The Threat of Modern Piracy- A Merged Thread
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
A post at Unambiguously Ambidextrous:
Piracy: “Their Lordships are almost tempted to say that a little common sense is a valuable quality in the interpretation of international law.”
http://unambig.com/piracy-their-lordships-are-almost-tempted-to-say-that-a-little-common-sense-is-a-valuable-quality-in-the-interpretation-of-international-law/
Mark
Ottawa
Piracy: “Their Lordships are almost tempted to say that a little common sense is a valuable quality in the interpretation of international law.”
http://unambig.com/piracy-their-lordships-are-almost-tempted-to-say-that-a-little-common-sense-is-a-valuable-quality-in-the-interpretation-of-international-law/
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Now we have Persian Gulf pirates?
Judge throws out piracy charges against 6 Somalis
Article Link
Aug 17, 4:44 PM EDT By STEVE SZKOTAK Associated Press Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A judge on Tuesday dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men accused of attacking a Navy ship off the coast of Africa, concluding the U.S. government failed to make the case their alleged actions amounted to piracy.
The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.
Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.
Jackson agreed in his ruling, finding that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations."
Jackson, who issued the ruling from Norfolk, wrote that the government was attempting to use "an enormously broad standard under a novel construction of the statute" that would contradict a nearly 200-year-old Supreme Court decision, United States v. Smith.
The six are accused of attacking the Ashland in a skiff, though they claim they were ferrying refugees. The Ashland is 610 feet long and designed to carry hovercraft and other vehicles for amphibious assaults. The skiff was destroyed by one of the ship's 25mm cannons. One occupant of the skiff was killed and several others were injured.
More on link
Article Link
Aug 17, 4:44 PM EDT By STEVE SZKOTAK Associated Press Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- A judge on Tuesday dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men accused of attacking a Navy ship off the coast of Africa, concluding the U.S. government failed to make the case their alleged actions amounted to piracy.
The dismissal of the piracy count by U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson tosses the most serious charge against the men, but leaves intact seven other charges related to the alleged April 10 attack on the USS Ashland in the Gulf of Aden. A piracy conviction carries a mandatory life term.
Defense attorneys argued last month that the Ashland defendants did not meet the U.S. legal definition of piracy because they did not take command of and rob the amphibious dock landing ship.
Jackson agreed in his ruling, finding that the government "failed to establish that any unauthorized acts of violence or aggression committed on the high seas constitutes piracy as defined by the law of nations."
Jackson, who issued the ruling from Norfolk, wrote that the government was attempting to use "an enormously broad standard under a novel construction of the statute" that would contradict a nearly 200-year-old Supreme Court decision, United States v. Smith.
The six are accused of attacking the Ashland in a skiff, though they claim they were ferrying refugees. The Ashland is 610 feet long and designed to carry hovercraft and other vehicles for amphibious assaults. The skiff was destroyed by one of the ship's 25mm cannons. One occupant of the skiff was killed and several others were injured.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
There always were pirates operating in the Gulf. This is not a surprise for those of us who have been there. Since piracy has become sexy with the news media we are now seeing the attacks getting publicity.
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Hopefully we don't see a "Catch and Release" here.
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,260
Danish navy destroys pirate boat
By Reuters
Article Link
COPENHAGEN - A Danish warship boarded a pirate supply vessel off the coast of Somalia, captured six suspected pirates and then sank the ship, Denmark’s navy said on Wednesday.
The suspects were later freed on the coast, a Danish naval command spokesman said.
“They had not committed anything criminal at sea — they were just on the wrong boat, with the wrong gear at the wrong time,” spokesman Kenneth Nielsen said. “They had equipment on board that could be used in piracy.”
The boat was seized on Tuesday by the navy’s Esbern Snarre vessel during a NATO patrol along Somalia’s east coast, the naval command said in a statement.
Piracy is rife off the coast of Somalia in east Africa, disrupting shipping lanes between Europe and Asia, putting crews and vessels in danger and jacking up insurance rates for shipowners.
The Danish crew confiscated a small number weapons and a large amount of fuel before setting explosives to the boat and sinking it, the navy said.
“There is a very strong mandate from the U.N. so that international navies can confiscate and destroy equipment related to piracy,” Nielsen said.
The captured supply boat was larger than the skiffs commonly used by pirates in raids so it could operate far from the coast, he said.
More on link
By Reuters
Article Link
COPENHAGEN - A Danish warship boarded a pirate supply vessel off the coast of Somalia, captured six suspected pirates and then sank the ship, Denmark’s navy said on Wednesday.
The suspects were later freed on the coast, a Danish naval command spokesman said.
“They had not committed anything criminal at sea — they were just on the wrong boat, with the wrong gear at the wrong time,” spokesman Kenneth Nielsen said. “They had equipment on board that could be used in piracy.”
The boat was seized on Tuesday by the navy’s Esbern Snarre vessel during a NATO patrol along Somalia’s east coast, the naval command said in a statement.
Piracy is rife off the coast of Somalia in east Africa, disrupting shipping lanes between Europe and Asia, putting crews and vessels in danger and jacking up insurance rates for shipowners.
The Danish crew confiscated a small number weapons and a large amount of fuel before setting explosives to the boat and sinking it, the navy said.
“There is a very strong mandate from the U.N. so that international navies can confiscate and destroy equipment related to piracy,” Nielsen said.
The captured supply boat was larger than the skiffs commonly used by pirates in raids so it could operate far from the coast, he said.
More on link
Somali pirates free UK couple Paul and Rachel Chandler
Article Link
14 November 2010 Last updated at 10:08 ET
Will Ross on what lies ahead for the Chandlers, seen here hours after their release
A retired British couple have been released by Somali pirates after being held captive for more than a year.
Paul, 60, and Rachel Chandler, 56, from Kent, were seized from their yacht near the Seychelles in October 2009.
Mrs Chandler said: "I'm enjoying being free". The couple said they were fine, but will undergo medical checks.
They were taken to Adado, then Mogadishu, and have now arrived in Kenya. The BBC held off reporting the release due to an injunction.
It observed the terms of the order obtained by the Chandlers' family which was intended to stop news organisations covering their release until they were safely out of Somalia.
Rachel Chandler Rachel Chandler and her husband said they were fine after their ordeal
Mr Chandler told the BBC: "We're fine, we're rather skinny and bony but we're fine."
The couple were told they were to be released two days ago, he said.
"We were told on Friday in a way which gave us some confidence to believe it. Otherwise we'd been told we'd be released in 10 days almost every 10 days for the past nine months. So we'd taken all these suggestions with a pinch of salt."
Asked if he had felt their lives had been in danger during captivity, he said: "That's something we'll talk about later, but we were not really directly endangered by the gang, after the initial seizure."
He said "ideally" he'd like to get back to sea soon.
More on link
Article Link
14 November 2010 Last updated at 10:08 ET
Will Ross on what lies ahead for the Chandlers, seen here hours after their release
A retired British couple have been released by Somali pirates after being held captive for more than a year.
Paul, 60, and Rachel Chandler, 56, from Kent, were seized from their yacht near the Seychelles in October 2009.
Mrs Chandler said: "I'm enjoying being free". The couple said they were fine, but will undergo medical checks.
They were taken to Adado, then Mogadishu, and have now arrived in Kenya. The BBC held off reporting the release due to an injunction.
It observed the terms of the order obtained by the Chandlers' family which was intended to stop news organisations covering their release until they were safely out of Somalia.
Rachel Chandler Rachel Chandler and her husband said they were fine after their ordeal
Mr Chandler told the BBC: "We're fine, we're rather skinny and bony but we're fine."
The couple were told they were to be released two days ago, he said.
"We were told on Friday in a way which gave us some confidence to believe it. Otherwise we'd been told we'd be released in 10 days almost every 10 days for the past nine months. So we'd taken all these suggestions with a pinch of salt."
Asked if he had felt their lives had been in danger during captivity, he said: "That's something we'll talk about later, but we were not really directly endangered by the gang, after the initial seizure."
He said "ideally" he'd like to get back to sea soon.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Does anyone know exactly how many ships/vessels the pirates are holding? I heard over a hundred, but it is hearsay. Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Somali Piracy Is a Problem for the World
11/23/2010
SPIEGEL ONLINE
LINK
Ten Somalis are facing a Hamburg court as Germany holds its first piracy trial in centuries. They are almost certain to be convicted, but any legal victory for the German authorities will be purely symbolic. Off the coast of Somalia, piracy is becoming ever more sophisticated, with ransoms growing and ambushes getting more audacious. By SPIEGEL Staff
It was April 5, 2010, and the German cargo ship Taipan was 500 nautical miles off the Horn of Africa. The crew, 15 sailors in all, had barricaded themselves into a well-concealed safe room deep in the ship's hold and were now crouched tightly together on the floor.
From there, they had shut off the engines and the electrical systems. Now they were trying to be as quiet as possible, for fear that the pirates on board could hear them. The attackers had brought along a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, or RPG. The captain had seen it with his own eyes. And although this safe room had thick steel walls that were supposedly bulletproof, would they stand up against an RPG? Keeping quiet seemed to be the best approach.
Their silence only made the noise the pirates were making -- the shouting, the gunshots and the sound of doors being kicked in -- sound even louder. The pirates, knowing that there would be no ransom without hostages, were determined to find the crew. One of them was already calling for the captain in English and saying that all the pirates had been captured. It had to be a trick, the men thought, still keeping quiet.
But there it was again: "We're here to help you!" Not a sound from the safe room. "Captain Eggers, this is the Royal Dutch Navy. There are no pirates left here." Not a sound. But then the captain, Dierk Eggers, heard someone speaking Dutch and realized that it wasn't a trap, that he and his crew could finally come out and that it was all over. A special-forces unit from the Dutch frigate Tromp had captured the 140-meter (460-foot) German freighter and taken the pirates prisoner. The pirates were now lying handcuffed in a row on the deck.
Symbolic Victory
More than half a year has passed since then. The liberation of the Taipan is seen as one of the biggest successes in the fight against Somali pirates. Prosecutors in Hamburg now intend to turn that success into a victory by the German justice system over outlaws operating off the Horn of Africa.
The trial of the 10 Somali pirates, who the Netherlands has extradited to Germany, began on Monday in courtroom 337 at the Hamburg Regional Court. It is the first piracy trial on German soil in centuries. The court has scheduled 14 hearings. The trial revolves around charges of abduction with the intent to extort money, under Section 239a, Subsection 1 of the German Criminal Code, and attacking maritime traffic, under Section 316c, Subsection 1, Number 1b. More generally, the trial is about the rule of law. It's already clear that if the German authorities win the case, as they are expected to do, it will be no more than a symbolic victory. No one is sure if the larger battle can even be won anymore.
While preparations for the trial were underway in Hamburg in recent weeks, the situation off the coast of Africa deteriorated even further. Pirates have captured 37 ships from January to October of this year, up from 33 in the same period last year. In early November, German authorities counted 19 ships, carrying 440 hostages, at anchor off the coast of Somalia, including the Singapore-flagged MT York, which has a German captain. The ransoms are going up, with pirates now demanding an average of $12 million (€8.9 million), and with ship owners paying up to $10 million. According to Clayton Consultants, a US security firm, the negotiations are now lasting twice as long as in 2009.
The pirates' range of operations is also expanding, rendering increasingly powerless the international protective fleet, the European Union's Atalanta mission and the American, Russian and Indian navies. The few pirates they encounter today are getting more and more cunning, as well as increasingly violent and dangerous. On the other hand, there is a growing industry that profits from the crisis: There are companies that specialize in arming ships, negotiating with hostage-takers and insuring ships traveling along high-risk routes. Some 6,000 kilometers (3,750 miles) away from the Hamburg courtroom, in the fishing areas off East Africa, hardly anyone believes anymore that the Somali malaise is only a temporary phenomenon.
And so the global community has yet another problem it cannot solve, because solving this problem would require improving the world itself. Or at least a small part of the world that has already ceased to be a nation-state and remains nothing but a shattered country where young men without prospects stand to gain a lot and lose very little through piracy. There is, of course, the possibility that they could lose their lives, but lives mean relatively little in Somalia.
The Hunting Season
It is now November, and the new hunting season has only just begun. Not that there were months without any attacks, but in the monsoon period the waves are higher and the small skiffs the pirates use in their attacks are tossed about in the rough seas, making hijacking more difficult, more dangerous and sometimes impossible. This has prompted some pirates to move their territory to the Red Sea, where the waves are not as high. But now the monsoon has ended, the clouds are high in the sky, and the Indian Ocean below is as flat as a pancake -- and nicely filled with goods from around the world.
In the week before last, pirates captured the Tunisian tanker Hannibal II and the Chinese freighter Yuan Xiang. The German ship BBC Orinoco was also briefly in the hands of pirates on Nov. 11, but the crew fled to their safe room and the desperados disappeared again.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called the pirates a "scourge." But even though these pirates climb the walls of ships barefoot, carrying weapons so rusted that the investigators in the Taipan case had very little hope of obtaining usable fingerprints, there is no question that the hostage business is extremely well organized.
There are the backers, the financiers, who can be sure that they will not be getting their feet wet in the business. Many have already moved from Somalia to neighboring Kenya, where they invest the millions they have obtained in ransom money. It was no accident that German investigators found Kenyan numbers stored in the mobile phones of the Taipan pirates. They also happened to be the same numbers the investigators had tracked down after the hijacking of the German freighter Hansa Stavanger in April 2009. A gang leader who directed both operations apparently lived in Kenya.
More at:
Part 2: Attracted by the High Stakes
Part 3: Taking Refuge in the Citadel
Somali Piracy Is a Problem for the World
11/23/2010
SPIEGEL ONLINE
LINK
Ten Somalis are facing a Hamburg court as Germany holds its first piracy trial in centuries. They are almost certain to be convicted, but any legal victory for the German authorities will be purely symbolic. Off the coast of Somalia, piracy is becoming ever more sophisticated, with ransoms growing and ambushes getting more audacious. By SPIEGEL Staff
It was April 5, 2010, and the German cargo ship Taipan was 500 nautical miles off the Horn of Africa. The crew, 15 sailors in all, had barricaded themselves into a well-concealed safe room deep in the ship's hold and were now crouched tightly together on the floor.
From there, they had shut off the engines and the electrical systems. Now they were trying to be as quiet as possible, for fear that the pirates on board could hear them. The attackers had brought along a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, or RPG. The captain had seen it with his own eyes. And although this safe room had thick steel walls that were supposedly bulletproof, would they stand up against an RPG? Keeping quiet seemed to be the best approach.
Their silence only made the noise the pirates were making -- the shouting, the gunshots and the sound of doors being kicked in -- sound even louder. The pirates, knowing that there would be no ransom without hostages, were determined to find the crew. One of them was already calling for the captain in English and saying that all the pirates had been captured. It had to be a trick, the men thought, still keeping quiet.
But there it was again: "We're here to help you!" Not a sound from the safe room. "Captain Eggers, this is the Royal Dutch Navy. There are no pirates left here." Not a sound. But then the captain, Dierk Eggers, heard someone speaking Dutch and realized that it wasn't a trap, that he and his crew could finally come out and that it was all over. A special-forces unit from the Dutch frigate Tromp had captured the 140-meter (460-foot) German freighter and taken the pirates prisoner. The pirates were now lying handcuffed in a row on the deck.
Symbolic Victory
More than half a year has passed since then. The liberation of the Taipan is seen as one of the biggest successes in the fight against Somali pirates. Prosecutors in Hamburg now intend to turn that success into a victory by the German justice system over outlaws operating off the Horn of Africa.
The trial of the 10 Somali pirates, who the Netherlands has extradited to Germany, began on Monday in courtroom 337 at the Hamburg Regional Court. It is the first piracy trial on German soil in centuries. The court has scheduled 14 hearings. The trial revolves around charges of abduction with the intent to extort money, under Section 239a, Subsection 1 of the German Criminal Code, and attacking maritime traffic, under Section 316c, Subsection 1, Number 1b. More generally, the trial is about the rule of law. It's already clear that if the German authorities win the case, as they are expected to do, it will be no more than a symbolic victory. No one is sure if the larger battle can even be won anymore.
While preparations for the trial were underway in Hamburg in recent weeks, the situation off the coast of Africa deteriorated even further. Pirates have captured 37 ships from January to October of this year, up from 33 in the same period last year. In early November, German authorities counted 19 ships, carrying 440 hostages, at anchor off the coast of Somalia, including the Singapore-flagged MT York, which has a German captain. The ransoms are going up, with pirates now demanding an average of $12 million (€8.9 million), and with ship owners paying up to $10 million. According to Clayton Consultants, a US security firm, the negotiations are now lasting twice as long as in 2009.
The pirates' range of operations is also expanding, rendering increasingly powerless the international protective fleet, the European Union's Atalanta mission and the American, Russian and Indian navies. The few pirates they encounter today are getting more and more cunning, as well as increasingly violent and dangerous. On the other hand, there is a growing industry that profits from the crisis: There are companies that specialize in arming ships, negotiating with hostage-takers and insuring ships traveling along high-risk routes. Some 6,000 kilometers (3,750 miles) away from the Hamburg courtroom, in the fishing areas off East Africa, hardly anyone believes anymore that the Somali malaise is only a temporary phenomenon.
And so the global community has yet another problem it cannot solve, because solving this problem would require improving the world itself. Or at least a small part of the world that has already ceased to be a nation-state and remains nothing but a shattered country where young men without prospects stand to gain a lot and lose very little through piracy. There is, of course, the possibility that they could lose their lives, but lives mean relatively little in Somalia.
The Hunting Season
It is now November, and the new hunting season has only just begun. Not that there were months without any attacks, but in the monsoon period the waves are higher and the small skiffs the pirates use in their attacks are tossed about in the rough seas, making hijacking more difficult, more dangerous and sometimes impossible. This has prompted some pirates to move their territory to the Red Sea, where the waves are not as high. But now the monsoon has ended, the clouds are high in the sky, and the Indian Ocean below is as flat as a pancake -- and nicely filled with goods from around the world.
In the week before last, pirates captured the Tunisian tanker Hannibal II and the Chinese freighter Yuan Xiang. The German ship BBC Orinoco was also briefly in the hands of pirates on Nov. 11, but the crew fled to their safe room and the desperados disappeared again.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called the pirates a "scourge." But even though these pirates climb the walls of ships barefoot, carrying weapons so rusted that the investigators in the Taipan case had very little hope of obtaining usable fingerprints, there is no question that the hostage business is extremely well organized.
There are the backers, the financiers, who can be sure that they will not be getting their feet wet in the business. Many have already moved from Somalia to neighboring Kenya, where they invest the millions they have obtained in ransom money. It was no accident that German investigators found Kenyan numbers stored in the mobile phones of the Taipan pirates. They also happened to be the same numbers the investigators had tracked down after the hijacking of the German freighter Hansa Stavanger in April 2009. A gang leader who directed both operations apparently lived in Kenya.
More at:
Part 2: Attracted by the High Stakes
Part 3: Taking Refuge in the Citadel
US sentences Somali pirate to 30 years' prison
Article Link
Posted 1 hour 7 minutes ago
A Somali man has been sentenced to 30 years behind bars after pleading guilty to his role in an April attack on a US Navy vessel off the coast of Africa.
Jama Idle Ibrahim was sentenced on three charges related to the April 10 attack on the USS Ashland amphibious dock-landing ship.
The charges were: attacking to plunder a vessel; engaging in an act of violence against persons on a vessel; and using a firearm during a crime of violence.
In August, a federal judge dismissed different piracy charges against Ibrahim and five other Somalis for attempting to attack and seize the USS Ashland, which they mistook for a merchant vessel.
More on link
Article Link
Posted 1 hour 7 minutes ago
A Somali man has been sentenced to 30 years behind bars after pleading guilty to his role in an April attack on a US Navy vessel off the coast of Africa.
Jama Idle Ibrahim was sentenced on three charges related to the April 10 attack on the USS Ashland amphibious dock-landing ship.
The charges were: attacking to plunder a vessel; engaging in an act of violence against persons on a vessel; and using a firearm during a crime of violence.
In August, a federal judge dismissed different piracy charges against Ibrahim and five other Somalis for attempting to attack and seize the USS Ashland, which they mistook for a merchant vessel.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 2,665
- Points
- 940
An interesting take on standing up an anti-piracy force from within Somalia, apparently funded by an "unnamed Muslim country."
Link to complete article (You have to go individually; their copyright specifically spells out, "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
Link to complete article (You have to go individually; their copyright specifically spells out, "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Remember those Russian tanks?
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Hijacked Weapons
A Discreet Deal for the War in Sudan
12/09/2010
By Horand Knaup
SPIEGEL ONLINE
LINK
US dispatches have cleared up one of the most baffling weapons affairs of the recent past. In 2008, pirates hijacked a ship full of tanks and other military hardware. Kenya apparently intended to send the materiel on to Southern Sudan. But they were unprepared for the US reaction.
Sometimes things get so bad they're almost funny. Take, for example, when criminals hold up arms traffickers, and when politicians subsequently lie and are abandoned by their supposed friends -- even though they secretly do the same thing themselves.
That's exactly what happened in the so-called Faina affair, one of the most baffling cases of weapons smuggling in recent memory -- an affair which has only now come to light due to the leaked US diplomatic cables.
On September 25, 2008, Somali pirates seized the Faina, a harmless-looking freighter, while it was making its way from Ukraine to the Kenyan port in Mombasa. But they were astonished when they looked in the holds and discovered what was on board: a treasure trove of weapons from Ukraine, including 33 T-72 tanks, each weighing about 40 tons -- enough to win a small war in Africa. The Somalian pirates thus blew the cover on a secret transaction that was even more sinister than their own activities.
After almost five months, the Faina was released after, it is thought, a $3.2 million (€2.4 million) ransom payment, and entered the port of Mombasa on February 12, 2009. The Kenyan government denied all speculation that the tanks were really destined for the autonomous government of predominantly Christian Southern Sudan, which rebels from the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) have been trying to break off from the Muslim northern part of the country. Kenya insisted that the tanks were meant for their own army.
Triggering US Sanctions
But the American documents now prove that that was false. While the Somali pirates were still holding the Faina captive, in faraway Washington, George W. Bush's second term as US president came to an end and Barack Obama moved into the White House.
On November 27, a cable classified as "secret" was sent to the US Embassy in Nairobi bearing clear instructions:
"Note to government of Kenya officials the United States government and the international community's concern with the potential destabilizing effect that the secret transfer of certain heavy military equipment and small arms and light weapons can generate in the region. Inform the government of Kenya ... that transfers of lethal military equipment to Sudan would trigger US sanctions against supplier governments."
On December 15 and 16, Ambassador Michael Ranneberger and senior US military officials based at the US Embassy in Kenya went to work. As he noted in a dispatch dated Dec. 16, 2009, Ranneberger encountered immediate resistance. During a meeting with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, he was informed "that the government of Kenya was committed to assisting GOSS (the government of Southern Sudan) and that there was 'intense pressure' from the GOSS to deliver the tanks." Odinga then went on to suggest that his government could deliver the tanks to Uganda, and that they could make their way into Sudan from there.
Ranneberger made his position to the prime minister clear: Washington would not tolerate such a deal. Delivering any tanks to Sudan -- whether via Uganda or any other country -- could result in sanctions against Kenya.
Finding Their Way to Sudan
The Kenyans were surprised. As they saw it, the Bush administration had always been kept informed about Kenya's arming of the SPLA rebels, had never opposed it and, in fact, had even contributed to it. When US military attaché David McNevin met with Jeremiah Kianga, the Kenyan chief of staff, and Philip Kameru, the head of Kenya's military intelligence, there was a tense exchange:
"Kameru mentioned that, in the government of Kenya's view, the tanks belong to the GOSS.... He added that (Kenyan) President (Mwai) Kibaki was personally very angry about this issue. During the meeting, Kianga commented that the government of Kenya was 'very confused' by our position … since the past transfers had been undertaken in consultation with the United States.... Kianga asked about the significance of what appeared to him to be a major policy reversal. … Kianga asked that the United States explain directly to the Government of Southern Sudan / Sudan People's Liberation Army why (they) are blocking the tank transfer."
Sudden Reversals
Ambassador Michael Ranneberger, who had retained his position even after the change in administrations, obviously didn't feel comfortable about the situation. In a carefully worded cable to Washington, he wrote:
"The government of Kenya is understandably confused, as transfer of these tanks, in their view, dove-tailed with the goals of the United States … (of) converting the SPLA from a guerrilla force to a small conventional force capable of defending Juba (the rebels' capital)."
Ranneberger also suggested that a bit of sympathy should be shown for the Kenyan position.
"Over the past two years, officials from Kenya's Ministry of Defense have shared full details of their engagement with the SPLA as we have shared details of our training program for the SPLA, including combat arms soldier training, under a May 2007 Presidential Directive. ... It is difficult to persuade the Kenyans that transferring this equipment ... will merit sanctions if completed when they are well aware that the United States is continuing military to military security sector reform assistance to the SPLA."
The American documents say nothing about what ultimately happened to the tanks. Experts believe they found their way to Southern Sudan
More on LINK
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
Hijacked Weapons
A Discreet Deal for the War in Sudan
12/09/2010
By Horand Knaup
SPIEGEL ONLINE
LINK
US dispatches have cleared up one of the most baffling weapons affairs of the recent past. In 2008, pirates hijacked a ship full of tanks and other military hardware. Kenya apparently intended to send the materiel on to Southern Sudan. But they were unprepared for the US reaction.
Sometimes things get so bad they're almost funny. Take, for example, when criminals hold up arms traffickers, and when politicians subsequently lie and are abandoned by their supposed friends -- even though they secretly do the same thing themselves.
That's exactly what happened in the so-called Faina affair, one of the most baffling cases of weapons smuggling in recent memory -- an affair which has only now come to light due to the leaked US diplomatic cables.
On September 25, 2008, Somali pirates seized the Faina, a harmless-looking freighter, while it was making its way from Ukraine to the Kenyan port in Mombasa. But they were astonished when they looked in the holds and discovered what was on board: a treasure trove of weapons from Ukraine, including 33 T-72 tanks, each weighing about 40 tons -- enough to win a small war in Africa. The Somalian pirates thus blew the cover on a secret transaction that was even more sinister than their own activities.
After almost five months, the Faina was released after, it is thought, a $3.2 million (€2.4 million) ransom payment, and entered the port of Mombasa on February 12, 2009. The Kenyan government denied all speculation that the tanks were really destined for the autonomous government of predominantly Christian Southern Sudan, which rebels from the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) have been trying to break off from the Muslim northern part of the country. Kenya insisted that the tanks were meant for their own army.
Triggering US Sanctions
But the American documents now prove that that was false. While the Somali pirates were still holding the Faina captive, in faraway Washington, George W. Bush's second term as US president came to an end and Barack Obama moved into the White House.
On November 27, a cable classified as "secret" was sent to the US Embassy in Nairobi bearing clear instructions:
"Note to government of Kenya officials the United States government and the international community's concern with the potential destabilizing effect that the secret transfer of certain heavy military equipment and small arms and light weapons can generate in the region. Inform the government of Kenya ... that transfers of lethal military equipment to Sudan would trigger US sanctions against supplier governments."
On December 15 and 16, Ambassador Michael Ranneberger and senior US military officials based at the US Embassy in Kenya went to work. As he noted in a dispatch dated Dec. 16, 2009, Ranneberger encountered immediate resistance. During a meeting with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, he was informed "that the government of Kenya was committed to assisting GOSS (the government of Southern Sudan) and that there was 'intense pressure' from the GOSS to deliver the tanks." Odinga then went on to suggest that his government could deliver the tanks to Uganda, and that they could make their way into Sudan from there.
Ranneberger made his position to the prime minister clear: Washington would not tolerate such a deal. Delivering any tanks to Sudan -- whether via Uganda or any other country -- could result in sanctions against Kenya.
Finding Their Way to Sudan
The Kenyans were surprised. As they saw it, the Bush administration had always been kept informed about Kenya's arming of the SPLA rebels, had never opposed it and, in fact, had even contributed to it. When US military attaché David McNevin met with Jeremiah Kianga, the Kenyan chief of staff, and Philip Kameru, the head of Kenya's military intelligence, there was a tense exchange:
"Kameru mentioned that, in the government of Kenya's view, the tanks belong to the GOSS.... He added that (Kenyan) President (Mwai) Kibaki was personally very angry about this issue. During the meeting, Kianga commented that the government of Kenya was 'very confused' by our position … since the past transfers had been undertaken in consultation with the United States.... Kianga asked about the significance of what appeared to him to be a major policy reversal. … Kianga asked that the United States explain directly to the Government of Southern Sudan / Sudan People's Liberation Army why (they) are blocking the tank transfer."
Sudden Reversals
Ambassador Michael Ranneberger, who had retained his position even after the change in administrations, obviously didn't feel comfortable about the situation. In a carefully worded cable to Washington, he wrote:
"The government of Kenya is understandably confused, as transfer of these tanks, in their view, dove-tailed with the goals of the United States … (of) converting the SPLA from a guerrilla force to a small conventional force capable of defending Juba (the rebels' capital)."
Ranneberger also suggested that a bit of sympathy should be shown for the Kenyan position.
"Over the past two years, officials from Kenya's Ministry of Defense have shared full details of their engagement with the SPLA as we have shared details of our training program for the SPLA, including combat arms soldier training, under a May 2007 Presidential Directive. ... It is difficult to persuade the Kenyans that transferring this equipment ... will merit sanctions if completed when they are well aware that the United States is continuing military to military security sector reform assistance to the SPLA."
The American documents say nothing about what ultimately happened to the tanks. Experts believe they found their way to Southern Sudan
More on LINK
Somali Pirates Ravage The Indian Coast
December 14, 2010
Article Link
NATO recently issued a warning to merchant ships that Somali pirates were operating a few hundred kilometers off the Indian, Pakistani and Omani coasts. In other words, these pirates were now active from the west coast of India to the east coast of Africa and north to the Persian Gulf. Now that the pirates have demonstrated their ability to operate far (over 2,000 kilometers) from shore, it's no longer possible to just use naval patrols and convoy escorts. That worked in the Gulf of Aden, but father off the Somali coast, there is simply too much area to patrol. With ocean going mother ships, the pirates can operate anywhere in the region. Between the Gulf of Aden, and the Straits of Malacca to the east (between Singapore and Indonesia), you have a third of the world's shipping. All are now at risk. Convoys for all these ships would require more warships (hundreds) than can be obtained.
But there are not a lot of mother ships out there. For over a year now, the anti-piracy patrol, using patrol aircraft in Djibouti and the Seychelles islands, have been searching for the mother ships, sending warships to inspect them, and destroy them if pirate use is confirmed. But the pirates are simply arrested and later dumped on a beach in Somalia. And some of the mother ships get past the patrols, and score. On December 11th, a 70,000 ton cargo ship, and its 24 man crew, was taken 2,200 kilometers from Somalia, and less than a thousand kilometers from India.
The pirate gangs see the loss of mother ships, their speed boats, weapons and boarding gear, as simply a cost of doing business. Since the pirates are not killed, there is no shortage of volunteers to ship out on the mother ships, and take their chances. Even the lowest ranking pirate involved in the seizure and subsequent imprisonment of the ship and crew (until the ransom can be negotiated), will walk away with $10,000 or more. This is a fortune in Somalia. So there are plenty of Somali men wanting to be pirates. Low risk, and high potential for the payoff of a lifetime.
end
December 14, 2010
Article Link
NATO recently issued a warning to merchant ships that Somali pirates were operating a few hundred kilometers off the Indian, Pakistani and Omani coasts. In other words, these pirates were now active from the west coast of India to the east coast of Africa and north to the Persian Gulf. Now that the pirates have demonstrated their ability to operate far (over 2,000 kilometers) from shore, it's no longer possible to just use naval patrols and convoy escorts. That worked in the Gulf of Aden, but father off the Somali coast, there is simply too much area to patrol. With ocean going mother ships, the pirates can operate anywhere in the region. Between the Gulf of Aden, and the Straits of Malacca to the east (between Singapore and Indonesia), you have a third of the world's shipping. All are now at risk. Convoys for all these ships would require more warships (hundreds) than can be obtained.
But there are not a lot of mother ships out there. For over a year now, the anti-piracy patrol, using patrol aircraft in Djibouti and the Seychelles islands, have been searching for the mother ships, sending warships to inspect them, and destroy them if pirate use is confirmed. But the pirates are simply arrested and later dumped on a beach in Somalia. And some of the mother ships get past the patrols, and score. On December 11th, a 70,000 ton cargo ship, and its 24 man crew, was taken 2,200 kilometers from Somalia, and less than a thousand kilometers from India.
The pirate gangs see the loss of mother ships, their speed boats, weapons and boarding gear, as simply a cost of doing business. Since the pirates are not killed, there is no shortage of volunteers to ship out on the mother ships, and take their chances. Even the lowest ranking pirate involved in the seizure and subsequent imprisonment of the ship and crew (until the ransom can be negotiated), will walk away with $10,000 or more. This is a fortune in Somalia. So there are plenty of Somali men wanting to be pirates. Low risk, and high potential for the payoff of a lifetime.
end
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
A "safe room" aboard merchant ships/tankers?
Arrr! Pirates Take Up to $12 Billion Worth of Booty
Article Link
By Spencer Ackerman January 18, 2011
Don’t let the dilapidated fishing boats or the rusting AK-47s fool you. Pirates mean serious business. A maritime industry group crunched the numbers and found that the measures companies and governments take to avoid and combat the piracy threat cost between $7 billion and $12 billion every year.
The One Earth Future Foundation’s Oceans Beyond Piracy project documents exploding costs in piracy-related actions (.pdf). Ransoms paid to Somali pirates totaled $238 million in 2010 — the worst year for piracy on record, according to the International Chamber of Commerce.
The average payout to ransom a hijacked ship was $5.4 million last year, up from just $150,000 in 2005. (Wired magazine analyzed the Somali pirate business model in 2009.)
And ransoms aren’t even the lion’s share of piracy’s costs to global maritime commerce. Insuring ships passing near piracy-prone areas like the Gulf of Aden costs between $460 million and $3.2 billion. Naval presence to protect merchant shipping costs another $2 billion.
Regional economies lose up to $1.25 billion annually. Rerouting ships to less pirate-prone waters costs up to $3 billion. (Hat tip: GCaptain.)
Oceans Beyond Piracy readily admits that its estimate is imprecise. Piracy doesn’t have a clear impact on every economic measurement related to global maritime shipping. The overall economic downturn imposes its own costs on everything from insurance to local business impact.
What’s more, it’s “difficult to quantify the value of … world seaborne trade in monetary terms,” according to the International Maritime Association. But it’s undoubtedly massive: One figure the association provides shows that the operation of maritime ships — and there are 50,000 commercial vessels on the seas — produces $380 billion in freight rates, itself equivalent to 5 percent of global trade.
About 90 percent of all global trade comes to your local store from the seas. That helps explain how a ragged band of pirates operating off the Somali coast can have such a disruptive impact.
And that in turn explains the lucrative opportunities available antipiracy businesspeople. BAE Systems is marketing one of its shipboard laser dazzlers as a tool to blind pirates before they can take your ship hostage.
Private security firms have begun defending ships from pirates, although that carries its own insurance costs. Ships that have been through the traumatic experience of a pirate-jacking, like the Maersk Alabama, have placed nonlethal acoustic weapons on deck to shoo pirates away.
More on link
Article Link
By Spencer Ackerman January 18, 2011
Don’t let the dilapidated fishing boats or the rusting AK-47s fool you. Pirates mean serious business. A maritime industry group crunched the numbers and found that the measures companies and governments take to avoid and combat the piracy threat cost between $7 billion and $12 billion every year.
The One Earth Future Foundation’s Oceans Beyond Piracy project documents exploding costs in piracy-related actions (.pdf). Ransoms paid to Somali pirates totaled $238 million in 2010 — the worst year for piracy on record, according to the International Chamber of Commerce.
The average payout to ransom a hijacked ship was $5.4 million last year, up from just $150,000 in 2005. (Wired magazine analyzed the Somali pirate business model in 2009.)
And ransoms aren’t even the lion’s share of piracy’s costs to global maritime commerce. Insuring ships passing near piracy-prone areas like the Gulf of Aden costs between $460 million and $3.2 billion. Naval presence to protect merchant shipping costs another $2 billion.
Regional economies lose up to $1.25 billion annually. Rerouting ships to less pirate-prone waters costs up to $3 billion. (Hat tip: GCaptain.)
Oceans Beyond Piracy readily admits that its estimate is imprecise. Piracy doesn’t have a clear impact on every economic measurement related to global maritime shipping. The overall economic downturn imposes its own costs on everything from insurance to local business impact.
What’s more, it’s “difficult to quantify the value of … world seaborne trade in monetary terms,” according to the International Maritime Association. But it’s undoubtedly massive: One figure the association provides shows that the operation of maritime ships — and there are 50,000 commercial vessels on the seas — produces $380 billion in freight rates, itself equivalent to 5 percent of global trade.
About 90 percent of all global trade comes to your local store from the seas. That helps explain how a ragged band of pirates operating off the Somali coast can have such a disruptive impact.
And that in turn explains the lucrative opportunities available antipiracy businesspeople. BAE Systems is marketing one of its shipboard laser dazzlers as a tool to blind pirates before they can take your ship hostage.
Private security firms have begun defending ships from pirates, although that carries its own insurance costs. Ships that have been through the traumatic experience of a pirate-jacking, like the Maersk Alabama, have placed nonlethal acoustic weapons on deck to shoo pirates away.
More on link
Similar threads
