distance). That combination, plus the unarmed nature of the targets (and a relatively "pacified" crew - I mean who wants to die to save a hold full of farm equipment? Especially for a cheap wage?) make the coastal areas a literal happy hunting ground. Unless commercial vessels want to arm up with guards and weapons, they will continue to be easy pickings.
The key is that pirates cannot be successful without a shore base of some type. They can't stay at sea for long periods without fuel (particularly with the small vessels the coastal pirates like ot use), food and resupply and they need shore facilities and a cooperative local authority (corrrupt official, government, tribal warlord etc.) that permits the actions to happen.
Deal with the shore problems, you might be going somewhat towards solving the sea piracy problems.
25 - Christopher Rose
Deano, not for the first time, I need to remind you that the URL you have in the box above where you type in your comments is wrong. It needs to start http:// and there is no www. in a blogger blog url. Please fix it, even though you are not currently maintaining your own site...