jackehammondAs far as buissines goes.. at least two major shipping companies are now rerouting their vessels around cape and will not be using suez canal … and more are sure to follow, as success of pirate raids increases and others are drawn in. If you ignore problem it will escalate and eventually it would have to be dealt with.
Dear Members,
What I can not figure out is Egypt. Egypt relies on two major sources for hard currency. One if tourism (the Pyramids, etc) and the other is the Suez Canal. After Egypt and Israel made peace, the US help financed the enlargement of the Suez Canal so Super Carriers and huge tankers could transit that canal instead of rounding the south tip of Africa. And if these huge ships (they are charged by the ton) stop using the Suez Canal, Egypt will loose a lot of money.
I just checked my WORLD DEFENSE ALMANAC and Egypt has 48 (forty-eight) small patrol vessels (excluding the minesweepers which would add another 10). If I were Egypt I would pass laws stating that piracy in the Aden Gulf is a danger to the Suez Canal and get permission from Djibouti for berthing rights for some of those vessels and one of its amphibious warfare vessels for crewing spaces. If Djibouti objects, I would start thinking maybe Djibouti is getting a pay off.
Also, another think the West can do is crater the runways in Puntland. You cut Somalias off from their Qat and you get their attention fast like cutting off crack in Baltimore.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondWho said anything about ignoring it? As far as I can see, everyone here is suggesting pretty robust action, such as what the Indian Navy has just done. There should be more of that.
What I have argued against is a military attack on any of the Somali ports. This would result in greater losses, both in shipping & lives (& the lives of captured ships crews & innocent bystanders, not only pirates) than continuing to pay ransoms. To deter piracy, we do what the RN did the other day, what the IN has just done, & has been done, successfully, in the Straits of Malacca in the last few years. Take action directly against pirates on the high seas & in territorial waters. Co-ordinate action by different countries (improved co-operation between the littoral states has been key to success in the Malacca Straits). Protect ships, by providing enough escorts, & guards, to make the risks unacceptably high for pirates.
That is not ignoring piracy, it’s a positive programme for defeating it.
Dear Member,
Only one problem. It won’t work. Unlike the piracy problem in the Malacca straits Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are not failed states. Pirates in that region have to hit the ship, take what they can and leave the ship. There is no “sanctuary” where they can take the hijack ship and hold it till ransom is paid. Apples and Oranges.
Jack E. Hammond
PS> Some on revealed that in 1817 a US Supreme Court justice ruled that if any merchant or naval vessels that seized pirates or slavers in the act and they were unable (time and safety) to bring them to trial they could hang them. It was pretty set in what is called “Laws of Nations”. About every other major maritime nation had similar rulings (ie those of the UK would make your shudder).
.
jackehammondIts definately cash, a ‘security consultant’ whom has done this for a shipowner was talking about it on the radio yesterday.
Interestingly a shipping law expert just said on the BBC that there is a UN security council resolution that allows for the interception of the motherships but probably not the smaller boats that they send of to do the business. That is unless the small boats fire on a Naval vessel first in which case they are toast, which kinda backs up what the RN did the other day.
Those that were captured by the RN have been transported to Kenya for trial, where the Kenyan authorities are apparently very pleased to be dealing with them.
Dear Member,
Unless the navies in that area are willing to destroy the boats — ie instead of chasing them off — while in the act with out mercy it is a waste of time. And yes, Kenya will put them on trial and gladly put them in jail and then gladly let them go on the grounds some Kenyan fisherman are in danger when in fact they are paid under the table. The money is just to good and easy to get.
Btw, watch the navies will patrol heavier and the pirates will just grab a small coastal sailing ship and just move further south and seize the ships. Just like the Barbary Pirates move out into the Atlantic and even raided off of Ireland (once taking a whole coastal village into slavery). As long as they have a secure land base near the sea they can go out as far as needed. Because once they have the ship they can sail it as far as needed with the hostages making sure they will not be bothered.
Eventually some navy vessel will be very cold blooded (ie the Russians for example) and disable or even sink the vessel making it clear you bother the other worlds ships and cargoes and not ours. One thing for sure a lot of new ships will flag with Russia after that.
Jack E. Hammond
.
.
jackehammondDear Members,
Unless they are willing to play hardball and basically give exemption to the rules of warfare, it is just better to pay ransom. The problem with that is that it will encourage other countries to look the other way and set up other enterprises (ie they can say they have no control over that territory and not only take a proceed of the ransom under the table, shake down the Western nations for funds to train their army/navy in fighting pirates).
As to those worried that playing hardball will result in the notorious blood feud, etc and it will not work. You are right. It will not work, unless you are willing to play hard ball to the wall. But it will work if you do. Even the Somalias have their limit. The British Navy proved that in the 1800s when they at last did play hardball. But the Western public (ie the Russians, Indians and other Arab nations that it seems will join, have no problem) should be made clear what this means. And understand that the interference of trade will have consequences that in a way will mean massive losses of life. It is that trade that allows the Western nations to give humanitarian help, etc.
Finally, this whole problem actually started the day after October 3rd 1993 after the famous Ranger Battle. All of Somalia was waiting for the US Army to come back and clean Aedeed and his clans clock. He had lost a huge amount of his warriors. And the US Army was very ready and willing to do that. Along with a “few” of the other nations that sent troops. But Clinton lost his nerve. And all the Somalia warlords went basically “Hey! Guess what!!” (Along with bid Laden btw)
Jack E. Hammond
PS> Piracy is going to go out of the roof now in that area. A lot of the pirates and wannabees that want the riches of the pirates in Somalia now think that their window will not last long and they have to move and get rich as soon as possible before — they believe at least — that window closes with more security and ships avoiding that whole area which can pay the huge ransoms. But the message has been sent. And some other pirates will seizing huge ships will happen only using as an “excuse” some political statement.
.
jackehammondFolks,
The French have about the most practical and cost effective warship for situations like off the coast of Somalia. It is the FLOREAL class “sentry” frigates. At the link below check the cruise range and crew size. Also these frigates are built to commercial hull standards and are far cheaper to operate and have far more comfortable provision for the crew than other warships in its class. To be blunt is stupid to have some of the super expensive naval warships off of Somalia that are designed to fight submarines, other modern warships and aircraft to combat ragtag pirates in speed boats!
Jack E. Hammond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flor%C3%A9al_class_frigate
.
jackehammondWell I guess the Styx gained greater fame in its Chinese incarnation as the Silkworm. I believe The Iranians used a lot of them in the ‘Tanker war’ during the Iran-Iraq war. While the Iraqis fired several hundreds of Exocets in the same war. The Exocet’s probably more high-tech (later technology) but the Silkworm had a much larger warhead… making it more effective against tankers??
Dear Member,
Not for sure if the Iranians ever used the Chinese Silkworm. If any ship launched antishipping missile it was most likely the Sea Killer 1 (the only nation other than Italy — and Italy only had limited use of that missile — to order them fitted to British Vosper corvettes) which was a version of a beam riding antiair missile with a short range (10km) and a small warhead (20kil). Also, most of the attacks on merchants vessels during the “tanker war” was by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards using small high speed Swedish vessels, using RPGs, machine guns and explosives near the hull. The Iranians did not want to actually sink a tanker. Just drive the insurance rates so high that they would not enter the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would stop allowing merchant ships with arms for Iraq off loading at their ports and then being shipped over land to Iraq.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondDanish AF training for anti-shipping
Folks,
I know many will find this shocking, but the Danes actually practiced antishipping missions using the Draken employing the over the shoulder release method to avoid the ships anti-air weapons. I would love to know if they tried this against a practice ship under radio control. I just can’t image in working.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondNow if they could just go a bit further…..burn the boat, put the crew back onto dry land. Go back and forth up and down the coast bombarding any known shore bases of the pirate groups.
Dear Member,
And that would make them liable for arrest as war criminals. Until 1954 (when the 1949 Geneva Convention went into effect) it would have been a legal option under the doctrine of reprisal. But because of the way the Germans and Japanese acted in WW2 both “reciprocity” and “reprisal” were outlawed.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondCould you perhaps be thinking of Japan? The Japanese definitely had a plan to bomb the locks of the Panamas Canal using special floatplanes launched from submarines but it never happened.
Colin
Dear Member,
No it was Italian. Besides the Japanese, the German’s also had a plan to bomb the US staging through some Latin American area.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondErr, I am not sure if I follow you. American, Australian or European companies have all their cargo ships registered in Liberia to save on taxes and if they get attacked, then Liberian Navy should be called in to protect them (on Liberian costs)? I sure as hell would not want to fork out a single Liberian penny to protect foreign ships whose owners then cash the winnings.
Dear Member,
Whose tax money is paying for the warship and crews that are on the anti-piracy patrols that protect those Liberian and Panamanian merchant vessels?
Think about it.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondDear Member,
The original specs for the program that the OV-10A won, required the aircraft to be able to operate from helicopter carriers of the Iwo Jima class. That is why it has the short wing span and special lift items.
Also, if you want to read a great book about the Bronco, find a copy of a LONELY KIND OF WAR about a USAF FAC in Vietnam who flew one and who illegally landed one on a road at night to rescue what was basically a CIA team of Chinese guns for hire doing reconn work and were being chased by the North Vietnamese. The USAF pilot did it for one good reason. When he was assigned to work for them, the CIA officer stated no matter what if he was shot down they would pull every thing they had from every mission to get him. Then one day a USAF pilot was shot down and landed in Cambodia and the powers that be did not know if they wanted to violate Cambodian territory with USAF, USN or US Army helicopters to rescue that pilot. The FAC working with the CIA put a call in. The CIA sent what they called a “Mike Team” and helicopters and got him. According to the author when that rescued pilot got back to base there was a serious fight that had to be broke up because his own would not come and get him.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondDear Members,
The French film “A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT”. War veterans who have served in both WW1 and WW2 have stated WW1 trench warfare was by far the worst. This film shows why in vivid detail.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondDear Members,
The French film “A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT”. War veterans who have served in both WW1 and WW2 have stated WW1 trench warfare was by far the worst. This film shows why in vivid detail.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondI think you have missed the point. The 1949 convention covers the conduct of wars, not the pursuit of criminals. You don’t need an exemption to it for law enforcement. Piracy is not warfare, it is criminality. Anti-piracy actions are not warfare, they are law enforcement.
BTW, the nominal governments of Somalia & Puntland have both agreed to internationa action against pirates within their territorial waters, & to a limited degree, on their territory.
Dear Member,
In fact you are mistaken like a lot of others on this issue. Piracy has always been considered apart from warfare and criminal activity. It is on par with genocide, etc. The US Constitution even sets it apart and allows the US Congress to make special rules governing the suppression of and punishment of piracy and classified it as a violation of the Laws of Nations. A lot like the UK discovered with combating the slave trade in which those vessels and crews they stopped which had excess feeding facilities, massive confinement a bedding facilities below decks, chains, etc. were basically guilty and the ship condemned till the crew and owner could prove otherwise. Treating either as warfare gives a legitimacy that those that engage it do not deserve and treating it as a criminal matter is totally ineffective. That is why I stated it will take a UNSC Chapter 5 resolution to effectively suppress it and that resolution has to give special exemption from the Geneva Convention 1949. Anything else is a waste of time.
Jack E. Hammond
.
jackehammondThe problem is not that anti-piracy patrols are subject to the 1949 GC, but that some authorities appear to think (wrongly, IMO) they should apply it. The 1958 & 1982 maritime conventions imply that piracy is criminal, but the recent UN security council resolutions (1816 & 1838) have muddied the waters a little (but only a little) by referring to piracy as a threat to “international peace & security”, urging the use of military force, & referring to the “fight” against piracy, which can be read to imply that piracy is akin to war, although both use the terms “crime” & “criminal”, & lump it in with armed robbery.
What is desirable is not an exemption (absolutely the wrong thing to do! Sets all kinds of nasty precedents – a good law does not have exemptions, it’s drawn up so as to put the things not covered by it outside the scope of that law), but a definitive ruling making it clear that piracy is simple criminality, & criminal laws apply to it, not the 1949 GC. An exemption would only be appropriate if the 1949 GC did apply – but I don’t believe it does.
Dear Member,
If military forces are used to fight the Somalia pirates and they are not given an exception to the 1949 GC, two things will happen: 1> They will be ineffective in fighting the pirates or 2> They will be effective and violate the GC 1949. If you read the history of the suppression of the Moro Pirates you will come to one conclusion pretty fast: They were only finally defeated when James Brooke came along who did not care about the laws of warfare, etc. Took the Moros totally by surprise (ie on of the tactics the Moros used when the Dutch were chasing a ship the had just captured was to just start throwing crew and passengers over board one at time with their throats slit. The chase would soon stop).
Some members of the House of Commons even got upset at how Brooke handled the subject. But a House member came to his defense with these words: “James Brooke’s sympathies are with the victims,
Gladstone’s with the pirates.”
For example if a warship finds one of those fast boats way far out from the Somalia coast (which there is no reason for them being that far out) and find RPGs and long ladders or grappling hooks on them they know what they are doing. You say they could arrest them. That would just result in them seizing some other ship and hostages. If Somalia pirates “know” they will be sunk if they are cruising with ladders and grappling hooks they will stop. And most reporters who talk to them have commented on how they can’t believe they can get away with it. Also, they use small sailing ships out there as mother ships. They know which of these ships send out warnings about patrolling warships. Do you really think they can stop these mother ships and remain within the 1949 GC?
Finally, the old way of handling these kind of pirates was simple and drastic. It was to just level the port or ports they operated from with naval cannon fire. But as hard as I sound, I am even against that. Although that tactic would probably save a lot more lives in the long run. Because you see, other nations are getting ideas from the Somalias. Basically looking the other way if pirates start operating (and getting a cut) and saying “We have no control over those areas, but it is our territory and no you do not have our permission to do anything about it.”
Jack E. Hammond
Note> The UNSC Chapter 5 resolution I purposed would be a very dangerous resolution. It would be similar to the old Roman “ultimate decree”. And like those old Roman “ultimate decrees” they should have a “drop dead” date when they are null and void — eg one or two years.
.
Sign In
