India 'sinks Somali pirate ship'

[Bhaisahab]

Source: BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7736885.stm

An Indian navy warship has destroyed a suspected Somali pirate vessel after it came under attack in the Gulf of Aden.

The INS Tabar sunk the pirate "mother ship" after it failed to stop for investigation and opened fire instead, an Indian navy statement said.

There has been a surge in piracy incidents off the coast of Somalia.

The latest incident came days after the Saudi-owned Sirius Star supertanker and its 25 crew were seized by pirates and anchored point off the Somali coast.

Vela International, operators of the Sirius Star, told the BBC no demands had yet been received from the pirates. The company also said all the crew were safe.

The biggest tanker ever hijacked, Sirius Star is carrying a cargo of two million barrels - a quarter of Saudi Arabia's daily output - worth more than $100m (£67m).

Analysts say the pattern of other hijackings suggests a ransom request is likely to follow. Given the value of the tanker and its cargo, that request is likely to be large one, analysts suggest.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7736885.stm

[Sherman A1]

1. One has to wonder

what the effect of a couple of carrier strike groups in the area would be for a couple of months. It's not like we don't have the navy to do this and just what else are they doing anyway at this point. I think international piracy is a priority for ours and other navies of the world.

[Bhaisahab]

5. You're absolutely correct.

We need a multinational effort in that part of the ocean. Because it won't take long for Allie Q to take notice of the pirates' growing clout in a crucial part of the world (the mideast oil route). The solution should however go beyond patrolling. One has to also look at strengthening governance in the horn of Africa.

[Sherman A1]

11. I agree that governance in the Horn of Africa is essential, but that is

a long term issue (that should have been done long ago). Yet we see the Australian Navy taking a couple of months off this Christmas (hey, good for them), we have 10 Carrier Strike Groups that can be used (yes, there is that rotation and maintenance thing) and numerous Assault Ships as well as Awacs and smaller vessels. A good two month intense program of aggressive patrolling and escorting with inspections and boarding of any and all vessels in the area along with the use of deadly force for any vessel that fails to "heave to", might not solve the entire problem, but sure would get the pirates attention.

[14thColony]

14. There is already a NATO maritime patrol force operating in the area

It's called Operation ALLIED PROVIDER, and it has been in place since 24 October 2008. The ships provide escort for World Food Programme shipments to Somalia, a prime pirate target, and will also render assistance to any other merchantman under threat by pirates. Right now OAP consists of one Italian destroyer (the flagship), one British frigate, one Turkish frigate, and one Greek frigate. I know the Royal Navy vessel and the Italian destroyer have both already engaged pirates, and warships of other NATO nations transiting the area also provide assistance; thus US and French navy vessels have also chased pirates.

http://www.afsouth.nato.int/JFCN_Operations/allied_provider/index.htm

In addition to all that, obviously the INS Tabar is out there, and now the Russian frigate RNS Neustrashimyy is also patrolling the area. The Tabar and Neustrashimyy have also directly engaged pirate vessels.

So at least six destroyers or frigates, plus transiting vessels that will provide assistance as well. In this era, that's a pretty big naval force.

The problem is there is a whole lot of ocean out there, and this is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Six warships can't be everywhere all the time.

[izquierdista]

44. A whole lot of ocean?

I suppose leaky Somali fishing boats can hide from satellites, radar, and aerial surveillance. I suppose as long as the Keystone Kops are in charge of the "world's strongest military" and actually have to do some patrolling instead of sitting on their ass writing checks to their favorite defense contractor for more toys that they don't use, the situation won't change.

[14thColony]

50. Hmmm....where to start...

A whole lot of ocean: yes, the two areas where Somali pirates operate is on the order of 100,000 square nautical miles. Keep in mind with the capture of the Sirius Star 450nm SE of Mombasa, that area just got a whole lot bigger.

Leaky Somali fishing boats: some are; some are dows and motor skiffs. Some are also modern high-speed RIBs and zodiac-type boats with all the trimmings. The successful pirate clans have plenty of money to buy good equipment. They also use commercial comms equipment to search for the target ship's transponder, bribe harbormasters in other countries for schedules and bills of lading of valuable ships, and use motherships to get their attack boats into range. They may look ramshackle, but they know what they're doing.

Satellites: are easy to hide from for a boat, mainly because for all practical purposes we never use them to look for ships in the open ocean. Needle in a haystack. Actually hundreds of needles, only one of which might be a bad needle. Unless you have perfect coordinates, you won't get it. And if you have perfect coordinates, you probably don't need the shot.

Radar: sends back blips. Hundreds of fishing boats and merchants in those waters. Which blip is the bad blip?

Aerial Surveillance: there isn't any, but even if there were, see Radar.

Keystone Kops: please note that the NATO force does not contain any US Navy vessels, and actually they and the Russian and Indian ships are doing pretty well considering how much ocean they have to cover (see first part).

[WoodrowFan]

58. thank you

thank you, some actual facts are always nice in a discussion...

[trueblue2007]

103. I say.....BOMB the crap out of those Somali pirates. Get rid of those terrorists!!

[DRoseDARs]

2. I want to feel upset about this but I don't. The Indians tried and were met with deadly force.

Fuck the pirates, sink them on sight, rescue whatever survivors you can and prosecute them as prisoners of war. Don't give their ships the chance to escape; once they've opened fire, they've committed an act of war and should be sunk accordingly.

[BunkerHill24]

3. Have you ever auditioned any of the Rambo movies?

[DRoseDARs]

9. Have you ever not used ad hominens? n/t

[midnight]

10. Ha Ha Ha... That's a good one.

[barb162]

83. Cute response but what do you do when someone fires at you?

Call 911? The Indians did the right thing.

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. Trouble with that..

All incidents I am aware of have seen crew & ship of the merchant ships relatively unharmed from start to finish; "shoot on sight" policies tend to be applied both ways once someone applies it on their end. Thus a bad situation turned worse in that regard.. I know the tough talk feels good, but it doesn't always (actually--rarely, if ever) go as well as the 194th Keyboard Brigade would envision. Bad policies somewhat created and largely fed the current situation, bad policies will make them severely blow up too.

[thepurpose]

7. I agree. While it may make everyone feel good to get the bad guys all it will take is a mistake and

that feel good goes away.

[DRoseDARs]

8. Apparently, neither of you read the "once they've opened fire" part.

:eyes:

The Indians tried it your way, were fired upon, and did exactly what they should have done in response.

[sendero]

13. I agree with you...

... these people have nothing to lose and if memory serves they have killed crewmen already.

After they fire one shot they become eligible for termination with extreme prejudice.

[14thColony]

18. The pirates have killed no one so far

The Russian captain of the Ukrainian MV Farina collapsed and died of a heart attack during the capture of his ship, but that was from the stress of the event, not any direct action by the pirates.

The pirate leaders have been very very careful not to cause any harm to the crews, and in fact make a point of ensuring that they are kept in comfort while negotiations for ransom are ongoing. Pirate leaders have intervened when rank-and-file pirates have tried to rob crewmen or steal personal property, in one case ordering their men to return everything they took.

For the pirate leaders, this is just business. If a merchant crew is confident they won't be harmed, and will generally be well-treated, they will be less inclined to try armed resistance, which is also in the best interests of the pirates.

So far the Somali pirates have been rather 'gentlemanly' about it, moreso than their 17th century French and English forbearers. Basically, "tag, you're captured...now you sit here for 4 to 6 weeks until your company pays up, then off you go."

Does this make what is essentially maritime carjacking right? No, but let's keep some perspective on how bad the problem is. I think it's telling that the shipping companies themselves aren't all that concerned.

[sendero]

19. Nonetheless..

.... they ARE brandishing weapons. The first time they are resisted, people will die.

I have as much sympathy for the plight of the poor as anyone, but this shit has to be stopped, whatever it takes.

[14thColony]

20. Funny enough

The one time I know of that a crew did resist, it was pirates who died.

The pirates made the mistake of trying to seize a North Korean freighter last fall. I don't think they had a clear idea of what North Koreans are like. It didn't end well for the pirates. Ironically, a US Navy destroyer came to the aid of the North Korean vessel and assisted the crew in retaking their ship.

[AndyTiedye]

61. It's Not Helping the Poor When the Pirates Take AID SHIPMENTS Intended for Their Own Country!

[Dorian Gray]

89. They're real sweethearts, those pirates!

[14thColony]

95. no, they're not and I'm not saying they are

But like the average mugger or carjacker, they don't want any trouble. Trouble makes things unpredictable, and that's bad for all. If the crews know they won't be harmed, they're less likely to resist. Far better for the pirates that way. But they have certainly threatened to kill crews in the past, and might end up doing so in the future.

[comrade snarky]

106. The problem as I see it

Is that the situation will by it's nature devolve into active violence.

Piracy is not an occupation of the sane stable and relaxed. Eventually crew members will be hurt or killed. When that happens other crews will be more likely to fight back with deadly force. I realize cargo ships are not allowed to carry arms due to the regulations of many ports however I don't believe an inventive crew member with a machine shop couldn't come up with a dozen ways to kill or maim a threat. Once that begins, whichever side starts it, the escalation will be swift.

It could easily end in a situation similar to own American pirates of a few hundred years ago. If you ran or fought, you died. If you gave up and handed over your cargo and ship you would probably live. The ones who fought were often tortured to terrorize other crews into not fighting. As we've all learned fear is a potent weapon. The only good solution is a long term stabilization of Ethiopia and the Horn as has been said. Short Term, I don't see much other than an international military force that can end or reduce the problem of piracy.

This is a very important shipping corridor and if I were crew on one of these ships I sure wouldn't be willing to risk my ass so the USA can keep it's gas under $3.50 a gallon.

[barb162]

82. You're correct. The opening of fire met a response.

I'm glad the Indian frigate sunk that pirate ship.

[Catch22Dem]

12. If you let them take what they want with no repercussions...

they'll continue to do it. You can't stand by and not respond with force and expect it to go away. Look where that got us with the * administration. We let them commit piracy on our Constitution for 8 years and did NOTHING to stop them. We should have responded with opposite and UNequal force years ago.

[riverdeep]

70. Depends on the pirates.

In 1999, a Chinese crew, all twenty three, were killed on boarding by pirates. These were largely other Chinese pirates attacking in South China Sea waters, not off Somalia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/622435.stm

The Chinese solution was a public execution of the captured pirates. Video exists somewhere, I've seen it.

[louis-t]

102. I've heard it said that policy would create escalation.

I also think a shoot on sight policy would stop piracy. If pirates start sending shoulder fired missiles, they will be a lot easier to spot and fire upon. Won't be pretty for a while, but pirates are getting bolder and must be stopped. Private security is the best way. 4 guys on a ship with Uzis. Light the ship so they cannot attack in the dark.

[14thColony]

15. Piracy is not war and captured pirates are not POWs or war criminals

And the rules of war in general don't apply to pirates. By centuries-old convention pirates are simply seaborne criminals, with none of the rights accorded to prisoners of war, who are assumed to be 'men of honor.' Since pirates are not fighting as part of any national government but strictly for their own personal gain, they have no privileges of POWs, but likewise cannot be charged with war crimes, since this requires being a combatant in a war.

Historically, countries might issue 'letters of marque' to friendly pirates, essentially enlisting them to attack enemy shipping in time of war. This turned these pirates into privateers, and made them lawful combatants should they be captured.

[ChazII]

21. What ever happened to

talking first? I believe it is called using diplomatic channels? What you are suggesting sounds like what * would do and endorse.

[DRoseDARs]

25. Dur, did you even READ the article? The Indian warship contacted the ship first and was fired upon.

They tried to talk, were threatened with "blow up the naval warship" by the pirates, closed in and were fired upon by the pirates as promised.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. I think it's your 'sink them on sight' remark that's causing the responses

It rather implies you think no-one should try to talk (or tell them to surrender) any more.

[AnneD]

39. I am sure the India Government would have happily....

would be happy to contact the Pirate Embassy just as soon as their ship was not under fire. Say what is the Pirate Embassy address and phone number anyway? Some of you are trying to impose social laws onto a lawless situation. You'd be better off teaching a pig to whistle.

Honestly, I am astounded by the lack of common sense in some folks.:eyes:

These are criminals committing crimes. They do not live by laws (that's why they are pirates-DUH) and you have a right to defend yourself in the absence of legal authority (call it your right to survive).

If not dealt with immediately and harshly-they will continue to rob and commercial and private boating will not be possible. To give it a Dr. Phil spin...stealing works for them. Blow their ships up if they attack and let the survivors do jail.

Am I for wholesale shooting of vessels-NO.

But I don't think you have to sit there and get shot at and captured if you can fight back. Self defense is a right too.

edited to add...sometimes there are not enough sarcasm smilies.....

[Chovexani]

105. Well, they could always get someone to speak to the Pirate King

Assuming they still have one after that last little dustup involving the tiny capitalist pig and his comrade with the tentacles on his face.

[hack89]

59. Who do you talk to in Somalia - there is no government to speak of.

it is the poster child of fail states.

[Lionel Mandrake]

67. Absolutely right.

Too bad one of the speedboats got away.

[lib2DaBone]

4. The U.S. Military has spy satellites, AWAC Planes.....

....we are shooting illegal missiles into Pakistan, we have drone airplanes zapping people with laser cannons in Eye-Rack... but yet we can't stop a group of kids with AK's from seizing oil tankers?

Next news item will be how the price of gas is going up because of the pirates. WTF?

Business as usual from Washington. Is it January yet?

[hack89]

17. These aren't kids with AKs

they are experienced militia men - piracy has been a family business for centuries. I also don't think you appreciate just how many ships and boats are in that area and how large the ocean is - detecting and stopping pirates would be very difficult.

Historically (dating back to the Romans) the only effective way to stop pirates is to destroy their land bases. That is how the British suppressed piracy in Asia
in the 1800s. Are you ready for another ugly guerrilla war?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

63. True that

and the centuries of Barbary piracy only came to an end when the French overran their bases in North Africa.

[riverdeep]

73. I don't think these particular people have been at it for centuries.

These were originally fisherman in the 90's trying to protect their stocks from other nations that saw an opportunity for easy catches when Somalia became a failed state. The oppressed became the oppressor, as is often the wont.

[hack89]

75. Could be - they are, however, fast learners.

my main point is that the only way to stop it is to either fix Somalia or start attacking their land bases.

[14thColony]

22. All that is of little use in this arena

Satellites can't be used to track vessels in real-time, despite what Hollywood shows. Even if we knew which fishing dow or skiff out of the hundreds out there was a pirate vessel, by the time anyone reads out the image it's hours later and that boat is long gone. AWACS can do limited ground tracking, but they're overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even then how do you tell which of the hundreds of blips out there is the pirate?

Sure, we could station Predators or Global Hawks nearby and fly round-the-clock tracking every suspected pirate vessel coming out of one of the known pirate bases, but that would require a mind-boggling amount of resources that have to be stripped from everywhere else. And for what purpose? There are still only at most SIX warships out there to cover the 1,500 pirates with hundreds of boats that are part of about 20 pirate clans operating in a massive expanse of ocean that's full of shipping.

If the shipping companies thought it was such a big deal, they'd avoid the area and take the Cape of Good Hope route. Even with Lloyds increasing insurance rates for ships using this sealane, the shipping companies are still not willing to do that. So how much of a problem is there?

No one seems near this concerned about everyday roadside banditry in Afghanistan, Pakistan, South America, and South East Asia that causes more economic loss, and with bandits that often kill everyone out of hand.

Is it just that we culturally see pirates as kinda cool, or seizing a ship seems more impressive than seizing a semi-truck?

[Norrin Radd]

24. Thank Sid Meier for the popularity of pirates. ;-)

Oh, and LucasArts and Errol Flynn.

[DRoseDARs]

28. Gawd, I was waiting for that reference.

My hero. :toast:

[Norrin Radd]

54. ,

:toast:

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Though the supertanker was using the Cape of Good Hope route

and was captured 450 miles off Kenya (and so even farther than that from the 'lawless' Somalian ports).

[14thColony]

41. True it was

But mainly because it was headed to the US, not to avoid Somali waters. So that was the most cost-effective route for it to take.

When shippers sending cargo to the Mediterranean from the Indian Ocean or Pacific switch to the Cape route, then we'll know they're actually concerned about piracy.

[Beausoleil]

40. Yes, the shipping companies are starting to go the long way.

OSLO, Norway (AP) — The Norwegian shipping group Odfjell SE has ordered its more than 90 tankers to sail all the way around Africa to avoid the risk of attack by Somali pirates, instead of taking the Suez Canal shortcut through the Gulf of Aden.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jJrZekrgsIwA-fEANj4kYgJXtoHgD94HGMP04

[14thColony]

42. Well there we go

The first signs that it's becoming a serious concern for the shippers.

[customerserviceguy]

45. Doesn't Egypt make money from Suez Canal usage?

If this affects them, I'd expect them to have an interest in "fixing" this problem. While I cannot imagine why anyone would want to step in the snakepit of Somalia again, if a party had a really compelling interest, it might motivate them.

[14thColony]

68. You are prescient

The League of Arab States (aka the Arab League) has announced that they will meet in Cairo today to discuss the piracy problem.

[onager]

99. Yep. I'm in Egypt.

Egypt's two main sources of annual income are the Suez Canal tolls and tourism. (And foreign aid for making nice with their next-door neighbors, some grump is sure to point out.)

Here's some irony: not too long ago, the Suez Canal income was rapidly decreasing. Before oil prices went crazy, shippers could send their cargos around the Cape of Good Hope for less than it cost to pay the Suez Canal tolls. I haven't really kept up, but I'm pretty sure that's not true any more and the Canal route is again the more desirable.

I'm not sure how much Egypt could do in this case. It has a small navy of small ships, mostly used for local coast-guard/defense tasks. It does have some fast missile boats, but I don't believe those are suited for long-range, ocean-going duties.

I live in Alexandria, headquarters base of the Egyptian Navy. When I'm out rambling on weekends I often walk past Navy headquarters, in Ras el-Tin (western Alexandria, near one of King Farouk's old palaces). Naval HQ is not a very big place. It does have a cool old lighthouse, though.

Sometimes I have to visit a job site near the Suez Canal. I always enjoy the optical illusion--you're driving down a road in a desert, and suddenly off to the side, you see the superstructure of a huge ship gliding silently along. At night, it's easy to see how UFO stories get started. All you see is lights, apparently moving right above the ground.

[Pavulon]

51. We can kill them

but killing the right ones is important. They are not flying a skull and crossbones.

[RC]

16. What's with this shit of letting the bad guys get away with their crimes?

They're doing precisely because they CAN get away with it. It makes no difference whether it's the bu$h administration or pirates. If they commit a crime, go after them.
The government in this country has been so corrupt for so long too many of us can't even see piracy as a bad thing anymore. Victim ships have a right to safe passage. If not they should have the right to defend themselves.

The only way to stop crime is to go after the criminals and deal with them appropriately. If we don't, they will keep coming back, stronger than ever.

Our own government is witness to that.

[leveymg]

23. Problem is, you have to capture them AFTER they've released their hostages. Not easy.

It's been done in a few cases, but this problem is going to require an alternative livelihoods approach akin to that tried in the drug-producing countries of Asia and South America.

After two decades of clan warfare and devastation, there's no infrastructure left in Somalia. It all needs to be rebuilt. Nobody's stepping up to the plate on that one.

The closest thing to effective development aid reaching the place is money paid to some of the larger militias associated with the Islamic Courts to police one or two cities. There's some semblance of order there, and some of the pirates have been captured and tried by militias. But, it remains essentially a clan-based society. Fragmented and lawless.

The payoff point for people who are essentially starving to death is pretty low. A half a million dollar ransom feeds a lot of families, so the lure of piracy remains very high.

[cobalt1999]

26. They need to go back to the tactics used in the 1600 & 1700's

Lots of fat looking merchantmen were actually armed naval vessels.

Send many fake targets into the area and lure the pirates out to destruction.

Once the pirates learn that many of the vessels are not opportunities for plunder, but are actually death sentences, they go away fast.

[14thColony]

29. Or the 20th century Q-Ships

worked on German U-boats in two world wars...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship

Post the results on YouTube a few times and word might get around. Fear is bad for business if the fear is among the pirates.

[cobalt1999]

30. Exactly.

Easy and effective solution.

[customerserviceguy]

46. According to that article

Q-ships were not terribly effective. Maybe the Somali pirates are not as sophisticated as the German U-boat commanders were, but from that article, it seemed that the Q-boat was almost as much danger to friendly vessels as it was to enemy ones.

[cobalt1999]

47. Some were quite effective though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Seeadler_(Windjammer)
The Seeadler alone captured 15 ships in less than a year during WWI

Hitler had armed merchant ships that raided other ships extremely effectively during WWII; if interested there is a great book on this forgotten chapter of the war...
www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Secret-Pirate-Fleet-Deadliest/dp/0803266529

[Thothmes]

57. Dont follow the British Q ship model

Follow the system the German Navy used. Their disguised merchant ships caused considerable problems for the Royal Navy. The German raider Atlantis had sund or captured 21 ships. Thor, Komet and others also wracked up a lot of allied tonnage.

[HooptieWagon]

27. Convoys.

Obviously six warships cannot protect all the shipping in the region. I suggest the shipping organize into convoys of a dozen or so ships under protection of a destroyer and choppers. This can be a multi-national effort. Also, somebody is bank-rolling the pirates and recieving the ransom. Track down who they are and seize their bank accounts. The pirate bases must be taken out. And last, but not least, pirates are not lawful combatants, and are not subject to POW status. Historically, pirates are regarded as criminals, and if captured are tried and hung. That seems appropriate.

[14thColony]

31. I was thinking that too at first

Convoys were the approved solution in WWI and WWII, and worked well. But after some thought, I don't think they'd work here because they'd never be formed in the first place.

These shipping companies have shown little concern about piracy, so I doubt they'd be willing to delay delivery of cargo by days and days waiting for a convoy to form, in the hopes it might protect them from the remote chance of one of their ships being seized. Paying late delivery fees for every ship passing that way would probably end up being more expensive than paying the ocassional ransom for a seized ship. Just like the pirates, the shipping companies are businesses too, and so far they've viewed this as nothing more than another cost of doing business. Same reason they're not flocking to the Cape of Good Hope route to go around Africa the other way.

[HooptieWagon]

33. I don't think there would be days and days of delays.

Dozens of ships pass through the Gulf of Aden daily. Wait a few hours, or a day at most, to gather together a dozen or so for an escorted convoy. Those that continue on to the east or SE from there won't need an escort for very long. Those heading S would continue to get an escort until within range of South African Navy protection. Any ship wishing to go it alone and taking their chances would be free to do so, though Lloyd's of London may refuse to provide insurance in those cases.

[14thColony]

38. It's feasible, but

you have to convoy BOTH directions, northbound and southbound, because the Gulf of Aden is being eclipsed by the waters off southern Somalia/Kenya as the main pirate hunting grounds. Keep in mind the Sirius Star was intercepted and boarded while 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa and well out in the Indian Ocean, a location over 1300 NM from the Gulf of Aden and over 500 NM from the most southerly Somali pirate bases. These guys have a very long range of action, and the convoys would need to be maintained across this entire area, which grows bigger with every pirate operation.

Lloyds has upped the premiums pretty good, but as far as I know no shipper has actually made a claim so far. They're paying out of hide to keep their rates from going up further.

As I mentioned before, right now the shippers are shrugging this off, declining to hire Blackwater-on-a-Boat, and are not electing to go the much safer southern route, which should tell us how they view the problem.

[DavidMS]

48. They are also not the right type of warship...

Put a few converted merchant ships with point-defense weapons, UAWs, helicopters and facilities to be a patrol boat tender and use them as bases to hunt pirates. Lots of small fast boats are preferable for patrols, more area can be covered and its not like a .50 cal MG would be on the small side for dealing with the average pirate assault boat.

Supplement with some form of international agreement that allows specific merchant ships to be armed and they can help convoy ships through these waters.

It will take lots of international willpower to resolve this one.

[HooptieWagon]

62. A destroyer has a chopper.

A heli can cover a lot more ground a lot faster than any number of speedboats, plus has a much better field of vision and radar range due to it's elevation. A lot more firepower with it's cannon, too. Plus, is able to transfer a small combat team directly to a threatened ship. Anyway, i'm sure a destroyer also is capable of launching several high speed RIBs on a moments notice.

[JVS]

32. Good job!

[melm00se]

34. several points

a carrier task force vs piracy is akin to a sledge hammer vs a fly. Plus a carrier is a high value target - it's unlikely that pirates could engage one directly and emerge victorious but not 100% impossible.

the view of piracy:
Articles 15-23 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas (http://www.intfish.net/treaties/genevahs.htm) outline what piracy is and the options available to nations pursuing pirates.

Negotiations with pirates:
While diplomacy is certainly a preferable option, pirates, as can be seen from the article from the OP, have a tendency to shoot first and all countries have an obligation to defend their sovereign territory and property from attack.

Pirates, contrary to pop culture and movies, are not romanticized figures: handsome swashbuckling men (in the Douglas Fairbanks/Erroll Flynn mold) or the eccentric pirate with a heart of gold (ala Johnny Depp). They are, historically, desperate men and women (yes, there were female pirates) who attacked, plundered and, if necessary, directly killed the crew manning their target. They were a bunch of really not nice people. Their behavior is the reason why piracy carried (and in some places still carries) the death penalty.

International forces, as detailed in the above Geneva Convention, should forcefully respond to any and all acts of piracy. They should deploy what is referred to as "brown water" naval forces and actively and aggressively pursue pirates and neutralize their base(s) of operation and institute a convoy system to defend multiple targets with minimal assets.

There is historical precedent for this kind of action (the Barbary Coast War is an example from US history) and we, collectively, should be be afraid to exercise based upon that precedent and we should also be prepared for innocent casualties.

[mrbarber]

37. Obvious solution: Send in Ninja's.

Everyone knows the Ninja's are Pirates natural enemies.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

64. I concur with this approach n/t

[Ian David]

43. Why does The BBC have so many typos in that one article?

... and its 25 crew were seized by pirates and anchored point off the Somali coast.

... that request is likely to be large one, analysts suggest.

[TheCoxwain]

56. They have outsourced editorial functions to India... that also explains the pro-India bias in the

story ..


actually the pirates were Indians, whose boats were sunk by the Somalian Navy.

[Vidar]

49. Bravo India!

[KillCapitalism]

52. Yay...go India.

I'd really love to see these pirates try and pick on one of our AEGIS equipped cruisers. :nuke:

[Hannah Bell]

53. Who bankrolls pirates?

Captain Kidd was bankrolled by Livingston, patroon of NY, & Lord Bellemont, royal governor of massachussetts.

Things are sometimes not what they seem.

[TheCoxwain]

55. Some Hedge funds in New York, possibly .. they are not required to disclose investments

[14thColony]

77. For the most part they're highly profitable small businesses

They started small and grew their companies, re-investing profits into more people and better equipment.

Google "ransom" and "Somali pirates." They are getting around $1 million for the average large freighter or tanker, and around 20 vessels have probably been ransomed this year. Considering their low overhead and operating costs, that's a lot of bankroll.

[Hannah Bell]

78. You think so, eh? Just some random Somalian fishermen decided to attack

international shipping?

What's the per capita income in Somalia?

There is no money in somalia that's not tied up with
1. international corps
2. the international war biz
3. the international aid biz.


"The pirates went over 450 nautical miles"

[14thColony]

79. Actually I get paid quite a bit to know so.

No, some "random Somalian fishermen" did not just up and decide to start taking down supertankers. There is a lot of history behind this.

What you perceive as a suspiciously sudden onslaught by Somali pirates has been slowly building since 2000. Success is self-catalyzing, and more clans have now joined it. It just didn't make the papers in any big way until they seized the MV Faina in September.

To pull an operation like this all I need is a seaworthy dow as a mothership, dragging a couple of motor skiffs along until we find a target. Once target's in sight I put 4 or 5 of my guys in each skiff and send them out to see how they do. Once I've already bought the dow and skiffs, all I need is gas money, money to pay my guys (per capita income is est. $600/yr, so I could DOUBLE that and it would still be small change compared to one ransom), and a few hundred bucks to buy some AKs and RPGs. One profitable take and I'll have enough to add some radios, a transponder interrogator, and buy a couple of RIBs to replace the skiffs.

How does this require the forces of C.H.A.O.S. to bankroll?

[Hannah Bell]

90. Dow, motor skiffs, guns, gas & ammunition, + salaries. To start.

Somalian per capita income = ~$300.

The Somali fishermen either fish for themselves or work for someone. If they fish for themselves their boats are likely made by themselves. If for someone else, then they're using someone else's equipment, who's either OK with it or not.

Somalia is run by militia. The various groups get their money & guns from bigger international players, gov'ts & private parties. Directly or indirectly, this is the most likely source of capital for such "small businesses".

PS: Since you "get paid to know," how did the Somali "fishing industry" get started? (Interesting source of start-up $$: hint: it started concurrent with the "piracy").

[Posteritatis]

91. I doubt they start from scratch on that

Kill a few people, rob a few others, set up "checkpoints" in a neighborhood in the right place for awhile, and you're ready to move on and up assuming you survive the process. It's not like PNAC flew in with a suitcase full of twenty-dollar bills or something - and the Somali per capita income doesn't mean that's how much every Somali has. A few hundred bucks goes further in that part of the world than most of us pampered little darlings in North America have the least capability to imagine.

As for Somali fishing, I'd kind of assume that any coastal community's been fishing to one degree or another for as long as the locals have had the ability to make rafts, but that doesn't require quite so many conspiracies so I assume it doesn't count.

[Hannah Bell]

93. you might look into the history of somali "fishing" - at least the type done with power boats.

[14thColony]

92. You're right.

It's a plot by S.P.E.C.T.R.E. :-)

Seriously though, you've answered your own question - it started as Somali fishermen using their own boats, but not initially as pirates.

The pirates of today started out as the 'Somali Marines' and the 'Somali Coast Guards' (and various other names) of 2000. They WERE fishermen who were alarmed at 'pirate' commercial fishing vessels raiding Somali national waters and wiping out their fishing grounds, and hence their livelihood. These groups formed as local 'naval militias' to patrol the waters and drive off the illegal commercial trawlers. They would often stop them, levy 'fines,' and in some cases seize their catch as punishment.

From there, it turned more criminal -- once they saw how easy it was to seize vessels and somehow leverage payment (fines, seize and sell cargo, demand ransom), it started to blossom pretty quickly. The pirates were suppressed for a few years by the Islamic Courts government, who declared piracy contrary to Islam - otherwise we would have reached this level of activity a while back. Back then it was mainly the Hawiye clan in the south, but now their rivals, the Darod clan, have shifted a lot of the activity to Puntland in the north. Even though rivals, they nonetheless cooperate to some extent. The MV Farina was taken by a mixed Darod-Hawiye group, for example.

I dispute that Somalia is run by militias though. Somalia is run by the great clans and the sub-clans, and these clans field militias -- but they are the tools of the clans, not the other way around.

And Somalia is awash in guns, and has been for decades. While weapons are still being imported, the pirates can just as easily make due with the hundreds of thousands of small arms that are already there. I still don't see why there has to be all this start-up capital from nefarious international actors to fund what is at its core a very cheap operation. Come on, for the entrepreneurial start-up pirate captain, we're talking a few boats, a few guns, a few buddies (probably relatives) and some gas. I know it's an oversimplification, but they're not trying to fight the Battle of Leyte Gulf here, they're basically just waterborne carjackers.

We simply don't see the influx of money to the pirates you're talking about. To al-Shabaab, somewhat, to the pirates, no. It seems pretty bloody obvious where their money comes from: it's delivered in cash on pallets by tugboat every time a ransom is paid. Whatever startup capital might have been needed was well within the means of the clan elders.

[Hannah Bell]

94. somalia didn't have fishermen going out 500 miles until it was funded.

& when the funding started, the "piracy" started.

the clans, & militias, are funded by foreign players.

follow the money.

[14thColony]

96. I'd love to, but so far no one has been able to do so

There have been reports and rumors, like the 'Dubai businessmen' but they're short on evidence and even shorter on motive. Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is what the Somalis tell us - this is their initiative and their operation.

Somalia didn't have fishermen going out 500 miles before because the main fishing grounds are along the coast. But now the 'fishing grounds' are further out in the shipping lanes, so that's where they're going. These guys are very good mariners - why is it so hard to believe they could do this themselves? They have capability, motivation, and opportunity. If this was all funded by some international actor(s) who had something to gain from it (what though?), I doubt the Islamic Courts would have been able to so quickly shut down the pirate operations in the early 2000s.

I think we're seeing this in skewed terms because they are a) pirates, b) very successful, and c) very brazen. But ultimately these are a thousand-odd illiterate bandits out doing what bandits do, just on water. There are more than that many operating in individual provinces in Central Asia, but nobody notices them because their targets are local trucks instead of international ships. But it's still just banditry.

[Hannah Bell]

97. oh for gosh sakes: who are "the somalis"? there's no central gov in somalia,

so who are you talking about?

The somalian "fishermen" were set up with power boats in the early 1990s by some factional gov't after one of the major conflicts, supposedly to give the returning soldiers employment & a way to feed their families. The "piracy" started soon thereafter.

I have a relative who worked in the area in the 1980s. The boats in the pictures he brought home aren't speedboats, but man-powered wooden ones. It wasn't an industry, just people fishing for self-sustenance. You don't move from that level without capital.

[14thColony]

98. Well, who are you talking about when you say Somali(an)?

Since you've used the noun as well. I'm referring to a member of the 20-25 million-strong Somali ethnic group, and in this case specifically one residing in Somalia. Keep in mind the pirates, al-Shabaab, etc. use the word 'Somali' and 'Somalia' in their statements, so they seem to identify with those nouns in some manner.

There is a central government, the Transitional Federal Government, with full international recognition. I know, I know, it's a bunch of squabbling warlords and doesn't wield much power outside the building it's in, but nonetheless there is a central government. Kinda.

Yes, there was Somali piracy back in the early 1990s, and probably decades prior to that on a small scale. But the Anti-Shipping Activity Reports from the early to mid 90s show that it was very low-key in the Gulf of Aden and off the Somali coast - nowhere even close to the levels today. In fact one year (can't remember which) there were more pirate attacks in the Mediterranean than in that area. Back then the South China Sea/Straits of Malacca were pirate central.

Sorry, but this is the first I've ever heard about someone supplying fishermen with power boats in the early 1990s. If you could point me to more information on that, I'd be very appreciative.

Well anyway, this has been a very interesting dialogue, and I have been interested in your point of view. But it's now past midnight where I am, so I shall be forced to yield the field of battle to you at this time.

All the best.

[HooptieWagon]

80. I'd be willing to bet Dubai... n/t

[madville]

60. Why not just put armed security on the ships

Have contracted armed security available for both North and South passages. A few trained guys with sniper rifles, the high ground of a large ship, nightvision, and a nice paycheck will put a dent in pirate activity. The US Coast Guard uses .50 cal rifles to shoot the motors off "go-fast" drug boats from a helicopter, why wouldn't that be possible on these pirate speedboats.

[riverdeep]

69. They have armed security on some ships, but many shipping companies

can't afford that. They have slim enough profit margins as it is. Also, some cargo would be really dangerous in a firefight. Certain chemicals if they are hit with gunfire, would become one giant boom. Say, the 'Golden Nori', hauling 40,000 tons of benzene, seized by pirates last year:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/86/8634gov1.html

The most highly secure cargo ships have both on board personnel and a separate, smaller ship that can engage before the pirates do.

[14thColony]

72. It's a matter of simple probability analysis for most shippers

IIRC, about 20,000 merchantmen use this shipping lane per year. So far this year about 30 ships have been seized by Somali pirates.

For the shipping companies, it's the cost of a 1 in 667 chance that one of their ships will be seized, versus the potentially phenomenal cost of hiring private security forces to place on every single one of their vessels as they transit that area. For many, the probability is just too low to justify the cost.

Plus the bureaucratic hassle the ship captain may be in for trying to dock in some port with armed personnel aboard.

Edit: found slightly better figures

[Lionel Mandrake]

87. Same with banks.

Looking at the bottom line, many bankers have decided not to do much about security at retail banks. Robberies are a minor cost of doing business.

Of course this doesn't take into account the trauma suffered by employees and customers when a bank is robbed.

[Akoto]

65. I am puzzled by the Sirius Star thing ...

A massive ship carrying $100m worth of oil through dangerous territory, and it had no armed security at all? Zuh?

[14thColony]

74. They thought they were outside the pirates' operating area

The pirates went over 450 nautical miles out to sea to get them; the Sirius Star was making for the Cape of Good Hope, not the Suez Canal/Gulf of Aden, so they probably thought they were too far 'over the horizon' to be in any danger.

Most maritime security analysts would have agreed with them right up to the point they got boarded.

The Sirius Star showed that at least SOME of these pirates are far more capable than anyone thought.

[Blue_Tires]

66. battle on the high seas...how romantic!

[Eryemil]

71. Woo hoo! Finally. Finish them off so we can stop hearing about this

[riverdeep]

76. A consortium needs to get together on this to reduce piracy.

Until that happens, it will continue to escalate. In other circumstances, the government of a nation takes over this job, but Somalia is rubble and warlords, warlords that happily seize any food aid and starve their own people.

There are still solutions, from mundane to involved. Mundane, put electrified fencing around the points of entry on ships, making it harder for them to board, and hope they don't have rocket launchers. Place more non-lethal weapons on board, like sound weapons and water weapons for those companies that don't want that hassle of a fully weaponized outfit. More involved, infest the Somalis. Pay off certain groups to take out others. They'll do anything for money, including the right thing.

[slackmaster]

81. Consortiums are nice, but the ONLY thing pirates understand is deadly force

Ask any person who has ever dealt with them (like my brother, who until recently was the CO of a US Navy warship).

[Lionel Mandrake]

88. How about lobbing some bombs and shells

at the recently built mansions occupied by rich pirates?

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. British warship to lead EU armada into Gulf of Aden

Britain is to lead an armada of EU warships to the Gulf of Aden next month to tackle the escalating problem of piracy, in a mission expected to last 12 months.
...
EU military planners this week drew up a mandate, including rules of engagement for the use of force, for the mission at a meeting at Northwood, Britain's joint operations centre in north-west London. Plans for the EU fleet, led by HMS Northumberland and known as Operation Atalanta, are due to be formally agreed early next month, European defence officials said yesterday.

The EU fleet, originally proposed to escort boats carrying food aid to Somalia, should include ships from 10 countries.
...
Nato has four ships patrolling the waters off Somalia, with two protecting UN food aid convoys. That mission, Nato's first against pirates, ends next month when the EU operation, called Atalanta, starts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/aden-piracy-eu-nato-russia

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. UN imposes fresh sanctions on Somalia after piracy talks

The United Nations Security Council unanimously imposed fresh sanctions on Somalia today amid calls for armed peacekeepers to be sent to the Horn of Africa.

The diplomatic initiative came as Arab countries held a crisis meeting on how to tackle piracy, as the gang who hijacked a Saudi supertanker demanded a $25m ransom to be paid within 10 days.

The 15-nation Security Council in New York adopted a British plan for enhanced sanctions aimed at freezing the assets of those involved in piracy and undermining Somalia's weakened national government. There has been a UN arms embargo against Somalia since 1992.

The most senior diplomat of the African Union also called for UN peacekeepers to be sent to Somalia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/piracy-somalia1

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. Instability in Yemen threatens to stand in the way of progress in the Gulf of Aden

The capture of a Saudi oil tanker by Somali pirates has focused attention on the lawless waters of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. This year's spike in pirate attacks is not just a reflection of Somalia's chronic instability, it's also symptomatic of an unstable region. An illegal economy is flourishing in the Gulf of Aden, with smugglers trading weapons, fuel and people between the Horn of Africa and Arabia.

Piracy attacks are clustered in the northern waters of the Gulf of Aden, close to Yemen's coastline. Yemen's government is officially engaged in diplomatic efforts to stamp out piracy and broker peace talks with the various Somali factions. But Yemen's tiny coastguard is poorly resourced and the country's foreign minister, Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, recently complained that plans for a multilateral naval deployment would pose a threat to Arab security. (He blamed Israel for wanting to increase its influence in the area.)
...
And a new report by Chatham House concludes that Yemen's own internal problems may soon contribute to increasing instability in the region. The poorest nation in the Arab world confronts western policymakers with the prospect of another failed state. This veneer democracy on the south-western tip of the Arabian peninsula faces rapid population growth, plummeting water tables and dwindling oil supplies. Without substantial new discoveries of oil, the economy will surely hit a wall in the next few years and President Saleh's patronage networks will dry up, exposing divisions among the tribes, political groups and religious interests.

In addition, jihadi networks in Yemen appear to be growing as operating conditions in Iraq and Saudi Arabia become more difficult. The CIA director, Michael Hayden, said last week that Yemen is a "place where al-Qaida is strengthening. We've seen an unprecedented number of attacks this year. Plots are increasing not only in number, but in sophistication, and the range of targets is broadening." Twin car bombs exploded at the gates of the US embassy in the capital, Sana'a, in September, confirming fears that Yemen is facing a resurgent terrorist movement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/20/pirates-somalia-yemen

[Waiting For Everyman]

100. Imagine the flack if the U.S. had done that. nt

[ohio2007]

101. Piracy payback: UN plans blitz on Somali bases

The United Nations is reportedly planning military action against east African pirates. A source close to the UN Security Council told RT it’s considering authorising a raid on bases along the Somali coast. If this happens, armed strikes could target land bases of known pirates threatening boats in the Gulf of Aden.

The UN Security Council has unanimously agreed to adopt a resolution aimed at tackling piracy off the coast of Somalia. The measures include freezing the assets and restricting the travel of individuals and organisations who violate the country's arms embargo.

snip


http://russiatoday.com/news/news/33518

Wonder if the warlords will let the media in to sway public opinion to leave the privateers alone

[ohio2007]

104. Somalia's brazen pirates are building sprawling stone houses, cruising in luxury cars

Somali towns run on pirates' treasure

Somalia's brazen pirates are building sprawling stone houses, cruising in luxury cars, marrying beautiful women -- even hiring caterers to prepare Western-style food for their hostages.
And in an impoverished country where every public institution has crumbled, they have become heroes in the steamy coastal dens they operate from because they are the only real business in town.

"The pirates depend on us, and we benefit from them," said Sahra Sheik Dahir, a shop owner in Harardhere, the village nearest to where a hijacked Saudi Arabian supertanker carrying $100 million in crude was anchored Wednesday.


snip

http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/1302314.html

If this were a movie...the climax can't be too far over the horizon :popcorn:

[Ken Sumner]

107. A U.S. merchant mariner's perspective on Somalian piracy

I'm an American merchant mariner, so I feel particularly qualified to comment on this. I've stood watch looking for these bastards, and I feel very strongly about it. I'm also a conservative, but I'm not here to argue over fundamental beliefs. I don't like writing paragraph after paragraph, so I'll just number my points to keep organized:

1. I'm irritated that the AP reported that MV Nautica is an American ship. Any vessel has only one nationality -- the flag it wears on the stern This ship may be American-owned, but it is Marshallese. However, we've got an agreement with the Marshall Islands to defend them, so the hundreds of ships wearing the Marshall Islands flag of convenience may technically be under the de jure protection of the United States.

2a. Most of the measures people here and on other boards are suggesting for the defense of merchant vessels are impractical. Arming the crew or hiring private security is absolutely unacceptable, since this will only escalate the violence. Right now, most crews are usually kept alive for ransom. If they pose a serious threat to the pirates' lives, they'll be killed. That is to say, I'll be killed. Not to mention that mariners aren't the most stable cross-section of society, anyway. I don't want these guys running around on deck with guns. Military personnel are sometimes attached to ships carrying military cargo, but this is a special case. I don't want to pay to put soldiers and marines on every merchant ship near Africa or Malaysia anyway, and I'll be damned if somebody's going to hand me a rifle and tell me I get to fight gun battles with pirates for free, on top of my ~80-hour work week. I'll throw the thing overboard before I point it at anybody.

2b. Convoys aren't viable because most ships run on very tight schedules that everybody, including you, rely upon. Nobody has the authority to organize multinational convoys, and probably nobody has the capacity considering the varying destinations, schedules, the abilities of each ship, etc. Ships occasionally adjust speed to stay near each other in dangerous areas, but this is a purely ad hoc arrangement, and rarely lasts more than a day or two.

2c. Avoiding the Gulf of Aden and Malacca Straits are impossible, because they are the only reasonable paths to take between important ports. You can't get from the Suez Canal to Kuwait without going through the Gulf of Aden. You can't get from Mombasa to Port Sudan without passing Somalia. We already try to stay hundreds of miles from their coast, but the incident with MV Sirius Star shows that the pirates are everywhere. Some companies are diverting some of their more vulnerable (slow with low freeboard) ships around the Cape, but I expect this is severely hurting the bottom line.

2d. Sending a fleet of warships will have no persistent effect. The pirate-infested area is too large for the entire U.S. Navy to control, let alone whatever fleet we could afford to send. Trying to attack the pirates on the open ocean leads to endless legal problems, and in the end would only be attacking the symptoms while the disease remains.

3. The best way to protect merchant ships right now is by being vigilant and taking proactive steps. Nonlethal measures like electric fences over the railings, long-range acoustic devices, deck and sea illumination, roving watches, all deter pirates.

4a. The ONLY lasting solution to piracy in Somalia is stability. The pirate haven Eyl is firmly within the territory of the UN-imposed government, but is so fortified that the blue helmets refuse to show themselves there. The lack of infrastructure and stability create an environment where the pirates can make more money in a year than the entire community can buying and selling legally. (God knows they work hard at it! Somalia DOES have potential, no matter what anyone says!) Instead of trying to swat the individual pirates, we need to stop them at the source. Personally, I want to abandon the government western nations are trying to impose on Mogadishu, and throw our support behind the unrecognized but functional government of Somaliland, and perhaps -- God forbid! -- the homegrown Islamic Courts Union, which has proven itself capable and willing to deal with piracy. Even if we choose to continue supporting the UN-imposed government, we need to stop doing it halfway! We need to give them the tools they need to crush the militias and pirates, and invest in entrepreneurs who can build roads, schools, farms, factories, banks, etc. When it is safe and "easy" to make an honest living, you will see pirates give up their old ways.

4b. Aside from the high standard of living we enjoy in the United States, another reason Americans aren't hijacking ships off of Norfolk is that we have a well-equipped (if irritating) coast guard to enforce our laws on the sea. The civil war in Somalia has left a complete vacuum, and most security in Somalia is provided by clan leadership and security guards who are paid to defend villages and businesses. That's well and good for protecting innocent landlubbers in the absence of a government, but they have no ability to stop the pirates at sea or on land. When we've finally helped the Somalians establish THEIR OWN government, they will be able to put an end to fortified pirate towns that provide a safe haven for these criminals.

And that's what I think.