Question re: Somali pirates

[Beerball]

Questions?

Great background, thanks Nick!

 

Are the shipping companies paying the ransom or is their insurance company footing the bill?

 

Any idea how far they are from it being cost effective to have a small security team on a vessel? That's what it really comes down to isn't it, cost effectiveness?

[/dev/null]

Are the shipping companies paying the ransom or is their insurance company footing the bill?

 

I heard that the shipping companies pay the ransom. Filing insurance claims would end up increasing their liability costs. So it's cheaper to just pay the ransom themself

 

The above info I got from a friend who's brother works as an able bodied seaman.....heheheheheh, seaman

[nick in* england]

Nick, thanks for a good explanation. How feasible is it for many of the ships to detour around Africa and avoid the area altogether?

Completely unfeasible. You're talking about diverting around the Cape - which adds thousands of miles onto the journeys.

[The Poojer]

Insurance costs would skyrocket...having heavily armed guards on board...that is another part of the problem...the reason for so many cargo ships is the cheap cost of goods from china...add the insurance costs and the cost effectiveness of importing goods begins to flatten out, therein destroying a major economic partner in china....over time thats not a bad thing...but it would be a nightmare in the short term

 

Any idea how far they are from it being cost effective to have a small security team on a vessel?

[The Poojer]

how about going east towards US ports instead of around africa...i have no idea which way is shortest

 

Completely unfeasible. You're talking about diverting around the Cape - which adds thousands of miles onto the journeys.

[MattyT]

Great post...thank you!

 

Questions?

 

When you say...

...foreign navies cannot enter Somali Territorial Waters - that is the belt of ocean 12 nautical miles wide from coastline to its edge. Therefore, a blockade is not possible.

 

...if Somalia has no functioning govt, then who is enforcing this...the UN?

[nick in* england]

I heard that the shipping companies pay the ransom. Filing insurance claims would end up increasing their liability costs. So it's cheaper to just pay the ransom themself

 

The above info I got from a friend who's brother works as an able bodied seaman.....heheheheheh, seaman

 

Correct - it's the companies - not the insurers who are paying.

[PushthePile]

easier- armed guards on the transports.

couple of Ma-deuces and a couple of 40mm grenade launchers.

I agree with you dib. Throw a couple of .50 cals and mk-19s on each ship. Handle these situations like the military handles vehicle born IEDs. If a speeding boat is clearly headed in your direction, sound an alarm/signal. If the boat continues to come at you, fire warning shots. If they still want to come you, open up on them. Is it really hard to imagine terrorist groups looking at this pirate situation, and seeing an easy score? This should be an eye opener to some of these companies. Ransoms aren't that bad with all things considered, IMO.

[nick in* england]

Great post...thank you!

 

 

 

When you say...

 

 

...if Somalia has no functioning govt, then who is enforcing this...the UN?

 

Well - which responsible government or nation state will intentionally put itself in breach of international law? The answer, simply, is none.

 

The UN have a role in enforcing this. As do the international courts. As do the courts of the home nations of the navies present. I know UK and EU extends further than the very limited application of UNCLOS.

 

Think of the repercussions of, say, a US Navy Warship entering Somalia TTW:

 

- will Kenya feel secure that it can continue to operate it's own TTW without feat of the US 'invading'?

- the commander of the USS could be court martialled

- whatever diplomacy goes on between US and Somalia would be severly undermined

- what about the reaction of Iran? US unlawfully entering another Islamic state's sovereign area? Under Obama, I can't see this happening.

 

I could spend time reeling off more scenarios. But you get the picture.

 

Bottom line - countering this is something that has to be done legally by responsible nations. This is not one of those situations that the US wants to wade in unilaterally on.

 

Remember Mogadishu anyone?

[nick in* england]

I agree with you dib. Throw a couple of .50 cals and mk-19s on each ship. Handle these situations like the military handles vehicle born IEDs. If a speeding boat is clearly headed in your direction, sound an alarm/signal. If the boat continues to come at you, fire warning shots. If they still want to come you, open up on them. Is it really hard to imagine terrorist groups looking at this pirate situation, and seeing an easy score? This should be an eye opener to some of these companies. Ransoms aren't that bad with all things considered, IMO.

 

And imagine how much cheaper that solution would be than, say, a massive multi-national deployment of warships...

 

5 x .50 cal machine guns = approx $300,000

 

1 x warship = $tens of millions

[PushthePile]

And imagine how much cheaper that solution would be than, say, a massive multi-national deployment of warships...

 

5 x .50 cal machine guns = approx $300,000

 

1 x warship = $tens of millions

I agree Nick. At some point, these companies are going to have to be responsible for themselves as well. They are on open waters and need to provide their own security, IMO. It gets way too sticky when we start to think about nations getting involved with naval escorts. Now if a hostile situation occurs, have a response plan in order and use whatever assets available.

[bills_fan]

Hey Nick, any truth to the assetions in this piece. Doesn't seem to me to be supported by any facts whatsoever. But I figured I would ask.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/...o_b_155147.html

[Steely Dan]

I actually know something about this. I work for the Ministry of Defence in the UK - I head up the Operations Desk in our Press Office. Piracy is one area that I deal with (in addition to British operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) on a daily basis. (If you are sceptical, you can check my credentials by googling Nick Manning MOD, and marvel at the results). Some of what I say below is a personal opinion, however, and is not an official MOD statement.

 

The simple answer to PTR's question is that foreign navies cannot enter Somali Territorial Waters - that is the belt of ocean 12 nautical miles wide from coastline to its edge. Therefore, a blockade is not possible.

 

The real answer is slightly more complex.

 

Piracy out of Somalia isn't happening in a small area of sea. It's happening in massive swathes of ocean from the relatively small Gulf of Aden, right out into the Indian Ocean. We are talking well in excess of a millions square miles of open ocean here. So even a massive deployment of Naval assets to the region can only monitor a limited amount of shipping activity in that region.

 

Pirates are not operating out of great wooden ships flying a jolly roger flag. They tend to operate out of Skiffs or Dhows, these are small fishing vessels capable of carrying 4-10 people and a small cargo of fish. These are the traditional fishing vessels of the region - operating out of Somalia and out of Yemen. Within the region, the majority of these small boats routinely go about their law abiding business doing fishing and so on as a matter of course. Don't forget also, that just because a fishing boat with a man holding an AK47 is not uncommon. AK's are status symbols in massive parts of the world - so it's not uncommon to see people with them who have not illegal intent. What's more these skiffs are tiny. Unless a warship is right on top of it, it's not going to be able to see it clearly. Even air assets (in shorts supply globally as they are being used to protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) have little hope of detecting piracy in these areas because the intelligence picture is so poor.

 

So it's not as simple as sinking every skiff or shooting every fisherman with an AK. And you can't arrest or detain every fisherman coming and going from ports in Somalia - where is the legal proof that they are a pirate? Unlike the pirates, most nations involved in combating piracy abide at a minimum to UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) so flagrant breaches would amount to commanders of Navy ships being in very hot water.

 

Pirates tend to operate out of secret ports, or from flotillas at sea. They usually have a 'mothership'. This might normally be a pirated luxury yacht or leisure vessel that they can move about in quickly and with agility. This gives them the flexibility of moving around constantly and anchoring up wherever they like. It is on these vessels that they can store the pirate 'paraphernalia' like grappling hooks, rope ladders, RPGs, guns and ammo. So ports aren't completely necessary for these guys.

 

The truth of the matter is that despite lots of media attention on the antics of pirates in the Gulf of Aden, the problem is twofold.

 

First - the shipping companies ALWAYS pay a ransom - so from a pirates point of view this is good business. Millions and millions of dollars are paid every year to pirates by the shipping companies. This is because it's cheaper to pay ransoms that to pay for on-board security teams. Armed guards on vessels in the 'hot zone' would dramatically reduces the chances of attacks being successful.

 

Secondly - and this is the important one - this problem is not a sea problem. As odd as that sounds, the solution to piracy attacks will be on land. Somalia is in a desperate state right now, with no functioning government and poverty as bad as any place you care to mention. Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991. You have civil war, tribal war lords, breakaway nations, everything you need to create a disaffected, rebellious and desperate society. Perfect for breeding criminals and destruction.

 

So there you have it, a rather longwinded explanation of some of the problems.

 

The US Fifth Fleet, British Royal Navy, EU Op ATALANTA, China, Australia, Combined Maritime Force, India, etc etc etc are all making a small difference and are helping essential shipping make safe passage through the region. Escorting World Food Programme vessels is a priority to ensure that aid reaches the right places at the right time. But as I say - this is not a problem that will be solved militarily at sea. It has to be a combination of diplomacy, nation-building, and sensible counter-measure by the shipping companies and individuals intent on moving thought the entire region.

 

Questions?

 

Thanks, an awesome rundown of the problem.

 

 

[nick in* england]

Hey Nick, any truth to the assetions in this piece. Doesn't seem to me to be supported by any facts whatsoever. But I figured I would ask.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/...o_b_155147.html

 

I'll refrain from comment here. It's not my job to comment on specific media reports. I deal with Johann Hari at work, so doubly inappropriate for me to speculate about his piece.

 

But - how could it be true that European countries are both:

-dumping nuclear waste in the sea off somalia

-fishing for seafood in the sea off somalia

 

I'm afraid that doesn't add up.

 

Other than that - I agree with Johann - the problem is not at sea. It is on land. Somalia needs fixing. Then you wouldn't have poor fishermen turning to Piracy.

[DrFishfinder]

It's been reported that guarding against pirate attcks along the coast of Somali is too difficult becuase there are so many ships and too much ocean to cover. But I have to assume while the area the pirates work in is vast, they only sail from a handful Somali ports. So my question is why can't those ports be blockaded to prevent pirate vessels from sailing?

 

Discuss.

 

PTR

One reason is that they work from captured ships that are for some reason, not recognized as captured.

[/dev/null]

Hey Nick, any truth to the assetions in this piece. Doesn't seem to me to be supported by any facts whatsoever. But I figured I would ask.

 

h ttp://www. huffingtonpost .com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html

 

The highlighted part is your first clue in regards to the truthiness of the article

[bills_fan]

I'll refrain from comment here. It's not my job to comment on specific media reports. I deal with Johann Hari at work, so doubly inappropriate for me to speculate about his piece.

 

But - how could it be true that European countries are both:

-dumping nuclear waste in the sea off somalia

-fishing for seafood in the sea off somalia

 

I'm afraid that doesn't add up.

 

Other than that - I agree with Johann - the problem is not at sea. It is on land. Somalia needs fixing. Then you wouldn't have poor fishermen turning to Piracy.

 

 

Thanks Nick. And thanks for sharing your knowledge about this.

[Steely Dan]

I'll refrain from comment here. It's not my job to comment on specific media reports. I deal with Johann Hari at work, so doubly inappropriate for me to speculate about his piece.

 

But - how could it be true that European countries are both:

-dumping nuclear waste in the sea off somalia

-fishing for seafood in the sea off somalia

 

I'm afraid that doesn't add up.

 

Other than that - I agree with Johann - the problem is not at sea. It is on land. Somalia needs fixing. Then you wouldn't have poor fishermen turning to Piracy.

 

This is at the bottom of the piece;

 

POSTSCRIPT: Some commenters seem bemused by the fact that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are happening in the same place - wouldn't this make the fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia's coastline is vast, stretching to 3300km. Imagine how easy it would be - without any coastguard or army - to steal fish from Florida and dump nuclear waste on California, and you get the idea. These events are happening in different places - but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals, and stirred-up piracy. There's no contradiction.

[nick in* england]

This is at the bottom of the piece;

 

POSTSCRIPT: Some commenters seem bemused by the fact that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are happening in the same place - wouldn't this make the fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia's coastline is vast, stretching to 3300km. Imagine how easy it would be - without any coastguard or army - to steal fish from Florida and dump nuclear waste on California, and you get the idea. These events are happening in different places - but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals, and stirred-up piracy. There's no contradiction.

 

But it's not the same as that! Look - it's a bad analogy he has made. The last point is right. There are more factors in play here than just piracy. That's a symptom, not a cause.

[nick in* england]

The highlighted part is your first clue in regards to the truthiness of the article

It's actually a piece from a National Newspaper over here on Monday.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/comme...rs/johann-hari/