More Piracy Near Somalia

[Ken White]

The pirates prey...the navies would protect them, something that has been a primary responsibility of navies...They do and it has not been -- it is an assumed role dictated by Politicians to protect their business interests and friends. It was common usage of Navies in past centuries; nowadays not so much. They're out of practice which is why most aren't doing it well. Add the fact that fewer Politicians today have any interest in matime commerce and there's no iincentive for Navies to do the anti-piracy thing.Try to find it in the mission statement of any navy. It compares to Armies and COIN -- unpleasant ask, expensive and tedious, best avoided...
...that is also a difference between fighting pirates and going into the other places you mentioned. Fighting pirates is continuing a social contract that has been in effect for thousands of years. It is also a lot easier to do since it is on the sea.We used to ride to work on Elephants, too. Had to quit because the Parking Lot Attendants got upset...

It is a western social contract if it is one at all, which I doubt. It's about money as are most things. It is also expensive and waste of effort but that's another Thread. For this one, it's a new duty for most alive today and serving in anyone's Navy and it is unlikely to be successful. Motorfirebox is correct in that you're attacking the symptom, not the problem.

What does "easier" have to do with moral rectitude? Why is it easier because it is on the sea? For that matter, what is easier, killing Pirates? Easier than trying to stop a civil war fomented by a 'do-good' mentality with air power alone? Sorry, I cannot see the logic in that statement.
Practicability has a lot to do with doing good.Interesting statement. Suffice to say I suspect not everyone agrees and that smacks of moral equivalence -- which is okay but which is considered by most who espouse doing good as evil or nearly so...
Evil is being done in places, many places.As it was in the beginning, is now and forever shall be...:D

True dat -- and it absolutely, positively is not going to be stopped by the application of force, particularly if that force is applied in support of one set of persons against another. You may suppress it temporarily but it won't stop.
But we have a prior contract to stop the evil on the high seas. This contract has helped to ensure human prosperity over thousands of years. We, hard fact that it is, don't have prior contract in the other places.We? Who is this 'we?' Not to be snarky but isn't that assuming a lot of personal responsibility for decisions that are not one person's to make? Forming a collective that may or may not exist?
We may have a moral obligation depending on the circumstances, and we have discussed that at length beforeAs an example, we did discuss -- and disagreed. Still do.

I do not agree that anyone has a prior contract to "stop evil on the high seas," Nor do I believe anyone has a current contract to impose their view of morality on anyone else by force.

I thus am confused by any one who wishes to to apply force to punish one set of criminals while applying other force to save another set of them...
Moral obligations are a little harder to act upon because we didn't tell the people, yes we will defend you, as we have with the merchant sailors over the ages.Nations do not, cannot, have morals. Morality is an individual construct. Again, no one told Merchant Seamen that, it just happened through a series of events.

Let me make one thing clear. I have no problem with blowing Pirates out of the water. Nor do I have a problem with wreaking death and destruction on Daffy and Co. However, I do not see either activity as a moral imperative. The first is an ineffective partial solution to a minor problem; the second an ineffective partial solution likely to create a bigger problem. Where I see your positions disconnect is in the bloodthirsty unequivocal desire to clobber Pirates bouncing off the strongly stated desire to 'protect' a set of almost equally criminal persons from another set of same. i.e. You want to kill off one set of Pirate and encourage the probable foundation of another set... :confused::eek:

I don't see any dichotomy, just very different problems, places and people.The people do differ. The places are irrelevant, practically speaking, the problems are different but the people are doing things that are wrong in all cases, yet you propose that one batch of wrongdoing (the least harmful to others) is far, far worse than the other two which are arguably more detrimental to more people -- and see no dichotomy? Okay. We can disagree on that as well. :wry:

[JMA]

Yours was the name I noticed.

OK now we have that cleared up.


I don't like calling out specific posters, generally, because it often leads to interpersonal headbutting that gets in the way of clearer exchanges.

Yea, I understand that tends to upset the moderators but it is better to look someone in the eye when discussing such issues with them than just firing rounds into the stop-butt , yes?


The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya.

Typo I think. You want to try again?

[carl]

Ken:

One of the fundamental, vital, basic purposes of navies is to suppress pirates. It has been since the beginning of navies. We haven't had to do it much in the last several decades because it was done so effectively in the past, but that doesn't mean it ain't still one of the main reasons there are navies. The reason that it is so important of course is that it is vital in maintaining free trade. Free trade means the difference between being poor and being not poor. Important that.

For you to say that anti-piracy work is in effect beneath the swabbies strikes a very discordant note. If the navies were to come out and say something like that it would strike this forever a civilian as a supercilious evasion of duty. Speaking as a civilian, I wouldn't much care that it is work for little ships, low tech ships, that there wasn't much glory in it, less publicity, no fame for admirals and no opportunity develop multi-billion tech programs to get that star; get out there and take care of the pirates.

I don't think that is the actual case. I think the navies, at least the guys on the ships who haven't been contaminated by national capital politics, are itching to take care of the pirates and could do so quick. It is the politicians who are restraining them, for politically correct reasons.

If the nations won't let the navies take care of the pirates, it would only be fair if they let the merchant mariners arm and defend themselves. Nothing worse than authorities who won't defend you and won't let you defend yourself.

Most police work is attacking a symptom, criminal behavior. You deal with the other stuff after you disarm and incarcerate the robber. Dealing with pirates is police work.

You should probably look up the definition of moral equivalence again. Easier has a lot to do with moral rectitude, or maybe more accurately, moral action, since most people aren't heroes and it is too much to expect to be. You are grateful for what they do, you don't castigate them in the same breath for what they didn't do. That would tend to discourage them.

Commission of evil acts absolutely can be stopped by force. It happens every day. Said application of force won't stop evil itself because that is part of human nature; but when you stop a rape in progress by using force, as a guy I knew did, that rape victim is pretty grateful that an evil act was stopped.

As far as my being bloodthirsty regarding pirates, I don't know if it is being bloodthirsty as much as being realistic about the place and the people. WAWA, TIA.

So that is my position on piracy. Why are you speaking about what I didn't say in regards to the other countries? In this thread I have limited my comments to piracy, or at least I think I did. I made limited comments with regard to Libya and even more limited comments with regard to Ivory Coast. I don't quite understand what you are targeting.

[Stan]

I just knew you were at the bottom of all this confusion JMA :D


OK now we have that cleared up.
Yours was the name I noticed. I don't like calling out specific posters, generally, because it often leads to interpersonal headbutting that gets in the way of clearer exchanges. The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya.

[Entropy]

As a Navy guy who went over to the dark side, I just can't get too excited about these pirates. The Somalia pirates are certainly dramatic and make a great story, but they are really minor in the grand scheme of things - at least minor enough that most of the proposed "cures" are probably worse than the "disease."

Approximately 20,000 ships transit just the Gulf of Aden each year. In 2010, 53 ships were captured by Somalia pirates and a couple hundred others were "attacked." Piracy insurance is more expensive due to Somali piracy, but isn't usually even required for ships plying these waters. The reason is that piracy isn't as big a threat as it's made out to be and therefore our we shouldn't overreact in response.

[carl]

Entropy:

This is a smart ass comment so feel free to disregard or reply in kind. But at what point should the Navy deign to bother about this? I know it is a distraction from the truly important things like revising the berthing aboard subs to make way for females but 53 ships are 53 ships, some of them quite large and there is also the matter of hundreds of innocent mariners who while proceeding peacefully about their business were threatened with death, kidnapped and unlawfully imprisoned in who knows what kind of circumstances.

The preceeding (sic) was mostly a rant.

[M-A Lagrange]

Not being a navy guy, I will not comment on the greater mission.
But just, the 53 ships attacked in 2010 have to be compared with the number of attacks in 2007 for example, or 2008.
Basically before any fleet was assign to protect the ships.
Also, remember the ukrenian cargo of tanks for South Sudan government taken by pirates?

I think it not the number that count here but rather a "tranquility quality" that's at stake.

[JMA]

I just knew you were at the bottom of all this confusion JMA :D

At the top of the confusion Stan, at the top. ;)

[Entropy]

Carl,

Piracy is a problem the Navy can only mitigate, not solve. The ocean is a big place, there are lots of targets for the pirates, naval vessels are few and expensive, and the pirate ports are currently sanctuaries. Patrolling and attempting to catch pirates at sea will hinder pirate activity, but it's ultimately a chronic treatment for a what is a chronic condition. Unless you're willing to change the conditions on the ground that lead to piracy, you're left with treating the disease.

A permanent solution is neither easy nor cheap given Somalia's realities. The question then becomes, what additional measures are you willing to take in order to prevent the pirates from taking ships? I'm simply suggesting that convoys, exclusion zones or more radical measures (ie. attacking pirate bases) are either not worth the cost or are unlikely to succeed. We can probably add more ships to patrol and perhaps prevent a few more incidents per year, but is that really worth what is, in reality, a small problem?

[JMA]

... the pirate ports are currently sanctuaries.

I suggest you need to revisit this assumption.

[motorfirebox]

Yea, I understand that tends to upset the moderators but it is better to look someone in the eye when discussing such issues with them than just firing rounds into the stop-butt , yes?
That might be relevant if I thought you were the only person to hold these two opinions.


Typo I think. You want to try again?
No, no typo that I can see.

[JMA]

No, no typo that I can see.

Then humour me please. What does your following statement mean?

"The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya."

[carl]

...and the pirate ports are currently sanctuaries.

To echo JMA, why?

[Ken White]

One of the fundamental, vital, basic purposes of navies is to suppress pirates.We can disagree on that.
I suppose It has been since the beginning of navies. We haven't had to do it much in the last several decades because it was done so effectively in the past, but that doesn't mean it ain't still one of the main reasons there are navies.I do not so suppose. Your second supposition is also questionable and the reason for less high seas Piracy is a wealthier World. Piracy flourishes where coastal people are poor. Surprise, surprise...:wry:
For you to say that anti-piracy work is in effect beneath the swabbies strikes a very discordant note.That's not what I said. This is:

"Add the fact that fewer Politicians today have any interest in matime (sic)commerce and there's no iincentive (sic) for Navies to do the anti-piracy thing.Try to find it in the mission statement of any navy. It compares to Armies and COIN -- unpleasant ask, expensive and tedious, best avoided..."

Not having experience, being equipped or trained to do a certain mission does not mean it's beneath anyone. Likewise, the fact that a mission is tedious, expensive and unpleasant does not mean it's beneath one. Please read what I write, not what you want to think I wrote. ;)

It's not beneath the Sailors, it is something removed from their normal missions, it is tedious (like boring holes in the sky with no activity...) and it is COIN like in many respects; Armies do COIN, Navies do anti-piracy. These things are not "beneath" either but that doesn't make them desirable -- or efficient mission assignments. Both missions are, in fact, quite inefficient and generally only a marginally effective uses of the forces.
If the navies were to come out and say something like that it would strike this forever a civilian as a supercilious evasion of duty. Speaking as a civilian, I wouldn't much care that it is work for little ships, low tech ships, that there wasn't much glory in it, less publicity, no fame for admirals and no opportunity develop multi-billion tech programs to get that star; get out there and take care of the pirates.The Navies didn't say that, nor did I. You're entitled to your opinion and to be brave, forthright, even dictatorial on an internet board. What you'd do if you had the responsibility for the Navy, procurement and such like or even if you were in the Navy is an entirely different matter and neither of us knows what your actions and / or thoughts would be.

You correctly note that "speaking as a civilian.." you wouldn't much care about several factors which the Navy and those Admirals, regrettably have to care about. That particular civilian attitude bred of ignorance is responsible for a lot of wasted effort and foolish mission assignments to forces all over the World. It's okay to be ignorant, that's simply a lack of knowledge and can be rectified -- but it possibly is not a good idea to decide mission parameters from a position lacking in knowledge of all the ramifications of what one is asking those forces to do. IOW, it's okay to have an idea of what possibly should be done, it is less okay to start castigating people who aren't acting as you believe they should when you have no idea of the problems and situations they are or may be confronted with. I'd also suggest that forthrightly stating what one sees as required is certainly alright but if one does so from a position of less than adequate knowledge, one is likely to be perennially disappointed things are not being done their way.

The problem is that you're only doing it on a discussion board, so no harm done, while other civilians with even less knowledge occasionally rise to the helm of power and do the same sort of thing and impose damage. :mad:
I don't think that is the actual case. I think the navies, at least the guys on the ships who haven't been contaminated by national capital politics, are itching to take care of the pirates and could do so quick. It is the politicians who are restraining them, for politically correct reasons.That also is an opinion to which you are entitled -- just realize it's an opinion and just yours at that. It's not fact. I don't think what you believe should be done is nearly as easy as you seem to imply that it is.

Also see my next comment.
If the nations won't let the navies take care of the pirates, it would only be fair if they let the merchant mariners arm and defend themselves. Nothing worse than authorities who won't defend you and won't let you defend yourself.While I agree with the merchant ships caring for them selves, I think you significantly underestimate the difficulties and problems -- political, geographic, spatial and practical -- in having blue water oriented Navies trying to counter Pirates in small craft. The "authorities" are doing their best, it simply is not and never will be enough. It's a Band Aid. My perception is that you approve of Band Aids and Humanitarian Aid. That's fine, your prerogative and there are many who agree with you but do recall they are only temporary fixes and in most cases merely result in greater damage and postponing the inevitable. 'Fix it now' is easy to say but rarley results in a true fix, it just puts a nice, 'we did something...' glosscoat over the corrosion. Never enough time to fix it right but always enough to do it two or three times...

In this case, those Navies are not refusing to protect -- they are doing the best they can within the rules and constraints imposed by their various governments and the operational impediments posed by their primary mission. They are not going to go full bore into anti-piracy operations because, contrary to what you seem to think, that is not their job and it is way down the list supplemental mission to be performed if they aren't doing much else. For the US Navy, for example, anti piracy activity will never supercede support to OEF -- nor should it.

All Navies will do what they're told by their civilian masters and they'll enjoy the extra funding the added and secondary mission of deterring piracy brings but they will not adopt it as a reason for existence. Nor should they IMO. Note I said deterring piracy. That's all they're doing as best they can and that is IMO not terribly wise; better to eliminate it but that is a long term costly endeavor and no non-Somali government is inclined to court the expense or bother. Eventually, the neighboring Nations may get interested but it'll be a while -- they all have problems of their own.
Most police work is attacking a symptom, criminal behavior. You deal with the other stuff after you disarm and incarcerate the robber. Dealing with pirates is police work.Make up your mind. Is it Police work or a Naval task? Can't have it both ways. If it is Police work (and I agree that it is...) then the Navies are the wrong aggregations for the job and thus are only a temporary stopgap. Those never work as well as a focused, job oriented element will. Having been a Cop briefly and a Soldier for a far longer period, I discovered that two very different mindsets and action patterns are required. Based on some familiarity with both, I'm pretty sure the same is true of Coast Guards and Navies...
You should probably look up the definition of moral equivalence again.I did that last time you suggested it. We disagreed then. Still do.
Why are you speaking about what I didn't say in regards to the other countries? In this thread I have limited my comments to piracy, or at least I think I did. I made limited comments with regard to Libya and even more limited comments with regard to Ivory Coast. I don't quite understand what you are targeting.I'm not targeting anything. I am referring to your statements in the other thread on humanitarian response in Libya (and to generic comments from others on the Cote d'Ivoire). I am doing that because this sub-thread started with my agreeing with motorfirebox that your comments on the two threads were somewhat of a dichotomy; Kill the Pirates, save the Libyans. You disagree that is in fact a dichotomy. Not a prob, we can disagree on that as well.

[motorfirebox]

Then humour me please. What does your following statement mean?

"The invitation to discuss is extended to anyone who thinks that we should intervene against Somalia but for Ivory Coast and/or Libya."
Why is there a moral imperative to help the Libyan rebels and Ouattara's forces, but no moral imperative to help Somalia?

[carl]

Ken:

Sure are a lot of words there. I'll try and keep them straight in my head as I reply.

I disagree with the contention that reduced piracy is because of a wealthier world. There are lots and lots of places that are poor that don't have pirates. The area that was Somalia has been poor for decades and decades but piracy has only become a big problem in the last few years. I suppose that's because maybe somebody had the bright idea of trying it once and it worked good and nobody did much about it so they kept doing what worked. I read that the Malacca straits piracy went way down in the last few years, mostly because the tsunami killed most of the guys who were the pirates. Dead pirates, poof, no piracy. My contention is sea policing is what keeps piracy at bay.

Navies are the ones who do sea policing. You can call them coast guards or maritime constabularies or whatever you want but they are an organized military force and they chase down pirates. Far out at sea especially it is a navy of some kind that will do it. It doesn't really matter if anti-piracy work is an inefficient use of naval resources, it must be done. The Japanese Imperial Navy isn't always available to make for cost effective targets. If the navies aren't trained and equipped for little work like chasing pirates they probably should get trained and equipped. Though I think they are equipped and trained just fine if only the politicians would let them get at it.

I think I will have it both ways as to chasing pirates being police work and navy work. Cops chase robbers and navies chase sea robbers. Seems the same to me.

Stop the pirates because they are harming innocent people. Make some effort to stop the dictator from harming innocent people. I still see no dichotomy.

[M-A Lagrange]

While I agree with the merchant ships caring for them selves, I think you significantly underestimate the difficulties and problems -- political, geographic, spatial and practical -- in having blue water oriented Navies trying to counter Pirates in small craft.

Well, earlier in this threat, it was pointed that actual pirates on the Somali coast were previously employed by security companies to "secure" boats.

Being a civilian and even not a US citizen, my point would simply be to support the idea that delegating policing functions to private companies have sometimes unexpected effects.
Yes pirates do exist in poor coastal areas but they also exist in Somalia because they did receive training and then have been able to develop skills.

[Ken White]

Dead pirates, poof, no piracy. My contention is sea policing is what keeps piracy at bay.The IMO disagrees but what do they know...

The Navies you malign also disagree. They're stupid, too, I suppose.
Navies are the ones who do sea policing. You can call them coast guards or maritime constabularies or whatever you want but they are an organized military force and they chase down pirates.You can call them what you wish but the fact is that Navies and Coast Guard like organizations have quite different organizations, training, roles and missions. They are not interchangeable anymore than are police and soldiers.
If the navies aren't trained and equipped for little work like chasing pirates they probably should get trained and equipped. Though I think they are equipped and trained just fine if only the politicians would let them get at it.I believe that suggests a bit more research on your part might be helpful for you.
I think I will have it both ways as to chasing pirates being police work and navy work. Cops chase robbers and navies chase sea robbers. Seems the same to me.Well, it's certainly a simple solution...

What one does if the citizens for various reasons do not themselves obey the law or exercise common sense in where they go and how they do it and there are not enough Cops while the size of the area makes Cochise County look like one small urban block is another issue, I suppose... :rolleyes:
Stop the pirates because they are harming innocent people. Make some effort to stop the dictator from harming innocent people. I still see no dichotomy.Obviously.

No matter, no sense boring others as this has become futile. G'day...

[carl]

Ken:

What is the IMO?

Maligning navies? I didn't mean to, especially the sailors on the ships. Timid admirals and equally timid politicians, I did mean to malign them.

I don't know much about how navies and coast guards are trained and organized in other countries, but I do know a tiny bit about how they work in the US. They seem to do a lot of the same things. Coasties go after drug runners as does the Navy. The Navy goes after subs and in WWII at least, I know, a long time ago, the Coasties went after subs too. And did a damn good job of it. The Coast Guard is subordinated into the Navy in times of war and I believe when the Coast Guard is buying their biggest cutters one of the considerations is how they will be able to handle navy type fighting.

More research into anything is always helpful but it seems to me that all of the navies that have actually chosen to do so, have been able to handle the pirates quite easily, the Indians, British, Danes, UAEs, South Koreans, Dutch and even us. That suggests that the training and equipment is adequate, only the will is lacking. That has to come from on high.

I don't understand the paragraph about Cochise County.

Hopefully others aren't bored. I'm not at all. This is fun.

[Ken White]

What is the IMO?LINK (http://www.imo.org/Pages/home.aspx).
Maligning navies? I didn't mean to, especially the sailors on the ships. Timid admirals and equally timid politicians, I did mean to malign them.Slap paint around with careless abandon and an over sized brush and it'll splatter on everything, wrong color or not...
I don't know much about how navies and coast guards are trained and organized in other countries, but I do know a tiny bit about how they work in the US. They seem to do a lot of the same things. Coasties go after drug runners as does the Navy.Apparently you don't know nearly as much as you presume. The CG goes after the druggies, the Navy assists and carries these (LINK) (http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/LEDET_History.asp) when it does so. By law...
The Navy goes after subs and in WWII at least...when the Coast Guard is buying their biggest cutters one of the considerations is how they will be able to handle navy type fighting.Again basically true but awfully simplistic. What I've been trying to point out as nicely as I can -- in all those long posts which are not fun -- you don't understand all you know about what you're saying. You're well read but you're missing a bunch of detail and nuance that no fiction and few histories can impart... :wry:
More research into anything is always...only the will is lacking. That has to come from on high.Yet again too simplistic. There are political constraints, no question. That's reality. The fact that you and JMA asked why Entropy called the Pirate ports sanctuaries when that is a political constraint -- whether you two like it or agree with it is totally immaterial -- if you do not know why those restraints exist, then you're arguing from a position of ignorance. That can be corrected, thus my suggestion that you might wish to do some more research into things before you start laying out policies that no one will be able to follow and slamming people with the weight of flawed perception and the inaccuracy of limited understanding.

OTOH, if you do know why they are sanctuaries and just do not agree they should be, that's fine but I'm sure you know that your disagreement with that policy of many governments around the world is unlikely to change a thing simply because you don't think it is a good policy.
I don't understand the paragraph about Cochise County.Compared to a one block urban area, Cochise County AZ is massive. Compared to the Gulf of Mexico, the Indian Ocean is far more massive. The Gulf is covered by counter drug hunting vessels and the Druggies still get through. The allegory is that you want 'one urban block and a big squad of ten NYC Cops success' in a 'vast Cochise county sized desert area with the same ten urban trained Cops.' Not an ideal scenario, wrong Cops in an unfamiliar environment with the wrong equipment (a Crown Vic works in NYC -- not so much in the Arizona desert).

The Indian Ocean is huge, the number of naval ships from all nations is relatively small, they are doing their best but it is not, to them an overwhelmingly important mission and the fact that you believe it should be has little effect. That belief certainly does not increase the number of Naval ships, decrease the number of Pirates or make the Indian Ocean one bit smaller...

The best they can do -- and this would be true with double the number of ships and far looser ROE and policies -- is deter some piracy. They cannot stop it and wishing they could or thinking they should be able to do so will not change the reality. Or the political impingements.
Hopefully others aren't bored. I'm not at all. This is fun.I'm glad you think so. It might be more fun if you had some grounding in the reality of what Navies do, how and why they do it and had a less cavalier and doctrinaire attitude toward things you do not seem to fully understand. Also be helpful if you didn't discount the political problems -- they're easy for you to dismiss, not at all easy for elected politicians to do so.

OTOH, I'm not sure that anything to do with discussing the rather serious business of people living or dying is all that much fun -- as opposed to participating ion the activity, that can be fun. I am sure that trying to broaden your understanding at possibly excessive length and having you ignore most of the important items to concentrate on the quick and to you significant theoretical and belief oriented items to the exclusion of the practical constraints and realities is not fun...

[Entropy]

I suggest you need to revisit this assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's the current reality.



To echo JMA, why?

Well, there are a lot of reasons, but the main one is that No one wants to intervene in Somali because of a little bit of piracy. Stopping piracy at sea isn't really practical and no one wants to play the part of Pompey or O'Bannon.

[carl]

Ken:

It is very true I don't know as much as I like to think I know, but I do know a distinction without a difference; and that is what you have when you put a handful of Coast Guardsmen aboard a Navy ship in order to get around a law. That looks to me like the Navy going after drug smugglers on occasion, disregarding the nuance of course. Considering the Coast Guard helped with Market Time and with the Iraq blockade and the Navy fights pirates and goes after drugs, my unsophisticated judgment is that in certain areas of naval endeavor, one might as well be the other. Don't worry about being nice if you disagree. I'll heal up.

I may not be as ignorant as you think, but then maybe even more than I fear. I asked Entropy the question because I was curious as to why he thought as he did. He answered well. I wondered what type of political constraint he was thinking of. Now I know.

It is indeed one of my great heartbreaks that the governments of the world don't breathlessly follow the SWC to see what Carl's latest pronouncement is so they can then follow the path of enlightenment. But I live in hope that that they will one day come to their senses.

I strongly disagree the navies don't have the capability to stop piracy, nor is piracy comparable to smuggling. Pirates once they take a ship can't help but come out into the open and be easily found. They can't hide. Once found, they can be taken; if anyone cares to do so. Smugglers got to hide all the time. They never announce their presence.

Sorry I don't impress you with my level of understanding. Hard luck that. But I will keep pecking away with my opinions, without foundation though they may be. I do appreciate the political problems, I just think most of them are self imposed limitations prompted by diffidence and political correctness. And I try to read carefully all that you write. It is just that some of it is immaterial and some of it I just disagree with.

In any event, this back and forth is fun.

Here is a link you might be interested in.

http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/change-rules-engagement-call-royal-navy-tackle-piracy-46593.html

In it the former head of Shell shipping calls for the rules of engagement to be changed so the navies can get on with it.

[JMA]

It's not an assumption, it's the current reality.

Well, there are a lot of reasons, but the main one is that No one wants to intervene in Somali because of a little bit of piracy. Stopping piracy at sea isn't really practical and no one wants to play the part of Pompey or O'Bannon.

So actually there is no sanctuary. Just that no country (or coalition) has seen fit to seek the obvious land based solution to this problem.

That you don't see the Somali based piracy as a significant problem in the greater scheme of things does not of course mean that it is not a regional problem or a commercial problem or whatever that some other people may take quite seriously.

Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there?

[JMA]

Why is there a moral imperative to help the Libyan rebels and Ouattara's forces, but no moral imperative to help Somalia?

No reason to be confused.

I summarised my position in post #440 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=116808&postcount=440) of this thread. For more detail read through the applicable threads and all will be revealed.

Note: check the date of the post and realise that that was my position at that moment. Some windows of opportunity subsequently closed and as such I would have moved onto plan B or C or whatever.

As to intervention in Somalia. It is ongoing. African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) has been doing its thing for years now.

... and a quick look at UNSC Resolution 1772 relating to Somalia para 18 is as follows:


“18. Encourages Member States whose naval vessels and military aircraft operate in international waters and airspace adjacent to the coast of Somalia to be vigilant to any incident of piracy therein and to take appropriate action to protect merchant shipping, in particular the transportation of humanitarian aid, against any such act, in line with relevant international law;

...this may have been added to or expanded in subsequent resolutions.

Does this response resolve your confusion over my position?

[M-A Lagrange]

Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there?

Ok JMA,

What would be your recommandations in the actual context with the involvement of Uganda and AU advocating for the effective creation of a East african force?

Do you really think that no African countries could contribute?
And what to do to reinforce involvement of emergenging powers as well as China?

Would the solution go also with a strong reconquest of Somalia by the transitional gov (I cannot find better qualification) or a support of Somaliland as a proxi.

M-A

[Fuchs]

I have a proposal that would quickly solve the piracy problem: The G20 agree to confiscate every ship that was ever freed from pirates' possession and enters their territorial waters (and then do it).

Piracy would end in at most three months to be more relevant than five years ago.

[Ken White]

Carl:
I may not be as ignorant as you think, but then maybe even more than I fear. I asked Entropy the question because I was curious as to why he thought as he did. He answered well. I wondered what type of political constraint he was thinking of. Now I know.I know you aren't ignorant but I also see you make a lot of apparently ignorant statements that are somewhat naive and / or display a disregard for practicalities as impediments to your worldview (not sure which -- it's not a good medium for nuance...). We all do that but in the case of interventions to improve the human condition here and there, IMO you seem to discard reality for unattainable ideals all too often and you also appear to often ask for military efforts in doing things they cannot do or do not do well. Wishing they could do it your way doesn't change reality...:o

I suggest that some of the "immaterial" things I write are perhaps lumped into the larger number with which you disagree. I'm incredibly lazy, don't do much unless it seems fairly important. ;)

Not a problem, I can be concise when there's no point in being otherwise. In this case, there is none. :D

JMA:
Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there? None. May even do some good, though solutions with a slight chance of political survival to implementation or gain success would seem desirable. YMMV. :wry:

[Entropy]

So actually there is no sanctuary. Just that no country (or coalition) has seen fit to seek the obvious land based solution to this problem.



Sanctuary:

1. A Place of safety or refuge.
2. Immunity from arrest.

Yes, it's a sanctuary. Yes we, or even South Africa, could decided to end the sanctuary. That we choose not to doesn't mean it isn't a sanctuary.


That you don't see the Somali based piracy as a significant problem in the greater scheme of things does not of course mean that it is not a regional problem or a commercial problem or whatever that some other people may take quite seriously.

Well, it's not just me. Last time I checked, piracy insurance was about $20k a vessel per voyage. Hardly anyone buys it for their ships. Why do you think that is?

The owners of captured vessels and the employers and governments of the 700+ hostages have specifically asked us not to do anything that might put those people and those ships at harm. Hence we are not landing Marines in Puntland or fast-roping SEALS onto captured ships.

Somali piracy affects perhaps 1-2 tenths of a percent of shipping traffic in this region, a couple thousandths of a percent when considering worldwide traffic. It's not causing any significant disruption in global trade. It's not even affecting regional countries all the much, such as Kenya.



Then of course there are those who may want to discuss possible solutions. No harm done with this is there?

No harm at all. I'm simply trying to explain why nations aren't doing more.

[carl]

I have a proposal that would quickly solve the piracy problem: The G20 agree to confiscate every ship that was ever freed from pirates' possession and enters their territorial waters (and then do it).

Fuchs, I don't quite understand what you mean.

Entropy:

Here is a link to a story stating that cruise ship port calls to Kenya are down 90% because of piracy. So in at least that small part of the ship business it is having an effect.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201104050126.html

[Entropy]

Carl,

I'm not claiming piracy is having no effect. Obviously, it is. I'm simply stating that the effect is relatively small which makes it much more difficult to justify dangerous and expensive "solutions" to the problem.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs, I don't quite understand what you mean.

The income source of the pirates is ransom money. Paying ransom to pirates is illegal. Now if paying ransom to pirates would be sanctioned with loss of the ship, nobody would have a motivation to pay ransom for ships any more - only for the crews. Most of the crews being philippinos and other poor countries' people, there would be only marginal revenue potential for the pirates left.

The loss of a ship to pirates would furthermore be permanent and force the ship owners to internalise the costs of countermeasures instead of socialising them. In short; they wouldn't depend on navies for pointless patrolling, but would be willing to accept some appropriate expenditures for security (still orders of magnitude cheaper than naval patrolling).


I basically proposed a non-violent legal strategy against piracy.

[carl]

Fuchs:

So from the owners standpoint the ship just got sunk by a U-boat. That would certainly concentrate the owner's minds, especially the ones with the big ships with expensive cargoes. They would be inclined to take strong action of some kind.

From the pirates standpoint, they just grabbed themselves nothing much and potentially a world of trouble depending on how exercised the owners were. Hmm.

Fuchs, I think you have a good idea there.

[Entropy]

The loss of a ship to pirates would furthermore be permanent and force the ship owners to internalise the costs of countermeasures instead of socialising them. In short; they wouldn't depend on navies for pointless patrolling, but would be willing to accept some appropriate expenditures for security (still orders of magnitude cheaper than naval patrolling).


Except your proposal would have the opposite effect. If shipowners were guaranteed to lose the ship should it ever be captured, then the pressure will only increase on governments to "do something" about the problem to prevent the ships from being captured in the first place.

Secondly, there's no guarantee it would encourage shippers to change behavior to use more "countermeasures" (whatever they are). They can always insure against such a loss (or would you make that illegal too). At most it will simply raising the cost of shipping since the companies will pass the cost of losing those ships onto their customers, thereby socializing the costs.

Not to mention that taking someone's ship by fiat is not legally or constitutionally possible in all countries. Maybe it's different in Germany, but in the US we have something called due process....

[Fuchs]

Except your proposal would have the opposite effect. If shipowners were guaranteed to lose the ship should it ever be captured, then the pressure will only increase on governments to "do something" about the problem to prevent the ships from being captured in the first place.


My proposal implied that the governments already "did something" and the ship owners simply got kicked in their back cushion for trying to socialise the costs of their business.
At the point of the G-20 agreement, the lobbying cause of the ship owners would be lost, and it would be obvious.


Secondly, there's no guarantee it would encourage shippers to change behavior to use more "countermeasures" (whatever they are). They can always insure against such a loss (or would you make that illegal too). At most it will simply raising the cost of shipping since the companies will pass the cost of losing those ships onto their customers, thereby socializing the costs.


I've got no problem with this. If the ship owners are willing to pay the increased insurance tariffs and crews are willing to accept the risk for their pay, then it's apparently economically optimal to accept the risk of piracy. The pirates would still cease activity since they get almost no revenue any more, of course.

You misunderstand the meaning of 'socialising costs'. I already used the correct term; you and I meant internalising costs.
If sending a container over the seas includes a risk and that risk premium is paid by whoever wants the container move, then the cost (risk) is internalised.
If the taxpayer boots the burden it's socialised.

[Entropy]

My proposal implied that the governments already "did something" and the ship owners simply got kicked in their back cushion for trying to socialise the costs of their business.
At the point of the G-20 agreement, the lobbying cause of the ship owners would be lost, and it would be obvious.

Well, ok, but that seems about as likely as Somalia transforming to a Jeffersonian democracy. Besides, as I also noted, the costs will be socialized regardless - in the form of higher shipping costs if nothing else.

Just saw the second part of your post:

What prevents the pirates from simply increasing the ransom fees on the people to cover the lost revenue from the vessels (and historically, this was a major source of pirate income)? What prevents the pirates from switching to vessels with lucrative cargos which they could then sell? The vessels are still valuable - the pirates could still make money from them by selling to third countries or even as parts/scrap.

There is no reason to believe that your idea would actually cause the pirates to switch to some other profession.

[Fuchs]

NO
It does not get "socialised". It gets "internalised".

To socialise costs means to burden the general population, while to internalise costs means to burden the one who demands the good or service whose creation creates the cost.

[Entropy]

NO
It does not get "socialised". It gets "internalised".

To socialise costs means to burden the general population, while to internalise costs means to burden the one who demands the good or service whose creation creates the cost.

The pirates will still be around, so the Navy will still be around, so there will still be costs that are socialized. BTW, I added to my post above after seeing the second part of your earlier post.

[carl]

One reason Fuchs' idea is a good one is it would knock the structure from beneath the status quo. Quo no mo. (I couldn't resist) Things would change.

If the pirates did take an especially valuable ship and cargo, a big new tanker fully laden for example, the owners would have quite an incentive to take it back, with or without help or approval from govs.

[Entropy]

If the pirates did take an especially valuable ship and cargo, a big new tanker fully laden for example, the owners would have quite an incentive to take it back, with or without help or approval from govs.

Well great, more work for PMC's operating with no oversight in a country with weak governance! What could go wrong?

Doesn't sound much like a "non-violent legal strategy against piracy" to me.

[motorfirebox]

Well... the strategy itself doesn't involve the use of violence, and it probably is one of the least violent (in terms of overall casualties) solutions proposed.

I think the only real stumbling block--the same stumbling block that applies to almost every strategy proposed--is that it requires real effort and expenditure of political capital. The recent slaying of four Americans by pirates didn't make the front page for more than a day or two. It doesn't seem like there's much will to do anything besides send in more naval craft for more patrolling.

[carl]

Entropy:

There is plenty going wrong right now.

There wouldn't be just PMCs. The Ukraine might decide it needs to station a naval squadron in the area, Eritrea and Somaliland might suddenly sprout altruistically minded navies. Things would change, but mainly out at sea. The owners are interested in the ships and cargo. You can't drag the ship inland.

I still like that idea.

[Fuchs]

What prevents the pirates from simply increasing the ransom fees on the people to cover the lost revenue from the vessels (and historically, this was a major source of pirate income)?

The exact same thing that keeps them from increasing the ransom fees right now. It doesn't happen right now, so why should it happen in a more problematic environment? Makes no sense.


What prevents the pirates from switching to vessels with lucrative cargos which they could then sell?

That's damn hard. You need an entirely different backoffice to pull this off, and it could be countered by many means (mostly police).
Moreover, they would need to ship almost all goods with the captured ship, and that's not going to work.


The vessels are still valuable - the pirates could still make money from them by selling to third countries or even as parts/scrap.

The ships are useless, for they will be confiscated on next use in a G20 country port. It's doubtful that the relatively few scrapping locations (mostly Eastern Bangladesh) could not be kept from accepting stolen ships.


The pirates will still be around, so the Navy will still be around, so there will still be costs that are socialized.

No, I am actually someone who can say "no" to a military mission opportunity. The recall of the fleets is thus part of my proposal. They are not essential for the strategy.



My proposal would destroy the business model of the pirates. It's unlikely that they can easily switch to another business model - they would most likely already diversify right now if they could.

[JMA]

My proposal would destroy the business model of the pirates. It's unlikely that they can easily switch to another business model - they would most likely already diversify right now if they could.

This idea is worth consideration at a political level. But while the G20 dither over this plan for the next 5-10 years I suggest some "military-style" contingency plans get worked through ;)

In keeping with my philosophy I would tend to go after the "people" rather than the "things". Where is the head of the snake in all of this?

From the British Forces News (http://bfbs.com/news/worldwide/change-rules-engagement-call-royal-navy-tackle-piracy-46593.html) I get it that there are currently 53 ships in the hands of the pirates together with 800 crew and passengers and costing the shipping industry GB£7.5billion per year.

There are a lot of options here.

[Entropy]

The exact same thing that keeps them from increasing the ransom fees right now. It doesn't happen right now, so why should it happen in a more problematic environment? Makes no sense.


Actually, ransoms are increasing. Average ransoms have increased from $500k in 2005 to $5.4 million last year.
(http://oceansbeyondpiracy.org/documents/The_Economic_Cost_of_Piracy_Summary.pdf)



That's damn hard. You need an entirely different backoffice to pull this off, and it could be countered by many means (mostly police).
Moreover, they would need to ship almost all goods with the captured ship, and that's not going to work.



That's already happening too - they are targeting ships they think will pay the best which appears to be oil tankers. If you change the conditions (ie. no ransoms on ships), then they could go after ships that have lots of people to ransom, or valuable cargo to ransom, or go after ships the pirates themselves can use.


The ships are useless, for they will be confiscated on next use in a G20 country port. It's doubtful that the relatively few scrapping locations (mostly Eastern Bangladesh) could not be kept from accepting stolen ships.

Well, that's only if your plan actually got implemented. As I noted before, easier said than done. The notion that the US government, for example, could confiscate private property simply because it was the victim of criminal action is a tenuous one at best. Similar things have occurred during the course of the drug war, but those actions haven't had much effect on that problem. Certainly there would be a legal challenge to any such seizure at the very least. I can't speak for other countries.


No, I am actually someone who can say "no" to a military mission opportunity. The recall of the fleets is thus part of my proposal. They are not essential for the strategy.

Well, if your proposal doesn't stop the piracy, then the fleets would stay and there would be pressure put on governments to do the very military missions you wish to avoid.




My proposal would destroy the business model of the pirates. It's unlikely that they can easily switch to another business model - they would most likely already diversify right now if they could.

No, it would alter the business model, not destroy it (even if the scheme could be implemented, which doubtful). There already exist several instances where people were ransomed, not the ships. If you manage to take ships out of the equation economically, there are other revenue streams (people and cargo) than can be ransomed. What do you plan to do about that?

There are a couple of thousand years of history to examine with regard to piracy and a few methods that are proven to work. Paying ransoms is often the best policy until the pirates get too big for their britches - even the Romans understood this.

[carl]

Actually, ransoms are increasing. Average ransoms have increased from $500k in 2005 to $5.4 million last year.
(http://oceansbeyondpiracy.org/documents/The_Economic_Cost_of_Piracy_Summary.pdf)

I think Fuchs was talking about ransoms for people not ships. Sad to say most people don't care about Filipino crewman.

If the pirates did take a ship with the specific idea of grabbing people to ransom, they would likely target a ship full of westerners, say a cruise ship. If they did that, I can't think of a quicker way to get the various navies to do something drastic.

[motorfirebox]

Does this response resolve your confusion over my position?
No. Your response addresses strategies. I'm asking about the moral imperative that is claimed to exist in some situations but not others.

[JMA]

No. Your response addresses strategies. I'm asking about the moral imperative that is claimed to exist in some situations but not others.

Then I suggest you find someone who has expressed such moral ambiguity and take it up with them.

[JMA]

Paying ransom to pirates is illegal.

Interesting. By which law is this?

[JMA]

Maybe it's different in Germany, but in the US we have something called due process....

There is only one response to a statement like that and it is... Guantanamo.

[Entropy]

There is only one response to a statement like that and it is... Guantanamo.

Well played sir.

[motorfirebox]

Then I suggest you find someone who has expressed such moral ambiguity and take it up with them.
Okay, I give up.

[M-A Lagrange]

Fuch, Carl,

The idea of confiscating the ships is not that bad but concerning Carl points about somali pirates incapacity to sell the cargo, I do have some doubts.

First because somali pirates do work in connection with somali business men who have the capacity to trade most of the cargos.
The high ranson we all hear about are concerning a very limited number of ships being attacked. Most of the attacks are done on small ships which are basically fishing ships from neigbouring countries or small size cargo ship.
Secondly, part from oil and heavy weapons, somali have connections and legal business in Kenya and Ethiopia which give them the capacity to sell almost anything legaly (borders are porous).

But there is here may be an idea as a strict blocus over somalia.

[carl]

Here is a link to an Information Dissemination piece describing recent naval actions against the pirates.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/04/observing-modern-mso-squadron.html#disqus_thread

The author states "...but it does sound to me that NATO has been conducting some form of shore blockade on a specific pirate group."

[carl]

M-A: Good points ref the ability to do the old fashioned pirate business of steal and sell.

[carl]

You guys are probably already doing so but check out Galrahn's latest twitter posts about all this. Apparently the pirates have decided to provoke India.

http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/article/idAFJOE73F07T20110416?edition=af

[JMA]

You guys are probably already doing so but check out Galrahn's latest twitter posts about all this. Apparently the pirates have decided to provoke India.

http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/article/idAFJOE73F07T20110416?edition=af

Hopefully it will encourage the Indian government to authorise their forces to take the action against pirates ashore. This may well be the turning point where the pirates have pushed their luck too far.

[Fuchs]

Interesting. By which law is this?

I read it's part of international law, but much of that is customary and I don't know which exact rule says it.

--------

It's easy in any country to write a law that whoever pays ransom to pirates is a pirates supporter and his ship (or the ship insured by him) will be confiscated. That's possible in every legal system. Likewise, it's quite easy to write into law that any ship observed to have been released from pirate control has to be considered freed with a ransom. It's really obvious enough.

----------

There are of course always people who prefer inaction because every change is outside of their comfort zone. That's the kind of people who are responsible for us still discussing Somali pirates years after the issue became relevant.

We could have passed by three known pirate hot spot villages and could have destroyed all boats there in a drive-by shooting with a simple corvette - years ago.

We could have ringed them with craters from JDAMs and dropped leaflets on them that net time it will be a filled circle, not a ring.

We could have sunk a few captured ships and told them clearly that their business is over.

We could have mercilessly raided every captured ship - that's what thousands of civilian, paramilitary and military special forces trained for for decades, after all.

We could have intercepted and raided every boat that moved farther than 50 nm.

We could have raided their villages (two or three years ago there were three well-identified hot spot villages) and taken away all weapons, boats and every luxury.

We could have arranged that the Kenyan villas of the pirate leaders burn down.


Instead, we chose the most primitive, most stupid, least effective, most expensive, least imaginative and most reflexive (NON-)solution: Patrol the seas with warships and tolerate ransom payments.
It's almost as if the insurance industry's lobbyists would run our governments.


@Entropy; "due process"?
* Guantanamo
* Patriot Act
* death penalty for mentally ill
* three strikes rule
* death penalty for innocents who happened to be too poor to afford a decent lawyer
* death penalty for foreigners who were denied their privilege to contact their countries' embassy or consulate early
* regular violation of international law at will

The U.S. is not a country with "due process" in legal matters or a real rule of law. That's just one of many U.S. national myths.

[davidbfpo]

I think the key point in this article: http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/article/idAFJOE73F07T20110416?edition=af

Is this:
India is holding more than 100 pirates it has detained mostly in rescue operations.

Note the article also refers to one Indian naval ship.

[Ken White]

The U.S. is not a country with "due process" in legal matters or a real rule of law. That's just one of many U.S. national myths.Do so have it -- provided you have enough money... :D

We have many myths, 'tis true. Seems to be a human proclivity, though, as many nations have a few... :eek:

Other than that, good post. ;)

[JMA]

I think the key point in this article: http://mobile.reuters.com/regional/article/idAFJOE73F07T20110416?edition=af

Is this:

Note the article also refers to one Indian naval ship.

From the same article. Isn't this interesting thinking:


"India hasn't only declared war against us, but also it has risked the lives of many hostages," he (the pirate) said.

Yes, how dare the Indian navy be used to protect Indian shipping from the legitimate and understandable attentions of these Somali pirates. And yes they would be quite within their rights to shoot Indian and other hostages if the 100 odd pirates in Indian custody are not immediately released. (For our US friends here this is sarcasm)

I hope the Indians see this as crossing a line and get suitably angry enough to take some action on their own.

...now I wait to see how long it will be before someone suggests that a hostage/pirate swap is a good idea.

[JMA]

I read it's part of international law, but much of that is customary and I don't know which exact rule says it.

It's easy in any country to write a law that whoever pays ransom to pirates is a pirates supporter and his ship (or the ship insured by him) will be confiscated. That's possible in every legal system. Likewise, it's quite easy to write into law that any ship observed to have been released from pirate control has to be considered freed with a ransom. It's really obvious enough.

Ok, but while it would be easy to enact such legislation by process I suggest that to get all the G20 to do so in say... the next ten years would be well neigh impossible.

Well it seems to me that if piracy is virtually impossible to prosecute the odd mysterious disappearance of the odd pirate skiff or mother-ship would be absolutely impossible to investigate and pin on someone.

[JMA]

There are of course always people who prefer inaction because every change is outside of their comfort zone. That's the kind of people who are responsible for us still discussing Somali pirates years after the issue became relevant.

We could have passed by three known pirate hot spot villages and could have destroyed all boats there in a drive-by shooting with a simple corvette - years ago.

We could have ringed them with craters from JDAMs and dropped leaflets on them that net time it will be a filled circle, not a ring.

We could have sunk a few captured ships and told them clearly that their business is over.

We could have mercilessly raided every captured ship - that's what thousands of civilian, paramilitary and military special forces trained for for decades, after all.

We could have intercepted and raided every boat that moved farther than 50 nm.

We could have raided their villages (two or three years ago there were three well-identified hot spot villages) and taken away all weapons, boats and every luxury.

We could have arranged that the Kenyan villas of the pirate leaders burn down.

Instead, we chose the most primitive, most stupid, least effective, most expensive, least imaginative and most reflexive (NON-)solution: Patrol the seas with warships and tolerate ransom payments.
It's almost as if the insurance industry's lobbyists would run our governments.

That sums it up pretty well. But your current solution appears to favour a political solution rather than a military one. Is that where you currently stand on this issue?

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

That's a good list of things we could have done (and could still do) but didn't. Such actions have consequences however, not all of them favorable.

Additionally, nations have certain responsibilities to their own citizens and ships that sail under national flags, and many have done so. Certainly the US has, but also South Korea, India and France. The US, for instances, recently nabbed the negotiator implicated in the murders of four American hostages, for example.

Also, ransom negiation doesn't appear to be illegal in Germany (http://www.mareeg.com/fidsan.php?sid=6630&tirsan=4) and I'm pretty sure it isn't in the US - or at least it isn't enforced.

[Stan]

Also, ransom negiation doesn't appear to be illegal in Germany (http://www.mareeg.com/fidsan.php?sid=6630&tirsan=4) and I'm pretty sure it isn't in the US - or at least it isn't enforced.

According to my insurance company it's illegal to insure an unlawful event. With that, I wrote asking about sailing directly to Somalia but have yet to receive a response :D


That sums it up pretty well. But your current solution appears to favour a political solution rather than a military one. Is that where you currently stand on this issue?

JMA,
Can one politically fix things without a military force? Not much history to bite on ! Seems to me, we (the military) end up fixing what the politicians dreamt about the night before (with their latest mistress).

[carl]

Entropy:

Actions do have consequences, but inaction has consequences also. The consequences of inaction we are seeing and they may get more interesting now that the pirates think they can take on the Indians.

If some or all of the things Fuchs mentioned had been done years ago, the consequences would have been less for all, to include the pirates who may have been forced to work for a living years ago but now, unless they back down, may be forced to back their play.

[Entropy]

If some or all of the things Fuchs mentioned had been done years ago, the consequences would have been less for all, to include the pirates who may have been forced to work for a living years ago but now, unless they back down, may be forced to back their play.

You may be right - then again you may not.

Any country with a half-decent Navy could have done (and still could do) most of the things of Fuch's list yet so far haven't. Why do you think that is?

[motorfirebox]

Pirates vs Indians? That didn't go so well for the Indians last time (http://espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=300620123).


...to include the pirates who may have been forced to work for a living years ago...
Yes, because as we all know, Somalia is the land of job opportunities.

[Fuchs]

That sums it up pretty well. But your current solution appears to favour a political solution rather than a military one. Is that where you currently stand on this issue?

Early on in the pirate affair I pointed out that patrolling is stupid and historically pretty much never effective without incredible expenses. All pirates need land bases and going after them is the proven recipe since at least Pompey's stunning campaign against Mediterranean pirates.

There are many ways how force could be used to dissuade them from piracy. I could keep writing options and options for hours, I guess.

Political, economic, military, legal - the choice of likely effective options is stunning. To patrol the Indian Ocean is stupid, primitive, useless, ineffective, expensive, never-ending, distracting ... an option as if someone designed purposefully the worst imaginable option.

- -- ---


Now why is it still being done?
Navies aren't too enthusiastic about it, they know that they can do little more than embarrass themselves. So this time a military mission is not meant to raise a military service's standing.

I guess the reasons are

* "we need to do something"
* free riding of the shipping industry (which even dodges regulation and fees with flying the flag of Panama and other ludicrous seafaring nations, then calls for other governments with a navy as if the ships were registered there).
* bored media which hyped the affair up early on
* utterly, utterly incompetent politicians who have no clue about how to fight against piracy because their prime source about it was probably watching Jack Sparrow with their children.
* nobody is taking the affair serious enough to do something decisive about it
* the whole patrol thing became a political get-together that may actually have helped to improve relations (unlikely allies like the US-Iranians, Pakistanis-Indians)
* the step from the utterly pointless, primitive, stupid, useless, ineffective, expensive OEF patrolling of Somalia's coast (meant to give an OEF option that did not risk bloodshed to some countries who wanted to contribute to OEF, but not risk KIAs) to Atalanta was really, really small (the OEF ships were busier collecting intel on Somali pirates and smugglers than intercepting AQ)


Overall it's again a display of incompetence on several levels.
I'm sure that a Bismarck would either have officially declared the pirates utterly irrelevant or the problem would have been addressed properly.
Today's politicians simply have no guts to leave of bureaucracy's comfort zones. They have no competence in security policy either because they have either a security policy background of failure (US, UK, Portugal) or none to speak of for two generations (all else in NATO). Only exception is France, but France is iirc a country which has actually made use of special forces against pirates.

There are of course also countries like Russia who simply don't fool around and are reputed to simply kill pirates without telling anyone, with the effect that the pirates tend to avoid their ships.

[carl]

Why do you think that is?

Political correctness. The fact that most of our betters inside the beltway have spent their entire lives in plush, safe, secure surroundings, completely isolated from the hard realities of life; so completely isolated they doubt those realities even exist. Also an arrogant disregard for the importance of powerless, voiceless, peaceful people like those hundreds of anonymous crewmen waiting to be taken. Lastly, fear, they are afraid of the bully boys with the AKs and the attitudes, because they have never had to face one, that has always been done for them by people they look down upon.

That's why.

Motorfirebox:

Believe it or not, most people in the area that used to be Somalia, do work for a living, not highly remunerative work, but not international thuggery either. After a sufficient number of pirates are dispatched, and they will be eventually, those that are left will get a job. They kind they would have had before all the piracy started.

I expect you to retort with the barren fisheries argument stating that the poor yuts have to choose between brutalizing Filipino linehandlers and starvation. But when you do, tell me how much starvation there has been in the area that used to be Somalia in the last 10 or so years-that wasn't related to one group of thugs or another stealing the food that was there.

[JMA]

Political correctness. The fact that most of our betters inside the beltway have spent their entire lives in plush, safe, secure surroundings, completely isolated from the hard realities of life; so completely isolated they doubt those realities even exist. Also an arrogant disregard for the importance of powerless, voiceless, peaceful people like those hundreds of anonymous crewmen waiting to be taken. Lastly, fear, they are afraid of the bully boys with the AKs and the attitudes, because they have never had to face one, that has always been done for them by people they look down upon.

That's why.

Motorfirebox:

Believe it or not, most people in the area that used to be Somalia, do work for a living, not highly remunerative work, but not international thuggery either. After a sufficient number of pirates are dispatched, and they will be eventually, those that are left will get a job. They kind they would have had before all the piracy started.

I expect you to retort with the barren fisheries argument stating that the poor yuts have to choose between brutalizing Filipino linehandlers and starvation. But when you do, tell me how much starvation there has been in the area that used to be Somalia in the last 10 or so years-that wasn't related to one group of thugs or another stealing the food that was there.

Good stuff Carl, agree 100%, saved me a few replies.

If a general needs 30 years experience and a bunch of courses with command experience at every level before he gets to command a small operation like that of Libya or any future exercise against the Somali pirates what qualifications do you think the politicians should be required to have before they are allowed to start to complicate such matters?

[JMA]

[good stuff snipped]


Overall it's again a display of incompetence on several levels.
I'm sure that a Bismarck would either have officially declared the pirates utterly irrelevant or the problem would have been addressed properly.
Today's politicians simply have no guts to leave of bureaucracy's comfort zones. They have no competence in security policy either because they have either a security policy background of failure (US, UK, Portugal) or none to speak of for two generations (all else in NATO). Only exception is France, but France is iirc a country which has actually made use of special forces against pirates.

There are of course also countries like Russia who simply don't fool around and are reputed to simply kill pirates without telling anyone, with the effect that the pirates tend to avoid their ships.

OK, I agree the history of dealing with this particular piracy threat is bad. I also agree with what you suggest could have (and probably should have) been done.

But lets deal with the now.

I'm not sure the "sea-scouts" (waterborne equivalent of the boy-scouts) approach as outlined by the activities of the NATO naval force (in an earlier post) is what will achieve anything.

Remember the Russians and the Indians are part of this new international grouping BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) so maybe we can compare the actions of certainly India and Russia with wimp efforts for the NATO countries and the rest.

Must say though that the yanks at the sharp end when able to slip their leash do a fine job - Maersk Alabama for example. But then the clowns from the WH and State come along and screw it all up. From the Somalia Report (http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/426/US_Gives_Hints_On_New_Approach_To_Anti-Piracy):


Clearly the United States does not have a functional policy regarding piracy because it is lacking the basic knowledge to even begin to formulate a simple, land-based, long-term approach to ending piracy.

These guys at Somalia Report make some recommendations for action at the end of their piece. You agree?

[JMA]

JMA,
Can one politically fix things without a military force? Not much history to bite on ! Seems to me, we (the military) end up fixing what the politicians dreamt about the night before (with their latest mistress).

I don't know. I would like to believe that at least some contentious issues get resolved by the politicians before someone needs to be shot. I asked Carl what he thought the qualifications of politicians should be to qualify them to get involved in the complex world of foreign policy and the use of military power. What do you think?

[Stan]

From the Somalia Report (http://www.somaliareport.com/index.php/post/426/US_Gives_Hints_On_New_Approach_To_Anti-Piracy):

These guys at Somalia Report make some recommendations for action at the end of their piece. You agree?

JMA,
I had no idea you would link us to a State Dept. document (http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rm/159419.htm) :D

A very good article with some salient points that continue to escape our politicians. We've got plenty of intel and open source info on the ground, but yet ignore it. Heck, it's probably free info too :rolleyes:


I don't know. I would like to believe that at least some contentious issues get resolved by the politicians before someone needs to be shot. I asked Carl what he thought the qualifications of politicians should be to qualify them to get involved in the complex world of foreign policy and the use of military power. What do you think?

Every politician should start off with a tour in the military and finish off with a tour in an Embassy (in Africa). This will give him/her a taste of what happens when they are deciding our fate with the stroke of a pen.

[Entropy]

Political correctness. The fact that most of our betters inside the beltway have spent their entire lives in plush, safe, secure surroundings, completely isolated from the hard realities of life....

My comment wasn't just about the US. Again, there are any number of countries that could do most of the things on Fuch's list, yet they aren't except when their own ships or people are involved. Why do you think that is?

[carl]

Entropy:

Only a guess by me, but I think partly for the same reasons our inside the beltway mandarins don't, as I listed before. Partly it is because they don't have the wherewithal. Partly because they don't give a damn about anybody but there own people, the Russkis being a prime example. AHA! you say. Why shouldn't we be like them? A question like that should answer itself, but (here comes the naive idealist) I think the truly great nations, the nations that make a difference to world history in a mostly good way care about something beyond their immediate benefit because they know that seeing beyond their immediate benefit results in the benefit of everybody else which results in their long term benefit. Great Britain was a little like that. We are like that, or I hope we are like that. The other nations aren't like that. Could you imagine the Chinese Navy giving a hoot about anything that happens to ships that aren't Chinese? Motorfirebox's positions sort of reflect the attitude we have. I disagree with him, but he cares about the good of the people who live in the area that used to be Somalia, not because their welfare directly impacts us but because their betterment will increase the overall condition of mankind which will benefit us in the long run.

You and Motorfirebox may now criticize me harshly for sort of putting words in your mouths.

JMA:

About qualifications. I would prefer that somehow, someway the anointed ones get some experience that takes them away from their cloisters and exposes them to the real world of real people and real evil and real courage. There are any number of jobs that could do that, military as Stan suggests, police officer, prison guard, ambulance attendant, emergency room assistant, cab driver, any number of things. The idea wouldn't be to educate them in the academic sense, the idea would be to shape their experience and character by exposure to the real world.

[motorfirebox]

Believe it or not, most people in the area that used to be Somalia, do work for a living, not highly remunerative work, but not international thuggery either.
Yeah, that must be why there are continual relief efforts being sent to Somalia--because everyone has enough money to survive on. Perhaps "most" people do work in Somalia--a 51% employment rate would, after all, be "most". Everything I've read indicates an employment rate of less (http://www.economywatch.com/world_economy/somalia/economic-forecast.html) than half, though. If you have figures that indicate otherwise, please do share them.


I expect you to retort with the barren fisheries argument stating that the poor yuts have to choose between brutalizing Filipino linehandlers and starvation. But when you do, tell me how much starvation there has been in the area that used to be Somalia in the last 10 or so years-that wasn't related to one group of thugs or another stealing the food that was there.
How much starvation? Counting or not counting the massive amounts of foreign aid Somalia receives? It doesn't particularly matter whether the starvation is due to lack of potential for acquiring food or theft by corrupt contractors--no food and money is no food and money. If there were means of self-support to be had, foreign aid wouldn't need to be sent in the first place. Crime exacerbates the problem, but it's not the root cause.



We are like that, or I hope we are like that.
Your position on this issue says otherwise.

[carl]

Good morning Motorfirebox. How are you today?

When I lived in Kinshasa, we used to marvel at how the people made a living. I don't now if they even kept employment statistics, but if they had, I'm not sure most people would not have had formal employment. But they made a living somehow, and we were damned if we could figure out how. They weren't pirates, they may have thieved a bit, but they mostly didn't. I suspect things were the same in the area that used to be Somalia before the chance to slam around Indians for fun and profit came along.

I'll take your second paragraph as a concession that the basic survival needs can be met by those fine young yuts without needing to steal things from Iranian fishermen. The need for a big screen TV and the generator to run it though, I will in turn concede cannot be met without recourse to the adventurous life of a corsair.

[Stan]

Good morning Motorfirebox. How are you today?

When I lived in Kinshasa, we used to marvel at how the people made a living. I don't now if they even kept employment statistics, but if they had, I'm not sure most people would not have had formal employment. But they made a living somehow, and we were damned if we could figure out how. They weren't pirates, they may have thieved a bit, but they mostly didn't. I suspect things were the same in the area that used to be Somalia before the chance to slam around Indians for fun and profit came along.

I'll take your second paragraph as a concession that the basic survival needs can be met by those fine young yuts without needing to steal things from Iranian fishermen. The need for a big screen TV and the generator to run it though, I will in turn concede cannot be met without recourse to the adventurous life of a corsair.

And the millions in aid we sent to Zaire for over two decades went right into Uncle Mo’s coffers; A very sad point of contention when we discuss humanitarian efforts and aid packages. The host country will just stymy the best of efforts unless there’s a take on their end. Our politicians have yet to factor such an equation into their swift pen strokes.

Tom had spent an inordinate amount of time working out how the FAZ survived when salaries were considered OK. Seems they worked out their own way of working and doing business. What I did notice was that once they found an easy route to making money (in spite of the fact they worked hard before) they showed little interest in returning to an honest day’s wages. I don’t see the pirates simply going back to fishing because we supply them with food aid and return them to bountiful fishing without poachers from the Far East.

[motorfirebox]

Good morning Motorfirebox. How are you today?

When I lived in Kinshasa, we used to marvel at how the people made a living. I don't now if they even kept employment statistics, but if they had, I'm not sure most people would not have had formal employment. But they made a living somehow, and we were damned if we could figure out how. They weren't pirates, they may have thieved a bit, but they mostly didn't. I suspect things were the same in the area that used to be Somalia before the chance to slam around Indians for fun and profit came along.

I'll take your second paragraph as a concession that the basic survival needs can be met by those fine young yuts without needing to steal things from Iranian fishermen. The need for a big screen TV and the generator to run it though, I will in turn concede cannot be met without recourse to the adventurous life of a corsair.
You talk about morality and doing the right thing, but your position can be summed up as "I don't care how Somalis live, or don't, so long as they leave us alone." That doesn't strike me as being particularly moral, especially in the sense of actively trying to make the world a better place. You (occasionally) talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk you choose the option that promotes continued ignorance.

I'm not even going to address your interpretation of my second paragraph other than to express mounting frustration at your apparent inability or unwillingness to apprehend plain language.

[Ray]

India deploys naval warship near Somali coast

Published: Monday, Apr 18, 2011, 21:37 IST

India has deployed a naval warship close to the Somali coast as part of efforts to secure the release of seven of its nationals still held captive by the pirates despite taking ransom.

A Talwar Class stealth warship has been positioned near the coast for readiness for any military action in case it is required to rescue the hostages.

Link (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_india-deploys-naval-warship-near-somali-coast_1533410)

[jmm99]

re: merchant ships (excluding warships); some answers would have to be averages:

1. US-flagged vessels (number & tonnage) - total

2. US-flagged vessels (number & tonnage) not on Great Lakes

3. US-flagged vessels (number & tonnage) on India Ocean

4. US-flagged vessels (number & tonnage) in "Somali Piracy Zone"

5. US-flagged vessels (number & tonnage) attacked by Somali pirates

6. US-flagged vessels (number & tonnage) seized by Somali pirates

7. US-flagged vessels (number & tonnage) still held by Somali pirates

Next set of questions - same 7, but for All-World flagged vessels

Make sure you count the 50+ flagged by Outer Mongolia. :D

Ran into that one while looking generally at flagged vessels. I didn't find answers to my questions. I probably was not looking in the right places.

TIA

Mike

[carl]

Motorfirebox:

I wouldn't say my position is '"I don't care how Somalis live, or don't, so long as they leave us alone."' as much as it is "I don't care how the pirates operating from the coast of the area that used to be Somalia live, or don't, so long as they leave us alone, the us to include all innocent seafarers sailing the oceans." That is a bit more precise. Of course, once they stop being pirates they fall out of the "I don't care" class, unless they then enter the yut gun for hire class. I don't care about that class either.

Sure have been a lot of people telling me I'm an ignorant fellow lately. Must be something to it.

You might note the Asphalt Venture was taken southeast of Dar Es Salam, a long way from the area that used to be Somalia. The pirates also welshed on the deal to give back all the crewman after receiving the money. This is contrary to the pirate's code, at least as that code is interpreted by the writers of "Pirates of the Caribbean."

Ray:

That link you provided has a lot of even more interesting links attached to it. Also, how ruthless do you think the Indian navy is prepared to get?

[M-A Lagrange]

Carl, Motorfirebox:

I believe you 2 are talking about 2 different things at the moment.
One is talking of the burden of pirates and the fact that piracy and pirates caught should be treaten as a criminal case.
The other one is talking about the need to mitigate piracy by providing efficient support to the inprocess to be born government of Somalia. This by providing economical opportunities to the population in land so they will not turn to piracy.

Both are right, IMO. You cannot deal with pirate problematic in just looking at one angle only. Especially as pirates start to feel strong enough to threat States as India, France and US... (The list starts to be long).

The question here is rather are the somali interested and aren't they already included in the formal/informal economy? And secondly how to strike both pirates on sea and blackeconomy they live from.

And finally, I'm sorry but mortality/starvation in Somalia is a long (boring) debat with sometimes weird decisions taken from all sides. I witnessed parents letting their children starve so they could join a nutrition program and get free food and I witnessed also stupid expats saying: who said somali deserve SPHERE standarts humanitarian aid...

[davidbfpo]

JMM,

Without using Google I would suggest Lloyds List and the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), may have the answers in their publications.

[Entropy]

JMM,

The US Coast Guard keeps track of all US-flagges ships above 5 tons. You can order a complete list here (http://www.ntis.gov/search/product.aspx?ABBR=PB2011594361).

You can do some very limited queries of the database here (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/CoastGuard/VesselByName.html).

You can track vessels here in NRT (http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/) via the AIS system, but there are important caveats - specifically you only get data on ships that are near the shore and in range of an AIS receiver that's hooked into the system. AIS can be tracked by satellite but, alas, that service is generally only available to governments and corporations with deep pockets. I don't know of any other sources that provide live locations for all US merchant vessels.

Here's the US DOT site on Somalia piracy (http://www.marad.dot.gov/news_room_landing_page/horn_of_africa_piracy/horn_of_africa_piracy.htm) with a lot of good links.

A current list of pirated vessels can be found here (http://www.eunavfor.eu/downloads/). (There are no US Flagged vessels currently on the list).

Hope that helps.

[motorfirebox]

One is talking of the burden of pirates and the fact that piracy and pirates caught should be treaten as a criminal case.
The other one is talking about the need to mitigate piracy by providing efficient support to the inprocess to be born government of Somalia. This by providing economical opportunities to the population in land so they will not turn to piracy.
I've never denied the necessity of dealing with acts of piracy. What I argue is that acts of piracy do not negate other facets of the problem.


I wouldn't say my position is '"I don't care how Somalis live, or don't, so long as they leave us alone."' as much as it is "I don't care how the pirates operating from the coast of the area that used to be Somalia live, or don't, so long as they leave us alone, the us to include all innocent seafarers sailing the oceans."
To state it in such terms is to ignore how the current piracy boom got started in the first place. Your position requires you to believe that it's okay for some groups (read: the US) to break the rules, but as soon as anyone else breaks the rules, we get to shoot them--because the rules say so! You can't completely shred the fabric of civilized society and then expect people to act civilized.

[carl]

To state it in such terms is to ignore how the current piracy boom got started in the first place. Your position requires you to believe that it's okay for some groups (read: the US) to break the rules, but as soon as anyone else breaks the rules, we get to shoot them--because the rules say so! You can't completely shred the fabric of civilized society and then expect people to act civilized.

How about this. We will convene a universal conference to ultimately determine who did what to whom when. It will also determine what penalties are to be exacted and how they will be divided up. Then it will enforce its findings and establish equitable arrangements to maintain the justice of the situation.

If, when all that is successfully completed, say 6 weeks from now, some yuts from the coast of the area that used to be Somalia sail out to sea to steal ships and kidnap mariners, can we then take decisive "TIA" type action against them?

[jmm99]

to David and Entropy - if one wants intelligent answers, ask and some smart intelligence folks at SWC will respond :)

My purpose in asking was to get some solid facts that might suggest some policy and legal opinions re: US involvement in dealing with Somali piracy.

To an Old Dinosaur, an attack on an American flagged vessel (or on an American embassy) is the same as an attack on the United States. Of course, to the New Mammals, ain't no such thing under Customary International Humanitarian Law; and remember Customary International Human Rights Law, etc., etc.

I'm probably a relic from the Clipper Ship Era, with a little bit of David Porter (the Elder) in the background. Piracy is also bad for business - but, whose business ?

Again, guys, thank you for the leads.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

I've never denied the necessity of dealing with acts of piracy. What I argue is that acts of piracy do not negate other facets of the problem.

Ok, then what do you propose that is already being done by the humanitarian community and the international community?

Do the donors have to flood the place with more money?
Do the international community have to reinforce the engagements to provide military support to the somali government?
Does AU members have to set a real Eastern Africa force (as it is in the treaty) and then occupy Somalia?
Do the neighbouring countries have to send back the refugees?
Do Ethiopia have to invide again somalia with a back up from Uganda?

The problematic is not just saying you have to do something in land, it's to propose some thing on the other facets. And to come with a feasible response which is not: western powers will settle the problem. As there is also a responsability from the somalian community (not all, and most a small numbers of rich merchants, politicians and small villages).
The "pirate council" threats India (or France and Kenya before) because those countries take police action against piracy. This means they feel/think piracy is acceptable and other countries should let them be pirates. Or they have another agenda behind.

[JMA]

Ok, then what do you propose that is already being done by the humanitarian community and the international community?

Do the donors have to flood the place with more money?
Do the international community have to reinforce the engagements to provide military support to the somali government?
Does AU members have to set a real Eastern Africa force (as it is in the treaty) and then occupy Somalia?
Do the neighbouring countries have to send back the refugees?
Do Ethiopia have to invide again somalia with a back up from Uganda?

The problematic is not just saying you have to do something in land, it's to propose some thing on the other facets. And to come with a feasible response which is not: western powers will settle the problem. As there is also a responsability from the somalian community (not all, and most a small numbers of rich merchants, politicians and small villages).
The "pirate council" threats India (or France and Kenya before) because those countries take police action against piracy. This means they feel/think piracy is acceptable and other countries should let them be pirates. Or they have another agenda behind.

With the collapse of the state in Somalia 1991 it is acknowledged that illegal dumping of hazardous waste off the coast of Somalia as well as illegal fishing took place.

At this point we should remember this well known quote of Samuel Johnson - "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

So in response to dumping and poaching (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.htmlNews) of their fishing resources the long-suffering patriots/pirates/thieves/thugs/crooks/gangsters (pick the one you like best) of Somalia hijacked/detained/impounded (pick the one you like best) the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship in 2008 and demanded a ransom/reparation (pick the one you like best) of $8m. This money the world was told was to go towards cleaning up the waste dumping areas.

So over the following years the world has seen Somali patriots/pirates/thieves/thugs/crooks/gangsters (pick the one you like best) from all over the country and the world rallying to the cause of helping to collect these "reparations" to clean up the coast line and protect the fish stocks.

Secretive people these Somalis. Keeping the details of the clean-up program and its cost close to their chest. Don't blame them, do you?

[Stan]

Do the donors have to flood the place with more money?
Do the international community have to reinforce the engagements to provide military support to the somali government?
Does AU members have to set a real Eastern Africa force (as it is in the treaty) and then occupy Somalia?
Do the neighbouring countries have to send back the refugees?
Do Ethiopia have to invide again somalia with a back up from Uganda?



M-A,
That looks like a list from the Clinton era when I was in Zaire/Rwanda.
Funny, we tried to answer those questions from the ground and they sent us winter baby clothes and dried biscuits :wry:

Interesting how most people rarely get what it means to manage a humanitarian effort in Africa at the behest of the current administration. Once one has had a taste of that Bravo Sierra.... Well :D

[motorfirebox]

How about this. We will convene a universal conference to ultimately determine who did what to whom when. It will also determine what penalties are to be exacted and how they will be divided up. Then it will enforce its findings and establish equitable arrangements to maintain the justice of the situation.

If, when all that is successfully completed, say 6 weeks from now, some yuts from the coast of the area that used to be Somalia sail out to sea to steal ships and kidnap mariners, can we then take decisive "TIA" type action against them?
You're replacing one extreme with another, more fantastic extreme. I don't see how that's helpful, even as facetiousness.


Ok, then what do you propose that is already being done by the humanitarian community and the international community?

Do the donors have to flood the place with more money?
Do the international community have to reinforce the engagements to provide military support to the somali government?
Does AU members have to set a real Eastern Africa force (as it is in the treaty) and then occupy Somalia?
Do the neighbouring countries have to send back the refugees?
Do Ethiopia have to invide again somalia with a back up from Uganda?

The problematic is not just saying you have to do something in land, it's to propose some thing on the other facets. And to come with a feasible response which is not: western powers will settle the problem. As there is also a responsability from the somalian community (not all, and most a small numbers of rich merchants, politicians and small villages).
The "pirate council" threats India (or France and Kenya before) because those countries take police action against piracy. This means they feel/think piracy is acceptable and other countries should let them be pirates. Or they have another agenda behind.
Another invasion is the exact opposite of what I'd propose. The basic problem is that we've destroyed the concept of legitimate government in Somalia. A large part of that is due to unavoidable corruption, but another factor that weighs heavily is that when Somalia did try to put together a real government of their own, we punished them for it with foreign invasion. How do we begin to build or rebuild the concept of legitimate government? I don't have a roadmap, but I suspect it starts with treating the area as a legitimate concern. If Somalia has international issues like unlicensed foreign fishing and illegal waste dumping, we deal with those issues.

[M-A Lagrange]

Another invasion is the exact opposite of what I'd propose. The basic problem is that we've destroyed the concept of legitimate government in Somalia. A large part of that is due to unavoidable corruption, but another factor that weighs heavily is that when Somalia did try to put together a real government of their own, we punished them for it with foreign invasion. How do we begin to build or rebuild the concept of legitimate government? I don't have a roadmap, but I suspect it starts with treating the area as a legitimate concern. If Somalia has international issues like unlicensed foreign fishing and illegal waste dumping, we deal with those issues.

Well, I can sense that you were in favor of the islamic tribunals and then that al shabab are now the legitimate government or am I wrong?

Secondly, you are just asking to agree with the pirates' demande and comply with it not providing any tracks for ending piracy, which is the issue.

Thirdly, legitimate government? what does that mean for you. If it goes through democratic process then it is to be discuss but not in Dar es Salam or Nairobi. If it's a governement imposed by force then it's as illegitimate as any invasion and power put in place by force.
This probably means people in power that none of all somali clan will accept. But will have to respect and obey, who ever they are and who ever business they disrupt. The all idea of necessity of consensus is just a cover to keep the situation as it is and not go forward most of the time.

Finally, the first step of any road map will go by ending piracy, I believe.

[tequila]

Well, I can sense that you were in favor of the islamic tribunals and then that al shabab are now the legitimate government or am I wrong?

We tend to forget that the Islamic Courts Union and al-Shabaab were not one and the same.

Who was the head of the ICU at the time of the Ethiopian invasion? Right, Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ahmed).

Who is the current recognized President of Somalia, head of the Transitional Federal Government? Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ahmed).

[M-A Lagrange]

We tend to forget that the Islamic Courts Union and al-Shabaab were not one and the same.

Who was the head of the ICU at the time of the Ethiopian invasion? Right, Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ahmed).

Who is the current recognized President of Somalia, head of the Transitional Federal Government? Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ahmed).
Tequila,

You are wright to remind who is the actual president of somali transitional government.
My point was rather by recognising pirates claims as genuine Motorfirebox was suggesting that only powers out of the "government" are legitimate as pirates do not recognise mogadisho government as legitimate. Which was also the ICU claim in their time. So we end up in a dead end.

[motorfirebox]

Well, I can sense that you were in favor of the islamic tribunals and then that al shabab are now the legitimate government or am I wrong?
As tequila pointed out, the ICU and al Shabaab are two different entities.


Secondly, you are just asking to agree with the pirates' demande and comply with it not providing any tracks for ending piracy, which is the issue.
I suppose that's one way of looking at what I'm advocating. Another way of looking at it is that I'm proposing more permanent solutions to piracy in the region--solutions based on past success.


Thirdly, legitimate government? what does that mean for you. If it goes through democratic process then it is to be discuss but not in Dar es Salam or Nairobi. If it's a governement imposed by force then it's as illegitimate as any invasion and power put in place by force.
This probably means people in power that none of all somali clan will accept. But will have to respect and obey, who ever they are and who ever business they disrupt. The all idea of necessity of consensus is just a cover to keep the situation as it is and not go forward most of the time.
Well, first, you can't name a single government that isn't kept in place by some amount of force. In the US, for instance, there are those who want to overthrow the federal government; we just arrested a couple of them a few months back for attempting to place an entire courthouse under "citizen's arrest".

My definition of legitimate government in this case is pretty stripped-down: a government that shows concern for the welfare of its constituents. al Shabaab, it should be noted, doesn't meet that criteria (http://www.diirad.com/news-in-english/2831-al-shabaab-stars-kidnapping-teenagers-and-elders-in-howhar.html).


Finally, the first step of any road map will go by ending piracy, I believe.
Why? Aside from the possibility of provoking another invasion--and, as I've noted, spontaneously forming a system of justice, building schools, and providing medical care also provoked an invasion--what are the pirates doing that is harmful to the society of Somalia?

[Stan]

Didn't you just answer your own question? If the pirates are not harmful to the society in Somalia how could we possibly hope to form a system of justice, why would we build schools (if all the kids are going to end up being uneducated pirates) and what use is there in providing medical care to people who will eventually be shot and killed while conducting illegal acts at sea or on the shore.

I don't get your last comment.


Finally, the first step of any road map will go by ending piracy, I believe.

Why? Aside from the possibility of provoking another invasion--and, as I've noted, spontaneously forming a system of justice, building schools, and providing medical care also provoked an invasion--what are the pirates doing that is harmful to the society of Somalia?

[davidbfpo]

Motorfirebox,

A good question and I expect it may have appeared before here, though not asked so directly.

My initial reaction is their activity is negative for two reasons. First, criminal activity which is successful tends to lead to more people become involved and local order breaks down. I speculate that the role of clan elders, previously the key factor in Somali society, is further eroded and as most pirates are from the younger generation further pressures on survival of tradition mount.

Secondly, the impact on the outside world. For a number of reasons, which pre-date piracy, even the collapse of governance and famine, Somalia is not a place that gets help and piracy magnifies that.

Then a local factor - here in the UK - the flow of genuine ethnic Somalis into the UK can cause its own problems and to date IMHO has shown few gains for society. Piracy and the steady slide into oblivion in Somali (not Somaliland) contributes to the country emptying and dying. Sad, but true.

[M-A Lagrange]

Motorfirebox:

I believe we are in a dead end as Somalia is not alone in this world. The question is not what do the pirates do to Somalia that harms Somalia but rather do the pirates do to others that harms Somalia.

If the solution is to accept that somali have the right to do what ever they want because they are somali... Then it just does not work. (It might seems abrupt but I met too many somali who just gave that answer, sorry)

At some point Somalia has to integrate in global system. Or, it will be global system that will integrate it and it sure will not be pleasant.

You said past success... Then give exemple of sustainable solution for Somalia. As far as I know, nothing has been able to sustain without external funding, including islamic welfare societies, in the past 20 years.

And finally, you say WE. Please could you expose who that WE is?

[carl]

--what are the pirates doing that is harmful to the society of Somalia?

Now there is a philosophy to build an enduring legal tradition upon-if it doesn't hurt me or mine, it's ok.

[tequila]

Now there is a philosophy to build an enduring legal tradition upon-if it doesn't hurt me or mine, it's ok.

Isn't this the traditional rationale for any good empire? :D

Not that the Somalis are exactly empire-building here.

I think the clear answer is that Puntland is being hurt because you have criminal entrepeneurs who are clearly using violent means to acquire capital that cannot be controlled or taxed by the state. Eventually they are inviting in foreign intervention if the problem grows worse.

[carl]

Tequila:

Hmm. Let me refine that a little.

Now there is a philosophy upon which to build an enduring legal tradition-if it doesn't immediately hurt me or mine, it's ok.

[motorfirebox]

Heh, I thought that statement might stir up some commentary.

There is some confusion, though. I'm not saying "Why should we bother trying to stop piracy?" Rather, I'm saying "Why is stopping piracy the first step to creating a stable Somali state?" Why should the piracy problem be tackled first, over all other issues? It seems to me that the reason people are advocating tackling piracy first is exactly what carl said: that "if it doesn't hurt me or mine, it's okay". Non-pirate-related issues in Somalia don't hurt "me or mine", so there's no interest in solving them. If we can't be bothered to view as important those issues which don't directly affect us and ours, why should Somalia?

It doesn't seem to me that piracy is the primary issue causing strife in Somalia. It seems pretty clear, actually, that it's the other way around: the strife allows and possibly even encourages the pirates to prosper. Solving the piracy won't, in any apparent way, address the strife. So why tackle it first?

[carl]

Let's see, how did we end up here?

(Ok. Motorfirebox asked what are the pirates doing that harms the society of Somalia, which implied that if what they did did not harm the society of Somalia it was ok. Then I thought that was a flawed position so I tried to illustrate it by making a sarcastic comment about how that was a grand idea upon which to build an enduring legal traditions. Then Motorfirebox engages in a bit of sophistry and attributes what he said to me in order to conflate self-defense with aggression. Is that right? Yea, that's right. Then MFB decides that rewarding pirates with aid because then they will stop pirating is a good idea. Oh yea, suddenly Somalia is a country again.)

I have no idea how we got here.

[motorfirebox]

We got here through my insistence that Somalia deserves to have its problems taken seriously. I was able to turn your words into what I have to say was a pretty awesome counterargument, yes, but the point stands with or without your inadvertent contribution.

[carl]

A sarcastic comment concerning something MFB said transmogrifies itself into my words. Geesh, no wonder you were able to make a pretty awesome counterargument.

This is great fun of course but as we are playing around, more innocent sailors, poor men from poor countries are being threatened with death and kidnapping. And the Indians may be getting ready to make a strike, which given the way things go on the subcontinent and environs (read the end game in Sri Lanka) could be quite shocking to western sensibilities. The Indian Navy alas, is probably not concerned with root causes.

[motorfirebox]

I'm aware you were being sarcastic, carl. That's kind of my point: we both agree that "if it doesn't hurt me or mine, it must be okay" isn't a good basis for an enduring legal tradition. Thing is, the idea that piracy is the most important Somali-related problem can be directly attributed to that very paradigm. It's pretty hard to argue that piracy is the worst thing happening in the region; our attempts to stop it has only to do with our own needs and desires. Given your advocacy that the US should be the world's policeman, it seems counterintuitive that you would also be in favor of focusing the majority of our efforts in Somalia on directly combating piracy, since the concept of policing is very much a legal tradition--and, as I said, both of us agree that shortsighted selfishness is not a good thing to base a legal tradition on.

[carl]

Well Mr. MFB, I would say that to the victims of the pirates, poor men almost all, some of them very poor, piracy is the most important thing happening on the seas from close inshore to hundreds and hundreds of miles out. Attempts to stop it are probably pretty congruent with their needs and desires. That is a guess though, I don't believe the Red Cross has paid a visit to their places of confinement to check up on them and ask.

Your last sentence is a model of the sophist's art. Let's see we're going to be policing except policing isn't really good policing because police should know collaring criminals is really short sighted selfishness.

Tell me, what would you say to families of the Thai fishermen who died of neglect in the hands of the pirates when they ask why chasing down and finishing the yuts who killed their men isn't the way to go?

[Dayuhan]

There is some confusion, though. I'm not saying "Why should we bother trying to stop piracy?" Rather, I'm saying "Why is stopping piracy the first step to creating a stable Somali state?

We can't create a stable Somali state, any more than we can create a stable Afghan state. We can bleed ourselves into the ground trying, but we cannot create a stable state in an unstable society. At best we can convince all the actors involved that the cost of attacking us, our assets, or our allies is higher than the gain.

"If it doesn't hurt me or mine, it must be okay" may not be an adequate basis for a legal system, but it's not a half bad start to foreign policy. Things that don't hurt me or mine may not be "ok" in any abstract sense, but that doesn't make them any of my business.

The talk of how "the strife" causes piracy, or illegal dumping or fishing cause piracy, needs to be tempered by an occasional reality check. These things may have helped start piracy, but what sustains it is the money. Even if there was no strife and there were fish to catch and jobs ashore, now that people have gotten used to the money the piracy will continue: nobody is going to get the kind of money fishing or farming that piracy yields. Once people get used to high-profit, consequence-free crime (the people making the profit are not facing consequences) only physical force will stop them from pursuing crime. It won't stop until cost exceeds benefit, and since benefit is very substantial, the cost will have to be even more substantial.

If hungry people take to crime, it's reasonable to say that hunger caused the entry into crime. It is not reasonable to assume that giving those people food will get them to cease the criminal activity. If the crime is profitable, consequence-free, and gets them not only food, but nice guns, designer shades, cars, girls, etc, they won't trade that in for anything that gets them less, unless the consequences of the crime become too risky to face.

PS [edit, for Carl): I have no objection at all to targeting pirates, but I'd also say there has to be some effort put into targeting the people receiving, handling, and spending the money. They will always be able to hire more young guys with guns. Consequences have to be applied up and down the food chain, and the closer to the top they go the more influence they will have.

[motorfirebox]

Well Mr. MFB, I would say that to the victims of the pirates, poor men almost all, some of them very poor, piracy is the most important thing happening on the seas from close inshore to hundreds and hundreds of miles out. Attempts to stop it are probably pretty congruent with their needs and desires. That is a guess though, I don't believe the Red Cross has paid a visit to their places of confinement to check up on them and ask.
That's just good (well, less-bad) luck on the part of the victims. They happened to get caught up in a crime that has a wider economic impact. We didn't send pirates to the Straits of Malacca, after all. If any families of Thai fishermen care to question me, I'll tell them the truth: the US isn't in the region on their behalf.


Your last sentence is a model of the sophist's art. Let's see we're going to be policing except policing isn't really good policing because police should know collaring criminals is really short sighted selfishness.
If it's sophistry to recognize that a legal structure is comprised of more than police work, or that a society is comprised of more than a legal structure, then yes--I'm guilty as charged.


These things may have helped start piracy, but what sustains it is the money. Even if there was no strife and there were fish to catch and jobs ashore, now that people have gotten used to the money the piracy will continue: nobody is going to get the kind of money fishing or farming that piracy yields. Once people get used to high-profit, consequence-free crime (the people making the profit are not facing consequences) only physical force will stop them from pursuing crime. It won't stop until cost exceeds benefit, and since benefit is very substantial, the cost will have to be even more substantial.
Sure. But jobs and money often bring social stability and law, because when people have something to lose they want to protect it. And law will quickly bring an end to piracy.

[Dayuhan]

Sure. But jobs and money often bring social stability and law, because when people have something to lose they want to protect it. And law will quickly bring an end to piracy.

Do jobs and money bring social stability and law, or is it the other way round?

What people have to lose in this case is the large income provided by piracy... and you're right, they want to protect it. They will protect it, too, if they can. Very unlikely that any legal activity is going to bring in as much money, or that any locally generated law is going to interfere with that kind of money making. The first reaction of local law is probably going to be to want a piece of the action... unless the action gets risky, which brings you back to where you started.

[motorfirebox]

Do jobs and money bring social stability and law, or is it the other way round?
Not sure it's an either/or. Seems likely that it can work either way, with each reinforcing the other.


What people have to lose in this case is the large income provided by piracy... and you're right, they want to protect it. They will protect it, too, if they can. Very unlikely that any legal activity is going to bring in as much money, or that any locally generated law is going to interfere with that kind of money making. The first reaction of local law is probably going to be to want a piece of the action... unless the action gets risky, which brings you back to where you started.
For a while, yeah. But piracy is going to be an issue on some timeline no matter what. We can beat it down now and see a resurgence in a year or two or five, or we can work to contain it and also work to remove the root cause. It seems unlikely that we can do both, or I might advocate that.

Because the money is not the only thing sustaining this activity. If it were just money, then we'd see people from every corner of the globe, first world certainly included, engaging in this sort of piracy. I don't know about you, but my projects don't net hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each. I know a lot of other people who don't see that kind of money, either.

[Stan]

Because the money is not the only thing sustaining this activity. If it were just money, then we'd see people from every corner of the globe, first world certainly included, engaging in this sort of piracy.

Sorry, but I don't follow you here. What else is there if money is not the only thing driving/sustaining piracy ?

Honest question with no sarcasm :)

[carl]

That's just good (well, less-bad) luck on the part of the victims. They happened to get caught up in a crime that has a wider economic impact. We didn't send pirates to the Straits of Malacca, after all. If any families of Thai fishermen care to question me, I'll tell them the truth: the US isn't in the region on their behalf.

I am at a loss for words on this one. It sort of reminds me of a slang term gangbangers have for innocents who get cut down in drive by shootings. The yuts call them "mushrooms" because they just pop up and get in the way of bullets meant for rivals. Not really very important are the mushrooms to the valiant street warriors. Nor very important are the mariners in comparison to the pursuit of social justice in the area that used to be Somalia it seems.

My head is still shaking at this.

You might note that the dead Thai fishermen were held by those valiant crusaders for social justice from the coast of the area that used to be Somalia. The Indians found them when they took the noble crusaders boat. They weren't anywhere close to the Straits of Malacca. Not much piracy there lately. Most of those pirates were killed by the tsunami.


If it's sophistry to recognize that a legal structure is comprised of more than police work, or that a society is comprised of more than a legal structure, then yes--I'm guilty as charged.

Police work is police work. It is sophistry to equate it to the myriad other things you've equated it to (the ankle bone is connected to the shin bone, the...). You are quite accomplished at it.



And law will quickly bring an end to piracy.

Finally something we can agree on. The law of the sea, formal, statutory, customary, popular, historical and cultural, prohibits piracy. So lets get on with the vigorous enforcement of that law and bring this to an end.

Dayuhan: Agree completely about going after the money men. Some might be hard to get at though. One of the stories I read told about a woman who got an RPG as part of her alimony and she allowed the pirates to use it with the condition she got a share of the prize...ransom money. She got 50k I think. That is a very good return on investment.

[motorfirebox]

Sorry, but I don't follow you here. What else is there if money is not the only thing driving/sustaining piracy ?

Honest question with no sarcasm :)
The specifics are debatable, but two points that support this idea: one, the ICU reduced piracy without greatly increasing wealth in the region; two, I don't know many people in the US who are looking for opportunities to ransom hostages at sea, for all that the ransoms represent pretty large sums for most people. You could argue that these difference eventually boil down to money (and I don't think you'd be wrong), but there's more going on than just the profit.

Carl, I'm tired of debating you. You have an amazing talent for talking past any point that might inconvenience your paradigm--I'm not sure if it's willful ignorance or genuine confusion, at this point, and I don't really care anymore.

[Dayuhan]

We can beat it down now and see a resurgence in a year or two or five, or we can work to contain it and also work to remove the root cause. It seems unlikely that we can do both, or I might advocate that.

Because the money is not the only thing sustaining this activity. If it were just money, then we'd see people from every corner of the globe, first world certainly included, engaging in this sort of piracy. I don't know about you, but my projects don't net hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars each. I know a lot of other people who don't see that kind of money, either.

Money is half of what sustains piracy. The other half is the absence of adverse consequences. People in most corners of the globe don't engage in piracy because they wouldn't end up rich, they'd end up in jail, or dead. People don't want to be in jail or dead, so they don't hold ships for ransom. Take away the adverse consequences, keep the profitability in place, and people hold ships for ransom.

If you want to remove the root causes, focus on the root causes: high profitability and few or no consequences. Reduce the profitability and/or impose consequences, piracy ceases to be attractive.

If the "root causes" were poverty, overfishing, and waste dumping, you'd see a lot more piracy around the world, because none of those are unique to Somaila. You don't see them in many other places because people in those places are afraid of the consequences. What is unique to Somalia is the complete absence of governance capable of imposing consequences in a place with easy, direct access to busy sea lanes.

Of course if we could establish stable effective governance in Somalia that would end piracy, but we can't... so what's the point in discussing it?

PS (edit)... Re this:


I'm not sure if it's willful ignorance or genuine confusion

Simple difference of opinion is also an option. It happens.

[carl]

An interesting link to Feral Jundi that discusses security companies setting up maritime police forces.

http://feraljundi.com/industry-talk/maritime-security-somalia-news-firms-bid-for-contracts-to-fight-pirates-unsc-passes-resolution-and-the-pmc-halliday-finch/

[JMA]

Russian Cruise Companies May Be Offering Pirate Hunting Cruises (http://weinterrupt.com/2009/06/russian-cruise-companies-may-be-offering-pirate-hunting-cruises/)


...wealthy tourists are hunting for pirates off the coast of Somalia for the cost of $5790 per day. In an effort to attract pirate attack, the ships are said to cruise deliberately close to the coast at a speed of only five knots. If attacked, passengers have the opportunity to unleash hell with rocket launchers, grenade launchers and machine guns.

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

A similar story appeared maybe two years ago, then claiming it was a cruise for Americans IIRC and it was soon found to be a hoax.

[JMA]

JMA,

A similar story appeared maybe two years ago, then claiming it was a cruise for Americans IIRC and it was soon found to be a hoax.

Could be. I remember back to the days after Victoria Falls town got mortared from Zambia when there was a increase in tourism (not massive) from yanks and Germans. Is there not a name for the people who seek out this adventure/danger?

[jmm99]

from JMA
Is there not a name for the people who seek out this adventure/danger?

... "unprotected combatants", "unprotected belligerents", "unprivileged combatants", "unprivileged belligerents". So also for the pirates.

You can look it all up and add the citations. :D

Regards

Mike

[huskerguy7]

If we had the political will to solve this problem, which we arguably don't at the moment, what kind of strategy do you think would be ideal? Allowing private security contractors to carry heavy weapons? Conducting a full blown peace operation? Shifting most of our diplomatic energy from Mogadishu to Puntland? Training a coast guard?

David Axe recently wrote an interesting article (http://www.warisboring.com/2011/04/22/warships-international-fleet-review-yacht-murders-could-force-u-s-response/) that discusses how the overall strategy is failing. Maj Gen Tom Wilkerson, CEO of USNI, says

We could use the same techniques that are helping us take out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan to take out pirates in Somalia.

I found his statement to be thought-provoking. Would a "CT" strategy, similar to how we saw Gen McChrystal and Adm McRaven using in Afghanistan, work against Somalian pirates? Or, would this be inefficient as the pirates tend to be more similar to an organized crime group?

Thoughts?

[Entropy]

huskerguy7,

The problem is that the pirates currently hold over 500 hundred prisoners from a variety of nations. Any action against the pirates will put those people at risk and I think any country would be pretty pissed off if it's hostages were executed in response to a unilateral US action.

So there are any number of possible courses of action against the pirates, including the one you link to. However, one must also consider the downsides to any option and so far they've all got some pretty big downsides.

[JMA]

... "unprotected combatants", "unprotected belligerents", "unprivileged combatants", "unprivileged belligerents". So also for the pirates.

You can look it all up and add the citations. :D

Regards

Mike

I was thinking more along the lines of War Tourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_tourism) and to a lesser extent Extreme Tourism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_tourism)

[carl]

Courtesy of the SWJ twitter feed thing, here is a link to a story about a compressed air cannon meant to protect merchantmen from the restless youth of the coast of the area that used to be Somalia.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/245629

This thing can launch clusters of golf balls at 450 mph. It is cool in a boys toys sort of way. It is interesting in that the world may be inching toward letting the merchantmen defend themselves, eventually maybe with lethal force.

It is also interesting in that it is reminiscent of the Holman Projector, which the British also invented.

[davidbfpo]

A lot cheaper than one of the UK's leading cruise ships on a world cruise recently, which when in the Indian Ocean danger zone banned passengers from the promenade decks, deployed protective items, travelled at high speed 24/7, reduced lighting at night and more importantly had a 100+ Ghurkhas and a smaller number of Royal Marines aboard. Unclear if the manpower was on hire or serving.(All information second hand).

[davidbfpo]

Some three weeks ago JMM asked on locating data on US shipping affected by piracy and Entropy offered some pointers. Courtesy of a story on a cruise ship disabled in the Baltic:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/8515645/Britons-stuck-on-cruise-ship-after-power-failure.html I found a ship tracking website:http://www.vesseltracker.com/en/static/Company.html and home page:http://www.vesseltracker.com/app

For a relatively small subscription you can track vessels.

I was not aware that the internationally mandated Automatic Identification System (AIS) means all vessels over 300 tonnes report location plus, for more see:http://www.vesseltracker.com/en/static/Faq.html#wasistais

Admittedly some ship captains turn their AIS off at times (from a Swedish observer).

[carl]

Here is an item from Information Dissemination based on a Navy Times article about the crew of a U.S. Navy helo destroying a pirate skiff and killing 4 pirates as they were attacking a merchantman.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/05/rules-of-engagement-change-for-piracy.html#disqus_thread

It appears the pirate's life is getting a bit more dangerous as the weeks pass.

[jmm99]

as used by the Royal Navy person, is probably something of a misnomer in US SROE terms (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/dod/docs/cjcs_sroe.pdf) (emphasis added):


Enclosure A
.....
5. Definitions

a. Inherent Right of Self-Defense. A commander has the authority and obligation to use all necessary means available and to take all appropriate actions to defend that commander's unit and other US forces in the vicinity from a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent. Neither these rules, nor the supplemental measures activated to augment these rules, limit this inherent right and obligation. At all times, the requirements of necessity and proportionality, as amplified in these SROE, will form the basis for the judgment of the on-scene commander (OSC) or individual as to what constitutes an appropriate response to a particular hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent.

b. National Self-Defense. Defense of the United States, US forces, and, in certain circumstances, US nationals and their property, and/or US commercial assets. National self-defense may be exercised in two ways: first, it may be exercised by designated authority extending protection against a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent to US nationals and their property, and/or designated US commercial assets ; second, it may be exercised by designated authority declaring a foreign force or terrorist(s) hostile [in this case, individual US units do not need to observe a hostile act or determine hostile intent before engaging that force or terrorist(s)].

c. Collective Self-Defense. The act of defending designated non-US forces, and/or designated foreign nationals and their property from a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. [I]Unlike national self-defense, the authority to extend US protection to designated non-US forces, foreign nationals and their property may not be exercised below the NCA level. Similar to unit self-defense and the extension of US forces protection to US nationals and their property and/or commercial assets, the exercise of collective self-defense must be based on an observed hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.

d. Unit Self-Defense. The act of defending a particular US force element, including individual personnel thereof, and other US forces in the vicinity, against a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.

So, technically (since the attacked ship was "German-owned, Panamanian-flagged crude carrier Artemis Glory (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/05/rules-of-engagement-change-for-piracy.html#disqus_thread)"), the SROE category is "Collective Self-Defense". That is very similar to unit self-defense and the extension of protection to US nationals and their property and/or commercial assets.

The bottom line (and answer to the question asked by the blogger re: "Extended Unit Self-Defense?") is that it's really "Collective Self-Defense"; and it requires POTUS or SecDef approval of the extension (which could be general extending to all US warships; or particular granted only in this case).

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Before someone (justifiably) jumps my a$$, the SROEs were revised and somewhat streamlined, 2010 Operational Law Handbook (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/operational-law-handbooks.html) (pp.93-94) quoting CJCSI 3121.01B 13 June 2005, Enclosure A:


3. Definitions and Authorities.

a. Inherent Right of Self-Defense. Unit commanders always retain the inherent right and obligation to exercise unit self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. Unless otherwise directed by a unit commander as detailed below, military members may exercise individual self-defense in response to a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. When individuals are assigned and acting as part of a unit, individual self-defense should be considered a subset of unit self-defense. As such, unit commanders may limit individual self-defense by members of their unit. Both unit and individual self-defense includes defense of other U.S. military forces in the vicinity.

b. National Self-Defense. Defense of the United States, U.S. forces, and, in certain circumstances, U.S. persons and their property, and/or U.S. commercial assets from a hostile act or demonstration of hostile intent. Unit commanders may exercise National Self-Defense, as authorized in Appendix A to Enclosure A, paragraph 3.

c. Collective Self-Defense. Defense of designated non-U.S. military forces and/or designated foreign nationals and their property from a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent. Only the President or SecDef may authorize collective self-defense.

d. Declared Hostile Force. Any civilian, paramilitary or military force or terrorist(s) that has been declared hostile by appropriate U.S. authority. Policy and procedures regarding the authority to declare forces hostile are provided in Appendix A to Enclosure A, paragraph 3.

e. Hostile Act. An attack or other use of force against the United States, U.S. forces or other designated persons or property. It also includes force used directly to preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of U.S. forces, including the recovery of U.S. personnel or vital USG property.

f. Hostile Intent. The threat of imminent use of force against the United States, U.S. forces or other designated persons or property. It also includes the threat of force to preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of U.S. forces, including the recovery of U.S. personnel or vital USG property.

g. Imminent Use of Force. The determination of whether the use of force against U.S. forces is imminent will be based on an assessment of all facts and circumstances known to U.S. forces at the time and may be made at any level. Imminent does not necessarily mean immediate or instantaneous.

The substance did not change from 2000 to 2005.

Both the 2000 and 2005 SROEs have a specific provision dealing with piracy (bold emphasis added):


2000 - (5) Piracy. US warships and aircraft have an obligation to repress piracy on or over international waters directed against any vessel, or aircraft, whether US or foreign flagged and are authorized to employ all means necessary to repress piratical acts. For ships and aircraft repressing an act of piracy, the right and obligation of self defense extends to persons, vessels, or aircraft assisted. If a pirate vessel or aircraft fleeing from pursuit proceeds into the territorial sea, archipelagic waters, or superjacent airspace of another country, every effort should be made to obtain the consent of the coastal state prior to continuation of the pursuit.

2005 - d. Piracy. U.S. warships and aircraft have an obligation to repress piracy on or over international waters directed against any vessel or aircraft, whether U.S. or foreign flagged. For ship and aircraft commanders repressing an act of piracy, the right and obligation of unit self-defense extend to the persons, vessels or aircraft assisted. Every effort should be made to obtain the consent of the coastal state prior to continuation of the pursuit if a fleeing pirate vessel or aircraft proceeds into the territorial sea, archipelagic waters or airspace of that country.

Given this specific "piracy" SROE, the need to speak in terms of "Extended Unit Self-Defense" now puzzles me as well.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

An unusual storyline and probably a first here:
Jay Bahadur, the author of Deadly Waters: Inside the Hidden World of Somalia's Pirates, meets Abdullahi Abshir – a man who claims to have hijacked more than 25 ships in the Gulf of Aden.

Link to article:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/24/a-pioneer-of-somali-piracy

The book is due to be released May 28th 2011.

A publishers summary:
What are the lives of modern day pirates like outside of the attack skiffs? How do they spend their money? What clothes do they wear and what is their drug of choice? Deadly Waters takes us to the heart of Somalia, where Jay Bahadur, the intrepid 25-year-old author has ventured where most journalists fear to tread. As the 'go to' journalist for all major media, and with unparalleled access to all the major players, from government officials to local residents - and of course the pirates themselves - Bahadur sets out to discover who is behind the masked menaces who appear on the news. Exploring the politics and history of the self-governing region of Puntland, Bahadur looks at the challenges facing this troubled mini-state as piracy rises - and examines how the UN and other bodies are attempting to deal with the scourge of every sea-faring nation. Evocative and incisive, Deadly Waters is a highly original analysis of the international pirate crisis.

[davidbfpo]

Despite the growing plague of Somali piracy, scores of sailors have taken yachts into the dangerous waters off the Horn of Africa this year, and at least three have been attacked. The BBC's Daniel Nasaw in Washington talks to sailors who have faced the voyage and those offering ways of protecting them.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13057869

[davidbfpo]

The BBC reports that South Africa and Mozambique have signed an agreement for joint patrols along Mozambique's 1530 mile long coast, which implies Somali pirate activity:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13628132

None of the maps I've seen show activity that far south to date.

[Dayuhan]

Interesting development...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gEUOaucaspsE8MmjPtwhtOw4aOaQ?docId=CNG.ded66 5ce519942066fc596f3278101ce.ed1


Britons, US citizen handed long jail terms in Somalia

MOGADISHU — Six foreigners including three Britons and an American were jailed for between 10 and 15 years in Somalia after the seizure of a small aircraft carrying $3.6 million allegedly destined to be paid as ransom to Somali pirates.

"The American and one of the Britons who carried the cash were sentenced to 15-year jail terms and to pay $15,000 each," Hashi Elmi Nur, chief justice of Mogadishu's Banadir court, told reporters.

The six were arrested on May 24 after a plane landed at Mogadishu and was waiting for another small plane to come in, collect the cash and fly it to another destination in the country, Mohamed Omar, a Somali government security official, said earlier.

and, naturally...


All the money they were transporting and both aircraft had been confiscated by the government

Sounds like the government wants a piece of the action, or at least some individuals in government do: the cynic in me doubts that the confiscated money will end up in the government's budget. That could complicate the equation. Obviously we won't hear much about it, but I wonder if there have been other cases of ransoms being targeted on their way to delivery, by either government or non-government parties.

[Stan]

You got me to wondering about that and just googled the subject line (http://www.google.ee/search?q=confiscated+ransom+money+in+somalia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a).

To say the least a bit depressing and by no means the first time ransom money was confiscated and disappeared :rolleyes:

[JMA]

To say the least a bit depressing and by no means the first time ransom money was confiscated and disappeared :rolleyes:

Depressing yes, surprising no.

[motorfirebox]

I'm not looking to re-involve myself in this topic, but I do have a point for consideration with regards to dealing with Somali piracy. It appears to me that there are two competing paradigms driving the major different proposed responses. One paradigm is that the pirates are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly, period. The other is that criminal societies--and Somali pirates are certainly that--don't arise outside of certain conditions, and that those conditions should be the primary focus.

[Stan]

I don't think any amount of involvement or money at this point will change the current situation. We could argue that the government (with a ton of help) could turn the tide and all would return to normal. Hmmm, but this is Africa and as JMA opined, it is no surprise.

The conditions that turned honest fishermen into pirates is one thing, but to turn it off is an entirely different game. We can all have various views and remedies, but without an African approach and sans Western involvement no permanent solution will come out of it.

[Dayuhan]

If we could fix Somalia, we could solve the piracy problem.

If my aunt had a putz, she'd be my uncle.

"If" is possibly the longest word in the English language, and true statements are not necessarily relevant to anything in the real world. Sure if we could fix Somalia we wouldn't have a pirate problem, but since we can't fix Somalia, that doesn't much matter.

I've heard it said, here and there, that stopping overfishing and waste dumping would solve the piracy problem. I don't buy it. Those factors may have played a part in starting piracy, but what keeps piracy going is big money with small risk. People who have grown used to hauling in big bucks and living the high life out of piracy will not go back to fishing, even if they have the option... unless they believe the costs and risks of jacking ships have come to exceed the benefits.

[M-A Lagrange]

Hi Stan, JMA, David, Motorfirebox and Dayuhan,

I have a question for you Stan: what would be an African solution? As far as I know, somalis will not stop if you give them $, at contrary.
My experience in South Somalia tells me that part of the problem is the aid dependency problematic somali have been abble to turn round. As exemple, they were not maintaining infrastructures so they were making sure that international aid would keep coming. And they play that game on all sides: european, US, Arab league, Muslim charity...

I personnaly believe that only a strong and total economical blockus over somalia would work. They tend to reject any decision, even from their own politicians. So why don't we drop the support to so called somali government and parliament, have an agressive sea blocus (no ship in or out the miles out of the coast), no fly zone, full land border closing (monitored by international forces), no direct aid, only droping (Since the time, they have competent people for everything there, including health) and let them be as they want it?

We close hermetically the box for several years (Many over paid UN staff will loose their job but who really cares), send back all the politician home instate of having a so called somali parliament in Nairobi, sit and watch.
I'am pretty sure they would first protest and them once they get their ass kicked 2 or 3 times trying to force the blocus, would them start to thing about it in a constructive way. Look at Somaliland. They've been able to come with something which is not ideal but with whom you can actually deal with.

I'm saying so because it's a shared feeling among many people working on Somalia I know. Already too many books have been written on the fact that supporting somalia is creatting more problems than brings solution.
A cost comparaison has to be run but i'm not sure that it would be more expensive than keep on funding politician, fake government and aid.
BUt I might be a little too radical. :D

[Rex Brynen]

I personnaly believe that only a strong and total economical blockus over somalia would work. They tend to reject any decision, even from their own politicians. So why don't we drop the support to so called somali government and parliament, have an agressive sea blocus (no ship in or out the miles out of the coast), no fly zone, full land border closing (monitored by international forces), no direct aid, only droping (Since the time, they have competent people for everything there, including health) and let them be as they want it?

So we impose a complete economic blockade on 10 million Somalis in order to address the problem created by c1,000 active pirates (0.01% of the local population)? We do so even at the cost of aggravating Somalia's food insecurity and economic situation, with possibly tens of thousands preventable deaths as a result?

Collective punishment of civilian populations and blockades of the necessities of life have both been war crimes since WWII. Frankly, piracy seems a far cheaper cost to pay.

[M-A Lagrange]

Rex,

I know it's a radical and controvertial point of view! :D

The thing is that Somali domestic economy is not a heavy weight. And clearly, compare to the burden to try to solve the problem by forcing them to build something under/with foreign assistance, it might be cheaper and more productive. A little like when you lock 2 persons in a room saying: you'll be able to get out when you agree on something.

The issue is not just pirats. It's also weapon illegal trade, tobacco and drug smuggling, money laundry, terrorism support in central africa (please have a look at my RFI on this. Assistance needed.)... Piracy is just the top of the iceberg that is bothering the largest group of people, that's all.

My point is that not even 0,001% of the 10 million somalis have a say in politic at this point. Forcing them to settle the issue among them would force them to take in account the people wishes. Or may be not... :o

[motorfirebox]

I think nuking them would be less cruel and more likely to create order. (That's a comparison, not a suggestion.)

[JMA]

Hi Stan, JMA, David, Motorfirebox and Dayuhan,

I have a question for you Stan: what would be an African solution? As far as I know, somalis will not stop if you give them $, at contrary.
My experience in South Somalia tells me that part of the problem is the aid dependency problematic somali have been abble to turn round. As exemple, they were not maintaining infrastructures so they were making sure that international aid would keep coming. And they play that game on all sides: european, US, Arab league, Muslim charity...

I personnaly believe that only a strong and total economical blockus over somalia would work. They tend to reject any decision, even from their own politicians. So why don't we drop the support to so called somali government and parliament, have an agressive sea blocus (no ship in or out the miles out of the coast), no fly zone, full land border closing (monitored by international forces), no direct aid, only droping (Since the time, they have competent people for everything there, including health) and let them be as they want it?

We close hermetically the box for several years (Many over paid UN staff will loose their job but who really cares), send back all the politician home instate of having a so called somali parliament in Nairobi, sit and watch.
I'am pretty sure they would first protest and them once they get their ass kicked 2 or 3 times trying to force the blocus, would them start to thing about it in a constructive way. Look at Somaliland. They've been able to come with something which is not ideal but with whom you can actually deal with.

I'm saying so because it's a shared feeling among many people working on Somalia I know. Already too many books have been written on the fact that supporting somalia is creatting more problems than brings solution.
A cost comparaison has to be run but i'm not sure that it would be more expensive than keep on funding politician, fake government and aid.
BUt I might be a little too radical. :D

If you speak to the navy they think blockade. The problem is that it is and expensive activity and there will always be loopholes that will be exploited.

The current international problem is piracy. Everyone knows who and where the pirates are and where the ships and the hostages are being kept.

It is a task for the marines (US or Brit).

* take out the pirates and their ships.
* liberate the hostages (with as few casualties as possible)
* recover the pirated ships.
* destroy anything and everything that appears to be have been procured through the proceeds of piracy.

The internal issue relating to the UN imposed government and its war with Islamists/Al Shabab is a separate issue and as the government has no legitimacy is unwinable.

There are no sovereignty issues relating to this failed state.

[davidbfpo]

From the BBC Radio Four's 'From Our Correspondent' series:
When Somalian pirates are caught there is often nowhere to try them, as Somalia itself has little effective central government. But some have been tried and jailed in the breakaway territory of Somaliland.

Nothing startling, but the pirate's own words.

Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9522063.stm

[carl]

The following was posted on the Information Dissemination blog today. (http://www.informationdissemination.net/)

People have long asked where Somali pirates are getting all of their good intelligence from. They seem to know where the easy to hit ships will be, by name and all. There is ample evidence that Somali pirates are not working with Iran and they also do not appear to work in coordination with any Al Qaeda affiliated groups. One of the biggest questions that has popped up as a result of several different events over the last several months is how much influence and apparent connectivity ISI Chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha has with Somali pirate leaders. My sense is the relationship between Somali pirates and the ISI is the next big pirate story on the verge of busting into the media.

Lord in heaven, what's next?

[Stan]

Hey M-A !
My plan includes many of the things you, JMA and Dayuhan have provided. The only real twist when I say it's an Africa problem, is we don't get involved other than ensuring no vessel enters the Horn and your no fly zone. The remainder of Africa that depends on that sea traffic will take care of the pirates swiftly and violently (African style). As we the West can't bear to watch TV, there will further be a blockade on all news sources (nothing new in Somalia).

I also agree that we have played into their hands with aid. Cold turkey may not be very popular but I see no reasonable way out.

JMA's priorities need to be acted on as the blockade and no fly zone means dead and raped hostages and, well... we're back to the West watching TV :rolleyes:





I have a question for you Stan: what would be an African solution? As far as I know, somalis will not stop if you give them $, at contrary.
My experience in South Somalia tells me that part of the problem is the aid dependency problematic somali have been abble to turn round. As exemple, they were not maintaining infrastructures so they were making sure that international aid would keep coming. And they play that game on all sides: european, US, Arab league, Muslim charity...

[davidbfpo]

Carl,

I know the world is full of surprises, but this suspected linkage is one and simply lacks credibility.

In an earlier post I referred to the open source and commercial sources for shipping information. I suspect that certain "middle men" are supplying the information for interception and Somalis are well known for their trading skills in the region - not piracy.

I recall the Somalis had no love for the Pakistanis during the early intervention; the killing of Pakistani soldiers pre-dated the 'Blackhawk Down' incident.

Where is the pay-off for ISI in such a trade?

[carl]

David:

This is the first I've heard of it, can't really comment on its validity and posted it mainly as a discussion point. If it is true there isn't anything those guys won't stoop to, and if it isn't true their past actions make it easy for people to believe there isn't anything they won't stoop too. I will say that Galrahn runs a pretty good blog and seems to know exactly what he is talking about as near as I can judge, which may not be very near.

The pay off for the ISI would be what it always is for the ISI, bug India and money. There was a twitter feed from Galrahn stating that 22 Somali pirates were caught recently just off the NW coast of India. That should bug them. The money, well the money.

Who the Somalis killed 20 years ago probably doesn't mean much to them if there is money to be made leading the pirate's life.

[omarali50]

The Somali story smells strange, but who knows.
The interesting question to me is whether there is any real rift between NATO and Pakistan? And whether GHQ is about to "win" in Afghanistan? Because if they are (with or without NATO's cooperation), its really really bad news for Pakistan. Primarily because such a victory would be terrible news for ordinary Afghans and then for ordinary Pakistanis (and eventually, for GHQ, but they may not see that yet). Then there is the secondary (and the in the greater scheme of things, relatively minor) issue of liberals hanging from lamp-posts...Pro-army websites make no secret of their expectations that after the US is driven out of the region, there will be a lot of lamp-posts with a lot of infidel agents hanging from them.
You can go to rupeenews to see what I mean.

[Dayuhan]

It is a task for the marines (US or Brit).

* take out the pirates and their ships.
* liberate the hostages (with as few casualties as possible)
* recover the pirated ships.
* destroy anything and everything that appears to be have been procured through the proceeds of piracy.


I would go along with that, except that the last stage might be better held until the rest are accomplished. I'd also prefer to see some action taken against financiers, ransom collectors, and other industry beneficiaries that may not be located in the pirate-dominated areas. That would be intel-dependent of course.

That would be a large and complex operation, of course, given the number of ships involved. I wouldn't want to comment on the nature of the complications or the possible ways of overcoming them, as there are many here who know far more about such things.

It struck me as an off thought that if something like that were being planned, it might be worth an effort to significantly raise patrol levels (trying to reduce the number of new ships taken) and accelerate some of the ransom payments. Not that paying ransom is ever a good idea, but anything that would reduce the total number of targets would make a simultaneous recovery less complex. Again, I'd defer to those who know more... not that I expect anything of the sort to happen any time soon!

Again, I have to think this will go on until the pirates see that the cost and risk of piracy exceed the reward. That means imposing coasts and risks.

[JMA]

I would go along with that, except that the last stage might be better held until the rest are accomplished. I'd also prefer to see some action taken against financiers, ransom collectors, and other industry beneficiaries that may not be located in the pirate-dominated areas. That would be intel-dependent of course.

I suggest the commander will be given priorities and subject to a few factors on the ground would probably attempt to "secure" the hostages first (accepting that this will be more difficult if the hostages are dispersed at the first whiff of an operation). Give the commander the mission with any limitations then let him (and his staff) get on with the planning and the operation themselves (without interference).

As to tracking down and getting hold of the various "Mr Bigs" sitting in safe places - yes a separate exercise. A parallel exercise by the CIA or Interpol but not a task for the marines other than their feeding in the intel they may pick up on the ground.


That would be a large and complex operation, of course, given the number of ships involved. I wouldn't want to comment on the nature of the complications or the possible ways of overcoming them, as there are many here who know far more about such things.

Maybe not. Let the marines figure it out. Smart guys may well find a smart way of executing the mission.


It struck me as an off thought that if something like that were being planned, it might be worth an effort to significantly raise patrol levels (trying to reduce the number of new ships taken) and accelerate some of the ransom payments. Not that paying ransom is ever a good idea, but anything that would reduce the total number of targets would make a simultaneous recovery less complex. Again, I'd defer to those who know more... not that I expect anything of the sort to happen any time soon!

Yea, leave it to the marines.


Again, I have to think this will go on until the pirates see that the cost and risk of piracy exceed the reward. That means imposing coasts and risks.

And what would that the cost and risk tipping points be?

[Dayuhan]

And what would that the cost and risk tipping points be?

We don't know. We add risk and cost to their equation until they stop, then we know. Of course as long as they hold hostages it's hard to do that, which brings us full circle.

I'd like to see a mass raid aimed at recovering all ships and hostages now held... but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

[JMA]

We don't know. We add risk and cost to their equation until they stop, then we know. Of course as long as they hold hostages it's hard to do that, which brings us full circle.

I'd like to see a mass raid aimed at recovering all ships and hostages now held... but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it.

Look I'd have to do my homework on Somalia (to see where it differs from the Africa I know) but I suggest that they are pretty "old testament" in their approach to life. Let that be the point of departure.

Neither the US nor any European (as in geography) country will apply the death sentence on the pirates. So one needs to look for a proxy state (that will) to agree to try any captured pirates. Yes, it may require the incentive of an aid grant/bribe/call it what you like to get it off the ground.

So as not to place the current hostages under further risk this (kangaroo) legal process should come into effect after the current hostages are released/freed and automatically applied to any piracy actions after the operation we speak of.

I recently saw a documentary on the deployment of a Brit naval vessel on anti-piracy duties off Somalia. They came across this skiff way out to sea which had run out of petrol and on approach found neither weapons not fishing gear on board. They took the two Somalis on board fed them, clothed them and gave them a medical check up and delivered them to a point in sight of the coast where they were released in their skiff with enough petrol/water/food to make it home safely. Contrary to those with negative colonial memories the Brits are really jolly nice chaps. Little wonder the pirates are laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

Yes, sadly it is not going to happen.

But I would like the US marines to do the planning and via the Pentagon get it presented to the President as another electioneering stunt with great potential. He might even buy it. ;)

[carl]

Here is an interesting story I found over at Information Dissemination. They seem to have a lot of those.

http://www.livemint.com/2011/07/08203647/Piracy--Floating-wrecks.html?h=B

It is about the life of the seaman kidnapped by pirates from the area that used to be the country of Somalia. About what you would expect from criminal teenagers. They torture, starve, beat and sometimes kill the seaman. That is what criminals do to people they control. Good clean fun you see.

[davidbfpo]

Current head of the Royal Marines and Operation Commander of EUNAVFOR, Buster Howes discussed current piracy trends and how EUNAVFOR is seeking to counter the ongoing threat. While the drivers for piracy remain on land, the force has been tasked with limiting the effects of piracy on international commerce in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

With a podcast just over an hour long, about to listen to so no review yet:http://www.iiss.org/events-calendar/2011-events-archive/july-2011/making-counter-piracy-operations-effective/

[AdamG]

Interesting perspective from the bad guys' side.

Reading music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4adimDkjSk&NR=1)


Jay Bahadur’s plan was simple. Fly to Somalia to cover the March 2009 elections in Somaliland as a freelancer, then come home to Toronto and hopefully find a job in journalism.

He studied Somalia a bit as an undergrad at the University of Toronto, and after graduating in 2007 he enrolled in a freelance journalism course; he figured he could work the trip into the class somehow.

Things did not go according to plan — but, in retrospect, they probably couldn’t have worked out better. For a class assignment on how to pitch freelance stories, Mr. Bahadur assembled an idea — to embed with the pirates of Somalia — and handed in his homework. It was October 2008. He left for Africa in January 2009. And today, he is on tour promoting his debut non-fiction book, Pirates of Somalia.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/24/can-i-get-a-little-piracy/

Globe & Mail review (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/the-pirates-of-somalia-inside-their-hidden-world-by-jay-bahadur/article2106671/)

NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/19/138514116/a-peek-into-the-secret-world-of-somalian-pirates)

and the author's blog
http://jaybahadur.blogspot.com/

Mod's Note: See also Post 621 on an earlier post on the author and book.

[AdamG]

Interesting perspective from the bad guys' side.

Reading music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4adimDkjSk&NR=1)


Jay Bahadur’s plan was simple. Fly to Somalia to cover the March 2009 elections in Somaliland as a freelancer, then come home to Toronto and hopefully find a job in journalism.

He studied Somalia a bit as an undergrad at the University of Toronto, and after graduating in 2007 he enrolled in a freelance journalism course; he figured he could work the trip into the class somehow.

Things did not go according to plan — but, in retrospect, they probably couldn’t have worked out better. For a class assignment on how to pitch freelance stories, Mr. Bahadur assembled an idea — to embed with the pirates of Somalia — and handed in his homework. It was October 2008. He left for Africa in January 2009. And today, he is on tour promoting his debut non-fiction book, Pirates of Somalia.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/24/can-i-get-a-little-piracy/

Globe & Mail review (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/the-pirates-of-somalia-inside-their-hidden-world-by-jay-bahadur/article2106671/)

NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/19/138514116/a-peek-into-the-secret-world-of-somalian-pirates)

and the author's blog
http://jaybahadur.blogspot.com/

Mod's Note: See also Post 621 on the main thread for Somali Piracy:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=5621

[Dayuhan]

Interesting perspective from the bad guys' side.

Telling comment:


“But the truth is that fishing was never a big part of the Somali economy; it was seen as ignoble and very few of them actually had their livelihoods destroyed. The early fisher-pirates simply realized that going after commercial ships worked; it made money.”

[davidbfpo]

Found via an observer of such things:
This videotape shows Russian Navy commandos on a Somalian pirate ship shortly after the pirates had captured a Russian oil tanker. The Euro Union navy that patrols these waters would not interfere because they feared there could be casualties.

All explanations are in Russian with a single exception of when a wounded pirate says something in English. All conversations between the commandos are in Russian. If you don't understand Russian, the pictures speak for themselves.

The soldiers freed their compatriots and the tanker. The Russian Navy Commandos moved the pirates back to their own (pirate) ship, searched the pirate ship for weapons and explosives, and then they left the ship and exploded it with all remaining pirates hand-cuffed to it.

The commandos sank the pirate ship along with the pirates and without any court proceedings, lawyers etc. That is, they used the anti-piracy laws of the 18th and 19th centuries where the captain of the rescuing ship has the right to decide what to do with the pirates. Usually, they were hung.

Link to video:http://true-turtle.livejournal.com/85315.html

[davidbfpo]

CIMIC is a NATO Civil-Military website, behind a registration wall, that has various sections, including Anti-Piracy and has a running log of incidents. Worth a peek regularly:https://www.cimicweb.org

The original focus was Afghanistan.

[AdamG]

Troops from a Spanish warship stormed a pirate skiff in the Gulf of Aden and rescued a French hostage missing from her yacht but found no trace of her husband, the EU anti-piracy mission said.

As a helicopter kept watch overhead, naval commandos in a fast launch fired on the skiff to disable its engine. The boat sank, but the hostage was rescued and seven pirates were arrested unharmed, the Spanish defence ministry said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-11/spanish-warship-rescues-french-hostage-from-pirates/2880136

[davidbfpo]

CIMIC have published a comprehensive, short report on the impact of Somali piracy; behind a free registration wall via their website:https://www.cimicweb.org/Pages/cimicwebWelcome.aspx


According to 18 August 2011 data presented by ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) Piracy Reporting Centre, piracy in Somalia this year has led to 178 incidents, 22 hijackings, 362 hostages, and 7 deaths. IMB further found that pirates are currently holding 19 vessels and 377 crew members.

Using a convoy system:
This convoy system would, in the opinion of the authors, O’Hanlon and Solarz, drastically increase the safety of merchant vessels transiting the Gulf of Aden, but would require the employment of approximately fifty military vessels. This requirement far exceeded the resources then available in 2009 which ranged from 15 to 20 vessels.

Armed guards:
It is estimated by the ISS that approximately one out of every ten vessels transiting the Gulf of Aden employs private armed security personnel.

[davidbfpo]

Yet again a hat tip to CIMIC for a short paper on the issues; access see previous post.

The bonus is a map on the last page of prisoners and prosecutions of pirates worldwide.

[davidbfpo]

A BBC report on the PM's announcement whilst in Perth, for the Commenwealth meeting:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15510467

There are a number of logistical issues to resolve, especially that the licences will only apply in 'high risk' areas and where will the firearms be kept when not there?

Best of all (my humour):eek: is this:
Other counter-piracy measures being taken include offering support from Treasury officials to Kenya to help its officials track down pirates' assets.

When the UK has multi-billion VAT fraud and the Somalis use a variant of hawala banking this is weird. I am sure the pirates are investing in real estate :rolleyes:and other areas across the globe, maybe Kenya :wry:too. Humbug!

[Stan]

pirates have proved increasingly mobile and flexible in their tactics (http://neptunemaritimesecurity.posterous.com/private-armed-guards-only-a-quick-fix-against)


The Ministry has taken the decision after noting that about 35 per cent of merchant ships transiting through pirate-infested waters deploy armed security guards and that the pirates generally do not attack ships with guards on board.


... ultimately the problem of Somali piracy can be solved only on land. That will take time. In the absence of a functioning Somali state, a better co-ordinated international naval force and patrolling larger stretches of water are becoming necessary.

[Fuchs]

Minimal tech-pirates are annoying Western nations off the Somali coast and the media is reporting on it.

Well, the typical reflex of politicians is like "We must do something about it!" and "Let's send some combat ships to hunt the pirates!"

I remember history accounts of many counter-piracy campaigns; combat fleets alone were never a solution, although they were always involved.

Pirates are most easily defeated by raids on their coastal bases, military history leaves no doubt about this.

Western combat ships (including a German frigate) have been there for months and collected a huge amount of intelligence about smuggling and piracy activities.
The problem should be easily solved once a Western nation is willing to do so (to raid some fishing villages, destroy the boats and seize weapons).

This annoyance doesn't deserve much attention. Let's focus our attention and energy on more relevant challenges.


Guess who wrote that 40 months ago!

[Stan]

Hey Fuchs !
Well, that was an easy one having read your blog years ago :)

I really like your quote on piracy then (and now)...


(determined people with annoying intentions are annoyingly resistant to influence

Very similar to your quotes on the Officer Selection thread :D



Stupid aggressors are stupid - some people only learn through pain.

Well said !



Deterrence works also if a potential aggressor estimates that he will succeed to disarm and occupy the country, but concludes that it's not worth it because it would be too costly.

Kind of makes me wonder if you are correct with your theory of an
Influence squadron

This last quote is for JMA and his missile theories...


The problem should be easily solved once a Western nation is willing to do so (to raid some fishing villages, destroy the boats and seize weapons).

This annoyance doesn't deserve much attention.

[Fuchs]

I wouldn't say I've got an idea for an "influence squadron".

Diplomacy belongs to politicians and diplomats, technical assistance to project managers and technical experts and when you really need to do something from the sea in peacetime then charter a ship.


Back to pirates; Pompey is rollin' in his grave.


In the law of ancient Rome, the Lex Gabinia (Gabinian Law) of 67 BC granted Pompeius Magnus ("Pompey the Great") extraordinary proconsular powers in any province within 50 miles of the Mediterranean Sea. The law was passed by the tribune Aulus Gabinius.

The command came with a fleet of 500 warships, 120,000 infantry and around 5,000 cavalry to fight the growing problems of pirates disrupting trade in the Mediterranean Sea. Given three years to solve the problem, Pompey managed to defeat the pirates in just three months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Gabinia

THREE (3 !!!) ####ing months!

German frigates pointlessly patrolling the Somali coast in order to blockade it against AQ (one of the most idiotic ideas in military history!) turned the collection of intelligence on Somali pirates into a hobby for killing time - long before the problem took over the mainstream news in 2008.
Back then there were iirc only three small villages the core of the problem. Three light infantry companies could have solved the issue over night, even without any navy.

Politicians turned the whole piracy issue into just another get-together happening where even U.S., PRC and Iranian ships patrol side by side for a common cause.
That's not security policy, that's a demonstration of incompetence and ignorance.


Three months. *sigh*.
Today's politicians world-wide are inferior to some plutocrat who died 2,000 years ago.

I need to distract myself real quick now...

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to CIMIC brifeing on Armed Guards on Merchant Vessels. Via:https://www.cimicweb.org

As of 07 November, 2011 the IMB, part of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), reported the following statistics for 2011.

Table 1. Incidents Reported for Somalia

Total Incidents 217
Total Hijackings 26
Total Hostages 450
Total Killed (hostages) 15

Table 2. Current Vessels Held by Somali Pirates

Vessels 13
Hostages 249

Link:http://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy-reporting-centre/piracynewsafigures

A long report on the economics of piracy has a superb map, showing the spread of Somali piracy, on Pg.4:http://geopolicity.com/upload/content/pub_1305229189_regular.pdf

I know we have a few sailors aboard, but how do the Somalis reach so far? I know we've heard of "mother" ships.

[davidbfpo]

From an IISS Strategic Comment, which ranges widely and one selected passage which is not unexpected:
This highlights another trend: a growing synergy between the pirate gangs and al-Shabaab, who still control much of central and southern Somalia. Although they remain very different groups with separate aims – one purely commercial, the other political/ideological – overlaps occur in their interests and activities. The crippling famine in Somalia and al-Shabaab's withdrawal from its strongholds in the capital, Mogadishu, in August, have created a funding shortage for the group, which they have been trying to fill by taking a percentage of pirates' ransom money. In February, Reuters reported al-Shabaab seized several pirate leaders in Haradhere and forced them to agree to hand over 20% of future ransoms. An investigation by the news agency found large payments going to al-Shabaab's 'marine office' after lucrative ransoms were handed over for released ships. Pirates' growing use of the insurgent-controlled port of Kismayo has allowed for taxation and limited cooperation between the groups.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/november/somali-pirates-widen-their-net/

[Stan]

Western hostages freed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16714344) in 'US military raid'


The rescue party is said to have landed close to a compound where hostages were being held.

A local security official, Mohamed Nur, told AFP news agency that several of the pirates had been killed.

The freed hostages were believed to have been flown to nearby Djibouti by the rescuers, he said.

They were named as American Jessica Buchanan, 32, and Poul Thisted, 60, of Denmark.


WASHINGTON -- In a daring nighttime raid Tuesday, U.S. Navy SEALs rescued two hostages, including one American, who were being held by kidnappers in Somalia, U.S. officials tell NBC News.

American Jessica Buchanan, 32, and a 60-year-old Dane, Poul Thisted, were working for a Danish relief organization in northern Somalia when they were kidnapped last October. U.S. officials described their kidnappers as heavily armed common criminals with no known ties to any organized militant group.
According to the U.S. officials, two teams of Navy SEALs landed by helicopter near the compound where the two hostages were being held. As the SEALS approached the compound on foot gunfire broke out, the U.S. officials said, and several of the militants were reportedly killed. There is no word that any of the Americans were wounded.

[Jedburgh]

Chatham House, 12 Jan 12: Treasure Mapped: Using Satellite Imagery to Track the Developmental Effects of Somali Piracy (http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/0112pp_shortland.pdf)

There are increasing pressures to develop land-based approaches to Somali piracy. By making use of non-traditional data sources including local market data and satellite images, this paper is intended to be an objective analysis of who benefits from pirate ransoms.

Significant amounts of ransom monies are spent within Somalia, but conspicuous consumption appears to be limited by social norms dictating resource-sharing. Around a third of pirate ransoms are converted into Somali shillings, benefiting casual labour and pastoralists in Puntland.

Data analysis is complemented by examination of satellite imagery to establish where the beneficiaries are located. Pirates probably make a significant contribution to economic development in the provincial capitals Garowe and Bosasso. Puntland’s political elites are therefore unlikely to move decisively against piracy.

The positive economic impacts of piracy are spread widely and a military strategy to eradicate it could seriously undermine local development. However, coastal villages have gained little from hosting pirates and may be open to a negotiated solution which offers a more attractive alternative.

[Fuchs]

There are some comments on my blog which insist that all the incompetence about getting rid of this piracy problem is really about using the piracy problem as an excuse for European navies to establish themselves in the Indian Ocean while the USN moves into the Pacific Ocean.

I am willing to consider this interpretation, but it smells very much like great power gaming of a long-term variety, and I don't think our few-years-term governments are really enough into the long term to do this kind of gaming.

[M-A Lagrange]

There are some comments on my blog which insist that all the incompetence about getting rid of this piracy problem is really about using the piracy problem as an excuse for European navies to establish themselves in the Indian Ocean while the USN moves into the Pacific Ocean.

I am willing to consider this interpretation, but it smells very much like great power gaming of a long-term variety, and I don't think our few-years-term governments are really enough into the long term to do this kind of gaming.

Fuch,

Viewed from Kenya, it looks far more as a financial issue.
Kenyan troops entered Somalia not because of the shebab but because piracy impact directly and deeply the Kenyan economy and state tax collection. (Approximately 60 million$ lost/year, quite a deal for the Kenyans).

To me, this can be applied to the European (and not only them). Piracy is may be an excuse to be in the Indian Ocean but it's primaly a financial question. As long as it's cheaper to tolerate pirats in Somalia than solving the problem, Somaly coast/seas will remain a training ground. Europeans were already in the Indian Ocean through Djibouti.

The Indian and Chine navy might have the hidden agenda you describe. IMO, this would make more sense.

[Fuchs]

I saw only very rough figures, but overall I'm quite sure that patrolling indefinitely is much more expensive than letting the shipping industry use private security teams and certainly more expensive than staging a few decisive raids on the ground + PsyOps actions.

Cost-benefit calculations certainly do not drive Operation Atalanta etc.

[Hippofeet]

As far as U.S. based vessels, didn't we refuse to offer letters of mark, or whatever they are, that allow merchant vessels to operate in an anti piracy role? So they could have private security on board? Probably in this thread somewhere. just seems like such a no-brainer, let ships fight off pirates.

[davidbfpo]

Guarding merchant vessels has appeared here many times. This BBC report 'India court keeps Italian navy guards in 14-day custody' is not unexpected:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17108995

India's courts are not known for their speed, nor does India make an easy partner to negotiate with.

There's a map showing the piracy within this separate report:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16970982

[Stan]

David,
How ironic considering late last year's report that the pirates openly stated they will concentrate on Indians and Indian vessels in order to secure the release of Somali pirates being held in Indian Jails.

Maybe we should gather our cash and enlist the US Navy again :D Seems they have a good handle on the situation.

[M-A Lagrange]

Denmark piracy raid off Somalia leaves two dead
“Overnight Sunday to Monday, when the pirates tried to leave the coast, Absalon intervened and stopped the mothership, before it could pose a threat to shipping in the open sea,” it added.

It fired at the mothership and its crew was then able to take control of the pirate ship.

Two of the hostages were found badly injured, and the Absalon doctor was unable to save them, the statement said.

http://africadefensejournal.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/denmark-piracy-raid-off-somalia-leaves-two-dead/

[JMA]

http://africadefensejournal.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/denmark-piracy-raid-off-somalia-leaves-two-dead/

So they kill 2 of the 18 hostages on board but what of the 17 pirates?

[Stan]

Things just got tougher for land based pirates :D


An EU official said the new mandate would allow warships or helicopters to fire at fuel barrels, boats, trucks or other equipment on beaches, according to Agence France-Presse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17487767).

[davidbfpo]

Given the varying tactics used by EU navies in the area, some "catch & release" and others "catch, jail anywhere but home" one wonders what this policy decision means.

One can predict all such 'targets' on beaches will have women and children in the vicinity. Plus the ubiquitous camera footage of an outrage.

It must be time for a "summit", so make an announcement. Ah, checking the BBC the announcement follows an EU Defence Ministers meeting, that extended the mandate for EU naval action for two years:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17487767

Which has a "progress" report:
If you look at last year, 30 ships and up to 700 hostages were held - today that is eight [ships] and around 200 [hostages]..

One wonders how the mainly Indian hostages IIRC will feel about the prospect of joining a "beach party"?

Frank Gardner,one of the BBC's security correspondents, who has been aboard a ship transiting the area, has written a comment, cited in full:
Taking the fight against Somali piracy to bases on land is a major step-up for EU operations. Until now, pirates have been able to operate from coastal bases in towns like Eyl, Haradhere and Hobyo with relative impunity, returning from lengthy raids at sea to enjoy the spoils back home, though many drown or return empty-handed.

Now, it seems, the paraphernalia of piracy will all become fair game, hitting the pirates where it hurts and trying to disrupt what an EU admiral described to me as "the pirates' business model".

But this new, aggressive policy comes with significant risks. Pirates who see their bases destroyed are likely to protest they were innocent fishermen. It's also possible that, over time, innocent Somali fishermen really will be hurt.

Either way, its likely to enrage the pirates who may be tempted to take out their frustration on the hapless merchant sailors they regularly kidnap for ransom.

[Dayuhan]

If you look at last year, 30 ships and up to 700 hostages were held - today that is eight [ships] and around 200 [hostages].

Is 8 ships starting to get into a range where a rescue attempt is a possibility? Certainly a difficult and dangerous prospect, but 8 is better than 30, and removing hostages from the equation would open up all kinds of possibilities for action.

[JMA]

Things just got tougher for land based pirates :D

Not so fast Stan...

The following two quotes indicate that this is more likely just more talk about getting tough than actually doing so.


In a two-year extension of its mission, EU defence ministers agreed warships could target boats and fuel dumps.

...

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo told reporters: "The EU plan is to allow attacks on land installations when ships are assaulted at sea," adding that "much care" would be taken to avoid civilian deaths.

I suggest what this indicates is that the political idiots know what needs to be done but don't have the balls to let the EU navies in the area loose to do the business.

It should be noted too that apart from the Brit and French navies the remainder of the EU navies can be considered 'timid' and should be released to go home (after being thanked for the efforts to date of course ;) ).

[davidbfpo]

I attended an academic conference this week in London and one panel looked at various aspects of Somali piracy. One speaker, Jatin Dua, made an impact:
Jatin Dua is a PhD candidate in the Department of Cultural Anthropology at Duke University. His dissertation focuses on maritime piracy and attempts to regulate the Western Indian Ocean by private actors, nation-states, and international bodies in a moment of post-Cold War, post-9/11 reconfiguration. He has conducted over eighteen months of ethnographic fieldwork with pirates, fishermen, merchants, seafarers, judges, lawyers, and others implicated in the world of piracy and counter-piracy in Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, and the United Kingdom.

Jatin made a number of points, although I follow the issue, the following were new to me:

1. There is a long history of oceanic exchange between Somalia (as part of East Africa), Kenya, Sharjah (UAE) and Gujerat, an Indian coastal state. Traditionally and still today this is largely by dhow. The dhows use offshore refuelling by Iranian merchants. There is a licensing system in place for the dhows, which removes them as a target for pirates
2. There is a pattern of human smuggling from Ethiopia's Ogaden Province (which historically has a cross-border Somali community) to the Gulf and Yemen.
3. Livestock are traded from Somaliland to Saudi Arabia, so when the Saudis impose and recently have lifted restrictions this has an impact.
4. Both Somaliland, Puntland he knew and by anecdote Somalia have a superb mobile phone network and within minutes it is possible to move cash from the USA to Somaliland - based on a trust network, similar to Hawala banking; see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala
5. There can be movement from Al-Shabaab to piracy, one former fighter stated:
Tired of war and I was asked do you want to make money now?

For those who wish to read more here is one of his articles:http://www.ssrc.org/pages/Piracy-and-the-Narrative-of-Recognition-The-View-from-Somaliland/

[davidbfpo]

An attack in the Gulf of Oman and near Iran is well different:
The 28-strong crew of a Chinese cargo ship seized by pirates in the Gulf of Oman off Iran's coast have been rescued... The vessel was attacked by Somali pirates on Friday morning near the Iranian port of Chabahar......China immediately asked Iran to take the necessary steps to rescue the crew....

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17636649

One wonders whether the pirates will face justice in China or Iran? Assuming of course that is the route followed.

Both national navies participate in anti-piracy patrolling - in co-ordination with the multi-national flotillas.

[davidbfpo]

A rather short film clip from a BBC TV travel documentary, where the reporter visits a jail in Somaliland:
Very few of the Somali-based pirates who plague the Indian Ocean have been brought to justice, partly as a result of the lack of government in Somalia. But several are being held at Hargeisa prison in Somaliland - an internationally unrecognised state which broke away from Somalia in 1991.

One Somali pirate serving six years in prison told the BBC's Simon Reeve that he thought the piracy was justified even though it has become a multi-million dollar criminal industry and there have been cases of hostages and ship's crew being killed.

At least it is a first-hand explanation:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17914920

[davidbfpo]

In March 2012 the EU announced it would take action on Somali territory and the BBC reports this happened last night:
EU naval forces have conducted their first raid on pirate bases on the Somali mainland, saying they have destroyed several boats. The EU forces were transported by helicopter to the pirate bases near the port of Haradhere.

The BBC's Security Correspondent, Frank Gardiner wrote:
Naval officers say there were no casualties on either side but if raids like this are repeated - as they probably will be - the pirates are likely to adapt their operations making it harder for their equipment to be destroyed without also hitting local Somalis.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18069685

Note later verbally Frank Gardiner added the five skiffs were machine gunned by helicopters.

Personally I think this verges on theatre. The BBC report cites the pirates:
They are believed to be holding about 17 ships and 300 crew. and not to overlook:
the Greek-owned oil tanker Smyrni which was hijacked in the Arabian Sea last week. The Liberian-flagged tanker carrying 135,000 tonnes of oil is reported to be heading for Somalia.

So we really do care about the kidnapped crew? No, we do't and I expect largely as they are not EU nationals.

Then there is the well documented, sorry reported lack of capability and will to act against captured pirates - the 'catch & release' policy. Which IIRC was last reported by a Danish warship, that held their prisoners for thirty days and then let them go.

If the Greek tanker reaches Somalia one wonders how the EU "spin" doctors will translate this statement to explain:
The focused, precise and proportionate action was conducted from the air and all forces returned safely to EU warships on completion.

[tequila]

Piracy around Horn of Africa has plunged, U.S. says (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/world/africa/piracy-around-horn-of-africa-has-plunged-us-says.html)



WASHINGTON — Acts of piracy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/piracy_at_sea/index.html) in the treacherous waters around the Horn of Africa have fallen sharply in 2012, according to statistics released by the United States Navy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/us_navy/index.html?inline=nyt-org). The Navy credits aggressive patrolling by international forces and increased vigilance by the commercial shipping industry for the decrease.

Data released by the Navy last week showed 46 pirate attacks in the area this year, compared with 222 in all of last year and 239 in 2010. Nine of the piracy attempts this year have been successful, according to the data, compared with 34 successful attacks in all of 2011 and 68 in 2010.

Even so, senior Navy officers have been careful not to declare victory.
“The pirates (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/piracy_at_sea/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) are very adaptable, and they are very flexible,” said Vice Adm. Mark I. Fox, the Navy’s deputy chief for operations, plans and strategy. “We are watching carefully ...”

[davidbfpo]

I have previously cited the IMB's statistics and their latest figures for 2012, a week old are:
Incidents Reported for Somalia:
Total Incidents: 70
Total Hijackings:13
Total Hostages: 212

Current vessels held by Somali pirates:
Vessels: 11 Hostages: 188.

Link:http://www.icc-ccs.org/piracy-reporting-centre/piracynewsafigures

This was the situation last year:
According to 18 August 2011 data presented by ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB) Piracy Reporting Centre, piracy in Somalia this year has led to 178 incidents, 22 hijackings, 362 hostages, and 7 deaths. IMB further found that pirates are currently holding 19 vessels and 377 crew members.

There are some differences from the USN figures, although there is a decline in attacks and thankfully a drop in the hostages held - whom officialdom appear to view with Admiral Nelson's blind eye.

[davidbfpo]

At last a lengthy account of some of the hostages held in Somalia.

Have you heard of the Iceberg 1? I hadn't, although aware that hostages were being held and from the start of the article:
She set sail from Aden in the spring of 2010, the start of a long journey that should have seen her deliver a cargo of electrical equipment to England. Then, barely ten miles out to sea, the Iceberg 1 suffered a fate all too predictable for a slow-going cargo craft in the Gulf of Aden: she was hijacked by Somali pirates.

Unlike the scores of other vessels snared there in recent years, though, no ransom has been forthcoming to free her crew of 24, nor has a foreign navy tried to rescue them. Instead, nearly two and a half years later, they are still in captivity on the high seas - seemingly abandoned by the ship’s owners, and with the dubious distinction of being the longest hijack case in modern maritime history.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/9507047/Abandoned-at-sea-the-forgotten-hostages-of-the-Somali-pirates.html

Name & shame the owners, who have done almost nothing:
is owned by Dubai-based Azal Shipping & Cargo, whose management have been accused of leaving the crew to their fate. Until last month, Azal had declined to even meet with the hostages’ families, who say they have also refused to pay wages in absentia for the sailors, many of whom are the main breadwinners in their households.

[davidbfpo]

A sorry tale of rivalry, power and a "strategic corporal" thanks to FP Blog, with a long article on a UAE funded attempt to counter piracy on land in Puntland:
In June of this year, my bow-hunting friend, a group of four dozen South African mentors,and 500 newly trained Somali recruits pointed their armada of 70 shiny Toyota Land cruisers, a small fleet of high-powered rigid inflatable boats, helicopters, and fixed-wing aircraft towards the coast of Somalia -- the heart of pirate country.

This once-motley group, the Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF), had been trained by African, British, South African, and U.S. foreign contractors for two years; in May 2011, they began setting up forward operating bases in remote coastal areas of Eyl, Hafun, Bargal, and Qaw. By June 2012, they were ready for the full invasion wave.

The final irony is in the last sentence:
Meanwhile, pirate chief Isse Yulux seems to be doing fine: he's even offered to pay the salaries of the remaining PMPF officers.

Link to article first and then photos:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/20/how_the_un_saved_the_somali_pirates?page=full and http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/20/the_pirates_of_puntland

On SWC we often desire local partners willing and capable of doing the hard work, yes even when paid by outsiders, but there must be something in the Somali air and air-conditioned rooms nearby that destroys hope.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to CIMIC for the link to an official Puntland statement rejecting an allegation made by ABC that the PMPF was a 'private army':http://www.garoweonline.com/artman2/publish/Press_Releases_32/Somalia_Puntland_Rejects_ABC_Media_Criticism_of_An ti-Piracy_Force.shtml

[AdamG]

WASHINGTON — It seemed like a simple idea: In the chaos that is Somalia, create a sophisticated, highly trained fighting force that could finally defeat the pirates terrorizing the shipping lanes off the Somali coast.

But the creation of the Puntland Maritime Police Force was anything but simple. It involved dozens of South African mercenaries and the shadowy security firm that employed them, millions of dollars in secret payments by the United Arab Emirates, a former clandestine officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, and Erik Prince, the billionaire former head of Blackwater Worldwide who was residing at the time in the emirates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/world/africa/private-army-leaves-troubled-legacy-in-somalia.html

[roger erickson]

Why does this sound so similar to ... well, to EVERYTHING we read in the press?

just one example paraphrase:

"WASHINGTON — It seemed like a simple idea: In the chaos that is [Washington, DC], create a sophisticated, highly trained [economic] force that could finally defeat the pirates terrorizing the [finance] lanes off the [Wall Street] coast.

But the creation of the Puntland [Parttime Regulatory Farce] was anything but simple. It involved dozens of [retired political] mercenaries and the shadowy [lobbyist] firms that employed them, millions of dollars in secret payments by the United [Grab Campaignirates], a former clandestine officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, and the [Princelings], the billionaire former [employees] of [the too big to fail banks] who [were] residing at the time in all the [key policy agencies]."

[davidbfpo]

Short update and then the cost of anti-piracy measures for the shipowners:
Piracy off the coast of Somalia has dropped off dramatically in 2012. Successful ship hijackings have decreased from 31 in 2011 (and 49 in 2010) to only four so far in 2012. Attacks against ships have also decreased, falling from 199 reported attacks in the first nine months of 2011 to 70 attacks over the same span in 2012 -- a 65 percent drop. However, diminished activity does not necessarily mean a decrease in the cost of sailing around the Horn of Africa.

Armed guards:
the widespread deployment of armed guards beginning in 2011 (guards had been used sparingly as far back as 2008) has a very close correlation to the recent decrease in hijackings. In late 2009, only about 10-20 percent of commercial ships sailing through waters where Somali pirates operate carried guards; today, some estimates put the percentage as high as 70 percent. To date, pirates have never successfully hijacked a ship that had armed guards. But it should be noted that, even though the use of armed guards appears to be the most effective countermeasure against piracy, there are other factors at work.

The cost:
...the total annual cost for shipping companies merely to deploy armed guards on their ships through the Gulf of Aden is between about $800 million and $1.4 billion.

Taken from "The Expensive, Diminishing Threat of Somali Piracy is republished with permission of Stratfor":http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/expensive-diminishing-threat-somali-piracy

[davidbfpo]

A simply bizarre story:
the quasi-government of Puntland has confirmed that security forces impounded a North Korea-Flagged vessel, M.V. Daesan, for dumping materials, including cement, near the coast of the Puntland port city of Bossaso, the radio adds...was seized 13 nautical miles east of Bossaso as it was in the process of unloading some 5,000 metric tonnes of cement. The Puntland authorities have condemned the illegal and environmentally destructive practice by the ship-owners.

Link:http://www.nknews.org/2012/11/north-koreans-stuck-in-somali/

[davidbfpo]

The Panama-flagged MV Iceberg One was seized off the Yemeni coast in 2009, and was being held near Gara'ad village on the coast in Mudug region when Puntland's maritime troops surrounded it on 10 December.

In their statement, the Puntland authorities said their troops fought the pirates for two weeks before safely rescuing all 22 hostages on board the ship.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-20832401

At last! I have m' doubts about a long fight, more likely a cordon and talk. Note no reference to any prisoners being taken.

[carl]

Thanks for keeping us posted on this David. It is unusual that all the surviving crewmen seem to have been rescued yet some of the pirates were killed. Good job I guess.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Lowy Institute's 'The Interpreter' for this Australian news item (behind a paywall) 'Glencore chief Simon Murray launches private navy to combat Somali pirate threat':
This private navy will use a 10,000-ton mother ship, high-speed armoured patrol boats, '240 former marines and sailors' and one former Royal Navy commodore to provide security to oil tankers and bulk carriers as they traverse the piracy plagued Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean. Murray insists that this is more cost effective than using sovereign warships to patrol the waters off Somalia.

The blog post ends with:
Typhon is sailing into a deep legal fog. Presumably the company is investigating these issues, though it has made no public statements on the subject (and it does not appear to have a website). One thing is certain; Typhon had better have a very good lawyer on speed dial.

Link:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/01/11/From-privateers-to-the-private-navy.aspx

Not to overlook:
There has been no successful hijacking since June 2012, when a fishing dhow was seized, according to data from the International Maritime Bureau (IMB).

Link:http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/421071/20130106/piracy-somalia-typhon-glencore.htm

[davidbfpo]

From FP's Situation Report:
Piracy has plummeted off the coast of Somalia.

Citing Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs: "This multi-pronged strategy has led to results...We're seeing more pirates prosecuted, fewer ships being attacked, the statistics are striking."

According to the (US) Navy, there has been a 75 percent decline in overall pirate attacks in 2012 over the year before. And the number of attacks in 2011 were half that what they were in 2010. Independent sources (for) Last year, pirates captured 10 vessels, compared to 34 in 2011 and 68 in 2010...and the last successful attack of a commercial vessel was in May of last year. In January 2011, pirates held 31 ships and 710 hostages; today, pirates are holding four ships and 108 hostages.

Despite fears that putting armed guards on ships would create a Wild West, cowboys-at-sea climate, violence has not increased significantly....Once the pirates realize that many ships are a "hard target," they refrain from attacking it, he said. Shapiro also said he was impressed also with the discipline that many commercial vessels exhibit when it comes to using weapons.

Building up indigenous ground forces has also helped. What has really thwarted pirate networks is a ground force known as the Puntland Maritime Police Force, according to an expert who has worked on the ground in Somalia.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to a "lurker" who recommends this update via CNN:http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/is-somali-piracy-over/

It ends with:
For now, Somalia remains fragile, meaning piracy could remain the most visible outgrowth of chronic economic and political instability onshore. The question the international community now faces is how willing is it to continue applying billion dollar band aids that temporarily mitigate, but do not truly eliminate, the threat.

[SWJ Blog]

Millionaire’s Private Navy Ready to Take on Somali Pirates (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/millionaire%E2%80%99s-private-navy-ready-to-take-on-somali-pirates)

Entry Excerpt:



--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/millionaire%E2%80%99s-private-navy-ready-to-take-on-somali-pirates) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

[davidbfpo]

The figures collected by the IMB (international Maritime Bureau), are a vital barometer of pirate activity:
Somali related incidents 2013: Six reported incidents including one hijacking.

Current crew / vessels held by Somali pirates: hostages - 71 / vessels - 5

Link:http://www.icc-ccs.org.uk/piracy-reporting-centre/piracynewsafigures

[davidbfpo]

At long last freedom for a mixed group of sailors:
The Albedo, a Malaysian-flagged container ship, was originally captured in November 2010 with a crew of 23 from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Iran and Pakistan.....were finally released on Saturday, bringing to an end one of the longest-running Somali piracy cases. The 11 crew members of the MV Albedo were facing their first hours of freedom after three years and seven months as hostages, during which their pirate captors often used torture
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/10883414/Somali-pirates-release-crew-after-nearly-four-years-in-captivity.html
This report is supplemented by a South African video report, which suggests a different story about their escape / release:http://www.enca.com/exclusive-pirate-hostages-fly-freedom

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/piracy/10883414/Somali-pirates-release-crew-after-nearly-four-years-in-captivity.html)

[AdamG]

MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — Three Somali pirates were killed in a fight over the ransom paid to free the German-American journalist who was released this week after two years and eight months of captivity, a police official said Friday.

The gunfight broke out in the central town of Galkayo late Thursday when some of the pirates who held Michael Scott Moore attacked their comrades, accusing them of conducting a secret deal with negotiators, said Mohamed Hassan. A top pirate commander was among three people killed after Moore was freed on Tuesday, he said, adding that one camp of pirates accused the other of betrayal.

http://news.yahoo.com/3-killed-somali-pirates-fight-over-ransom-100409198.html

[davidbfpo]

Two posts in this thread in 2014, that is a sign I suppose.

It must be conference time, needless to say not in Somalia, as we have this:
The High Risk Area off the Somali coast has seen over 700 attacks by pirates since 2009, but last year there were only 11 pirate incidents and no ship hijackings. No ships have been hijacked in the area since the start of January 2013. Toward the end of 2011, seven ships were being hijacked a month.

Security experts can point to no one reason for the quiet in the Somali Basin, but suggest several factors have combined to reduce the threat over the past year. Among these are the presence of three international naval task forces in the area, the extensive use by ship owners of armed private security guards, and improved best security practices for sailing through high risk waters off east Africa.
Link:http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37870

I read with amusement the hints that Al-Shabaab is now known to have had a greater role, if only as levying a tax on ransom payments. IIRC most pirates came from areas, such as Puntland, where Al-Shabaab was not in power.

[davidbfpo]

An Al-Jazeera report from a former pirate port, Eyl, in Somalia's northeast. I know some pirates have been jailed, not seen any stats before:
Farhan is one of more than 200 men from this town who have been hauled off to prisons far from this Horn of Africa country. More than 1,300 young Somali men have been jailed in prisons abroad for piracy since 2005. Most have been sentenced to life in jail.
Rather incredulously the local mayor offers to house those jailed in the town's jail; the reporter doesn't say how long they be there for!

Link:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/02/side-somalia-pirates-150225112818517.html?

[davidbfpo]

A BBC reporter has been to Puntland, a semi-autonomus region of Somalia and reports on the possibility piracy will resume. He starts with:
In northern Somalia, government officials are warning of a revival of piracy, unless foreign nations - and the naval armada patrolling the coast - do more to help create jobs and security ashore, and to combat illegal fishing at sea.

I know that trawlers operate offshore, some of whom have been kidnapped, but not that the majority are - read on:
Accusing the west of "double standards," the president said foreign navies were only concerned about stopping Somali piracy - which more or less halted in 2012 - and were doing nothing to tackle the "highway robbery" of foreign fishing trawlers [largely Iranian] plundering Somalia's natural resources.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33822635?

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/98DA/production/_84503193_somalia_control_624_v8.png

[davidbfpo]

The actual title is:
Somali pirates earn new cash by acting as escorts to the fishing boats they once hijacked
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/12066913/Somali-pirates-earn-new-cash-by-acting-as-escorts-to-the-fishing-boats-they-once-hijacked.html

There is one would expect a downside to this business:
In late November, an Iranian fishing vessel, the Muhammidi, became the third Iranian ship to be hijacked this year, a pirate gang seizing its 15-strong grew close to the notorious pirate town of Eyl.
It is unclear whether the Iranian hijackings were cases of straighforward piracy or cases where an existing "protection deal" had fallen foul of inter-clan feuding.

[davidbfpo]

Well, well this was done quietly:
NATO has ended its Indian Ocean counter-piracy mission after a sharp fall in attacks, the alliance said on Wednesday, as it shifts resources to deterring Russia in the Black Sea and people smugglers in the Mediterranean.All ships and patrol aircraft have now left the area off the Horn of Africa, where they patrolled since 2009, .....NATO says its "Ocean Shield" operation, as well as European Union and other counter-piracy missions, have significantly reduced attacks, with no ships captured off Somalia since May 2012, down from more than 30 ships at the peak in 2010-11.
Link:http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/11/23/world/europe/23reuters-nato-defence.html?


The European Union Naval Force (Op Atalanta) is poised to end next month; it only has two ships, one Dutch frigate and a Spanish patrol vessel. Plus a German and a Spanish P3 Orion.


The non-NATO commanded Combined Maritime Forces remain; with thirty-one participants.

[davidbfpo]

Via NYT:
Pirates off the coast of Somalia have seized an oil tanker with eight Sri Lankans on board, in what is believed to be the first hijacking of a large commercial vessel in the region since 2012, officials said on Tuesday...a small tanker delivering fuel...owned by a Panamanian company, Armi Shipping.....Link:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/world/africa/pirates-somalia.html? (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/world/africa/pirates-somalia.html?emc=edit_mbe_20170315&nl=morning-briefing-europe&nlid=67232673&te=1&_r=0)

A BBC commentary, which includes this fact:
The vessel and its crew of eight Sri Lankan seafarers ... This brings to 16 the number of seafarers currently being held by Somalia-based pirates, the remaining eight being Iranians.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39283911

[davidbfpo]

Who moved first then? From WaPo:
Somali pirates who seized a Comoros-flagged oil tanker earlier this week after five years without a major hijacking in the region have released the ship and its crew without conditions, officials said late Thursday. Security official Ahmed Mohamed told The Associated Press the pirates disembarked the ship, which was heading to Bossaso port, the region’s commercial hub, with its eight Sri Lankan crew members aboard.
Mohamed said the release occurred after negotiations by local elders and officials with the pirates, who seized the tanker on Monday.
Naval forces from the semiautonomous state of Puntland and the pirates clashed earlier Thursday after the pirates opened fire.Link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/somali-official-says-pirates-open-fire-on-local-naval-forces/2017/03/16/8876700a-0a39-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/somali-official-says-pirates-open-fire-on-local-naval-forces/2017/03/16/8876700a-0a39-11e7-bd19-fd3afa0f7e2a_story.html?utm_term=.198d1e43c2e8&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1)

I was puzzled at the references in the reporting to the EU naval mission, as my last post about in them in November 2016 was that it was due to disappear, instead:
On 28 November 2016 the Council of the EU extended the Mandate of Operation ATALANTA until December 2018.Link:http://eunavfor.eu/mission

Currently it has two frigates, one French, One Spanish; with two P3 Orions, one German and one Spanish. See:http://eunavfor.eu/deployed-units/mpras/#news-tabs

[AdamG]

DJIBOUTI (AP) - Pirates have returned to the waters off Somalia, but the spike in attacks on commercial shipping does not yet constitute a trend, senior U.S. officials said Sunday.
The attacks follow about a five-year respite for the region, where piracy had grown to crisis proportions during the 2010-2012 period, drawing the navies of the United States and other nations into a lengthy campaign against the pirates.
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters at a military base in the African nation of Djibouti, near the Gulf of Aden, that even if the piracy problem persists, he would not expect it to require significant involvement by the U.S. military.
At a news conference with Mattis, the commander of U.S. Africa Command said there have been about six pirate attacks on vulnerable commercial ships in the past several weeks.

http://www.wbng.com/story/35219587/us-officials-say-pirates-have-returned-to-waters-off-somalia