More Piracy Near Somalia

[goesh]

- just saw it on FOX news. I've had the notion that a Captain of a ship could pass summary judgement on the high seas on anyone aboard and anyone brought aboard to insure the safety of the ship and crew. This most likely is a product of my imagination and wishful thinking and there should be legal eagles on hand to give us the straight scoop on this. A few years in a gulag may be in order for the lads, time to reflect on their rowdy ways while enjoying 2 bowls of watered down beet soup and a couple of crusts of moldy bread per diem.

[Ken White]

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...

[slapout9]

You know what Russian waterboarding is? Walk the plank

[LawVol]

I knew I'd find a connection between my space law studies and this pirate thing.

US May Monitor Pirates from Space

Although I'd much prefer this response if we could perfect the technology.

[davidbfpo]

Moved from another thread on naval matters: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7149

(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

[bourbon]

What a shameful day for pirates to be driven off by fire hoses, Johhny Depp wouldn't be proud of them, sort of takes away some of the Hollywood glory accorded them.

Your not the only one who thinks the pirates have a reputation to uphold. (Video - 2:30)

[davidbfpo]

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

[jmm99]

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.

[Tom Odom]

and for bad ideas:

The piracy fight: What role should the U.S. military play in Somalia?

STUTTGART, Germany — It’s arguably the most dangerous country in the world and a place that seethes with hostility toward the United States, but as the White House mulls how to deal with Somalia and the pirates who operate there, it must determine whether U.S. troops have a role to play in bringing stability.

If the U.S. military were to get involved, it could be in the form of helping Somalia’s fledgling transitional government build its own security forces — U.S. Africa Command’s specialty.

U.S. troops as trainers with boots on the ground in Somalia?

That would be a disaster, according to some Somalia observers, who contend it would delegitimize in the eyes of the Somalis the very transitional government the U.S. is trying to support.

However, AFRICOM’s deputy for military operations, Vice Adm. Robert T. Moeller, disagrees. While emphasizing that there is no decision or plan at the moment to launch such a training initiative, Moeller said Friday, “I think we can work our way through that and have an ongoing dialogue with the government as well as the population overall.”

[jmm99]

some training - of the remedial kind ? Thus, from Gary Roughhead via Reuters:

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.

[Tom Odom]

The Navy gets a relatively clear mission:

Fight pirates=sink pirate boats with pirates in them

But insted they want to go ashore and really get in the proverbial briar patch

Anti-piracy is not a social mission. We do not need to rebuild Somalia--the Somalis have proved decisively in the past 2 decades they do not see international assistance as anything but a target.

Somalis do respect force when wielded unflinchingly. Sink enough pirate boats with pirates in them and they will stop getting in the boats.

Tom

[jmm99]

I don't like briar patches either.

Once upon a time, the Navy (and its Fleet Marine component) managed to deal with pirates at the source - their land bases. All without social engineering - at least in the modern sense. I think they called those raids.

But, that was then - and now is now.

[Ken White]

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.

[William F. Owen]

Somalis do respect force when wielded unflinchingly. Sink enough pirate boats with pirates in them and they will stop getting in the boats.

I agree, but it looks like DOD and NATO are all trying to come up with reasons why they don't want to kill and capture pirates.

[jmm99]

from Ken
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.

no problem with this plan (except for the same problem discussed below, which applies to everyone's suggestions) - I'd rather destroy something than kill someone. If it works, the problem is solved; if not, then re-consider.

from Wilf
... it looks like DOD and NATO are all trying to come up with reasons why they don't want to kill and capture pirates

I'd suspect two things (at least) are at work here, which limits the "kill" part of the equation. One is the "world opinion" thing mentioned by Ken. The other is that piracy is considered a criminal law enforcement problem (ref to various docs cited above, which contemplate arrest of the pirates).

So, the ROEs are first off restricted by a self-defense constraint (based on the conduct of the pirates). Thus, the "kill" part is a last resort. Even the "capture" part has been plagued by the lack of a practical means of prosecution. So, quite a few pirates, even if detained iniitally, have been released to avoid the hassle of prosecuting them.

As to Tom's "sink boats and pirates", to JMM's "hit them with raids on bases", and even to Ken's "sink their boats in port", all would require an AUMF - which, as the good admiral noted, involves some legal complexity.

Basically, the pirates would have to be regarded as Transnational Violent Non-State Actors involved in an armed conflict. Since this is a UN show, that would require action by the Security Council.

Then was then; now is now.

------------------
Have to add this. This is not a legal problem - that is, caused by some JAG officer being picky. Rather, it is a question of political will - and not by the US and NATO alone, since the UN is the source of power to act here.

[jmm99]

against the Barbary pirates is well summed in this amicus brief filed in the Hamdan case (p.14):

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:

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.

[Ron Humphrey]

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

[Tom Odom]

Guys

I heard the elders will control things in 1984 on the ground and I heard it again in 1992 as we spun up to go in for Restore Hope. Somali culture is not Arab and the elders are not sheikhs. The fracture of the traditional lines of authority is near complete. The pirates started with the fishing community but expanded after they started making millions. Big surprise that.

Destroying boats as a tactic is fine; recognize that the Somalis will buy, steal, or build more.

Developing Somali's economy to offset a loss of piracy is the same as offering potatoes as a crop substitute for opium in Afghanistan. Kinder, gentler perhaps but ineffective.

Afloat or ashore, some Somalis are going to get shot if this surge in piracy is to end. I had rather we use our naval and air advantage to dominate. Otherwise we might as well form convoys and pay the pirates for passage rights.

At least one shipping firm is stepping up:

Shipping company head wants to arm vessels against pirates

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The head of a shipping company recently victimized by pirates off the Somali coast told lawmakers Tuesday that U.S. cargo crews should be allowed to arm themselves in response to the rising hijacking threat.


In April, pirates attacked The Liberty Sun, a U.S.-flagged cargo ship, but were unable to board.

Philip Shapiro, head of Liberty Maritime Corp., told a U.S. Senate Commerce subcommittee that the owners of U.S.-flagged "have done all they can within the law to protect our crews."

Unfortunately, he said, U.S. vessels are still largely at the mercy of pirates in shipping lanes around the heavily trafficked Gulf of Aden.

"In light of the recent threats to U.S. merchant mariners, we respectfully request that Congress consider clearing the obstacles that currently block ship owners from arming our vessels," Shapiro said

And yes I know times are different. That does not mean that we have to mistake stupidity for civility. Civility without firepower in Somalia is truly stupid because they merely see it as an opportunity.

Best
Tom

[davidbfpo]

[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

[goesh]

IMO, Tom says it all: "Somalis do respect force when wielded unflinchingly. Sink enough pirate boats with pirates in them and they will stop getting in the boats." The notions of going ashore are predicated on a Liberal assumption that depredations are not being committed by pirates upon the Somali people ashore, that somehow economics and social conditions and bad education and poor diet and lack of medical care are driving them to sea there to loot and plunder and murder. One jerk told me the pirates were not able to fish any longer and had to be become pirates. Can you find any easier pickings than fat merchant ships whose sole threat to pirates is squirting them with a fire hose? Unleash upon this scourge hard men who do not flinch at the sight of blood and be done with it. Weeping Jesus! We have elements of our Naval forces hovering about these brigands like mother hens. It's shameful to behold.