Instead of Think Tanks, they should be called Dream Tanks.
I applaud their idealism and wonder about it at the same time...
Here's a guy who's solved the problem; LINK.
Now if we can just get that coalition going and the Somalis and Puntland agree to get their acts together; it'll all be over.
In a generation or two... :rolleyes:
Lesson(s) from the past overlooked?
Moved from another thread on naval matters: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7149
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
(Taken from) Piracy never has gone away - which leads me to ask: What has changed where new, smaller ships are suddenly so badly needed to fight piracy? When in history has such a strategy ever done much to impact piracy? In the long history of piracy, patrolling has never worked.
I am neither a sailor or historian, surely there is a parallel between slavery and piracy? Recently in the muted (UK) public commeroration of the Royal navy's anti-slavery patrolling - off West Africa mainly - much was made of it's effectiveness (I am sure there are references). Incidentally the RN did anti-slavery patrolling in the same waters as today's piracy between WW1 and WW2 - intercepting movements between East Africa and the Arabian pleninsula. IIRC the RN used frigates.
On less certain grounds I recall the Israeli Navy deployed far south in the Red Sea, to protect their shipping (mainly oil supplies?) and used small patrol boats, the Reshef class?
On reflection perhaps supplying local partners with small ships, akin to the coastguard type, would be of assistance and the richer nations could supply the "legs" and helicopters.
davidbfpo
Pirates caught near Seychelles
BBC reporting French action, followed by Seychelles coastguard, against Somali pirates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8031701.stm
Note no reference to them having any weapons, perhaps thrown overboard? Plus 560 miles from Somalia.
davidbfpo
Basic I Law sources re: Somali pirates
The normative I Law concerning piracy on the "high seas" is defined by:
Territorial waters (territorial sea), as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, all 202 pages, is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.
The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the coastal state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it. That sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. As such, the coastal state has jurisdiction over acts of piracy committed within the limits of its sovereignty.
The 1988 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, at 14 pages, expresses a general policy that states establish legal processes to deal with piracy and other actions detrimental to maritime navigation. The US has statutes providing for both universal jurisdiction and nationality jurisdiction over acts of piracy.
In the case of Somalia, the absence of governance in any national reality has led to UNSC Resolution 1816 (2008), and Resolution 1851 (2008). Those resolutions, in effect, extend international jurisdiction into the Somalian territorial sea.
Had a discussion last week with a retired Navy O-6 about restoration of a true Captain's Mast in appropriate cases. We then had to return to the world of present reality. Sorry, Goesh and Slap - we had your sentiments at heart. :)
Navy mission - give the pirates ...
some training - of the remedial kind ? Thus, from Gary Roughhead via Reuters:
Quote:
U.S. Navy says fight against pirates needed ashore
Mon May 4, 2009 11:23pm BST
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland (Reuters) - The fight against piracy must involve efforts on land and at sea, the U.S. Navy's top officer said on Monday, saying the issue was more complex than just putting arms on commercial ships.
"Pirates don't live at sea. They live ashore. They move their money ashore. You can't have a discussion about eradicating piracy without having a discussion about the shore dimension," Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead told reporters after a speech at a Navy League conference.
He said the area off the coast of Somalia was four times the size of Texas and there were complex legal issues involved. He said it was also not clear that the shipping industry wanted to begin using armed convoys to protect ships against pirates. ....
A land operation is probably within the scope of the UN Resolutions linked in a prior post. A "coalition of the willing" might well be harder to obtain.
Going ashore in Somalia is not a good plan, not because we
cannot do the cleanup job but because doing that would entail very large masses of dead Somalis, including women and kids. World opinion won't accept that.
Unfortunately, neither will it accept blowing the boats out of the water -- because the wail will go up "Fishermen; innocent and poor black fisherman were killed by white devils." The Somalis will be the first to wail but that cry will be picked up by many of all races in most western nations and thus the practice will stop far more quickly than it started..
OTOH, destroy ashore a whole slew of those boats identified by satellite or aerial imagery with PGM when they are unoccupied or nearly so and you impede their ability to act. Do it a couple of times and the elders will stop most of the Piracy and get it down to an acceptable level. Piracy there will not stop completely until Somalia is a functioning nation and that is not likely in most of our lifetimes. I'll certainly never see it. ;)
The legal basis for unilateral action ....
against the Barbary pirates is well summed in this amicus brief filed in the Hamdan case (p.14):
Quote:
Like the current Authorization to Use Military Force (“the AUMF ”), none of the Congressional authorizations to the Jefferson and Madison administrations during the Barbary Wars constituted a formal declaration of war. There were at least 11 Congressional authorizations of force against the Barbary Powers; not one was a formal declaration of war. See, e.g., Act for the protection and the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, against the Tripolitan Cruisers, ch. 4, 2 Stat. 129 (1st Sess. 1802); Act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers, ch. 45, 2 Stat. 291-92 (2d Sess. 1804) (recognizing a state of war but not declaring one); Act for the protection of the commerce of the United States against the Algerine Cruisers, ch. 90, 3 Stat. 230 (3d Sess. 1815).
and at p.15:
Quote:
As with the current AUMF, Congress during the Barbary Wars authorized the use of force against an enemy which had not yet been fully identified or defined. Compare Act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary powers, 2 Stat. at 291-92 (authorizing the use of force against “Tripoli” and “any other of the Barbary powers which may commit hostilities against the United States”) with the AUMF, Pub. L. No. 107-40 at § 2, 115 Stat. at 224 (authorizing the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the attacks of September 11, 2001).
These congressional authorizations for action against the Barbary powers continued as the Founders faced an indefinite conflict, ambiguous as to precise enemy, scope, and duration. The Barbary Wars ultimately lasted 30 years as the United States contended with corsairs hailing from various Barbary powers, including Tripoli, Morocco, Tunis, and Algers.
So, viewed from a 18th-19th century perspective, the seizure of a US-flagged ship was an act of war ("armed conflict") then - and, given political will, could be such today. Since unilateral action now has a "bad press", I would not expect Jeffersonian action any time soon - but who knows.
Personally I don't think we should do anything about it
Unless the elders themselves decide they want it.
Now with that said if all the sudden a whole lotta boats start springing leaks don't look at us cause we're not in it:D
Piracy takes TIME to eradicate
[QUOTE=jmm99;71287]Taken from 'against the Barbary pirates...was a thirty year war'.
Nothing like a lawyer to remind us here of the time factor and history. With that in mind, how would we plan now? I suspect for a policy maker raids to ensure leaking boats is the first preventative option, not PGMs. Others can comment whether this is simply practical and effective.
davidbfpo