UN supports more robust anti-piracy measures for Somalia

The Security Council today passed a resolution authorizing the use of land-based measures to combat piracy off the Horn of Africa. Unanimously adopted after a three and a half hour meeting in New York, resolution 1851 (2008) states, in part, that "States and regional organizations cooperating in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea off Somalia’s coast - for which prior notification had been provided by Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government to the Secretary-General - could undertake all necessary measures “appropriate in Somalia”, to interdict those using Somali territory to plan, facilitate or undertake such acts."

On the surface, this says that military forces could be deployed ashore in order to engage pirates and their supporters in the various havens from which they have been mounting attacks on shipping (including the reported hijacking of two more vessels today, a tugboat and a cargo ship). However, resolution 1851 (2008), like previous pronouncements, does not allow for unilateral actions by foreign powers into Somalia's sovereign territory. Instead, the internationally-recognized governing structure, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), must still give permission for any actions in the country.

However, sources tell me that the TFG may be much more willing to now allow military operations, as they face increasing pressure from the international community to do something about the problem of regional piracy. But the TFG's power base in Somalia is currently tenuous, at best, in the face of other governing entities, insurgent groups and criminal gangs who hold sway over large parts of the country. If the use of foreign military forces against pirate gangs becomes a mere means to prop up the TFG, the long-term solution to the problem will linger.

As the resolution also states, "The need to address the root of the piracy problem - namely the poverty and lawlessness that had plagued Somalia for decades - and to not look at it through the prism of international trade alone was also emphasized." While many in the international community do, in fact, worry about the impact of Somali piracy on seaborne trade, the UN is emphasizing the regional security issues that engender maritime crime. Both are important.

Piracy & terrorism & the New York Times

John S. Burnett, another journalist who has written about modern-day piracy, penned a piece in Friday's New York Times that's worth a look. Like myself, Burnett has sailed the waters off East Africa and knows what it's like to be in pirate seas. As I've written here before, and will expand upon in my upcoming book, the western reaches of the Indian Ocean are both beautiful and dangerous to mariners.

Burnett adds his voice to mine and many others who feel that unless the situation on shore is addressed, Somali pirates will never be suppressed. His op-ed was followed by a piece by Douglas R. Burgess, Jr., entitled "Piracy is Terrorism". It provides his perspectives on how we should label pirates today, working from the old 'hostis humani generis definition': enemies of all mankind.

I do take small exceptions to some of what Burgess writes: Somalia does have a recognized government (the Transitional Federal Government), and maritime fiends are codified in law as either pirates (on the high seas) or maritime criminals (within sovereign waters). But his overall perspectives are otherwise spot on.

Piracy is a form of terrorism. But it is also something worse: It is the longest running, low-level armed conflict in human history. It has been carried out for thousands of years against a unique community with its own codes of conduct, language, mores and customs.

Seafarers.

UN Security Council addresses Somali piracy. Sort of.

Last Tuesday, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously adopted a resolution extending the ability for foreign powers to continue anti-piracy operations in the seas of the Horn of Africa for the next year. Resolution 1846 (2008) sets out that States and regional organizations may use "all necessary means" to fight the pirates, what looks on first glance as being a response from the world body to recent events.

Indeed, this has led some - such as the Associated Press and The Economic Times - to report that the resolution allows naval vessels to enter sovereign Somali waters in order to apprehend pirates or end hostage-takings, something that many have been advocating for some time. Unfortunately, Resolution 1846 (2008) does not grant such ability.

While expressing concerns about the way piracy has grown off Somalia, fueled by escalating ransoms paid, the Security Council actually makes clear that foreign naval vessels may only enter the territorial waters of Somalia once they have received permission from the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), the internationally-recognized entity considered that nation's government.

Fundamentally, the Resolution allows for nations to continue patrolling the high seas of the Indian Ocean off East Africa without facing sanctions or other legal actions; it highlights the need to safeguard the delivery of humanitarian aid by sea; and it does allow for entry within the 12 nautical mile limit - but only by assuming the TFG grants authority to do so.

The situation in that part of East Africa remains hamstrung by political and legal niceties being mouthed in the face of rampant lawlessness. The Resolution begins by "Reaffirming [the Security Council's] respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and unity of Somalia." Yet this is a nation, to use the term loosely, that is anything but sovereign, integrated or unified. So is the UN's resolution just more hot air?

Well, yes and no. It's easy to be an armchair critic and bash the UN for its inability to come up with something more forceful here than a resolution that appears weak. And this resolution is unlikely to scare the pirates too much. There's nothing set out in it about how to really deal with piracy off Somalia, though that could be a good thing inasmuch as it leaves interpretation open to various nations. (See also a look at the legalities of this in Eaglespeaks's recent commentary.)

Nevertheless, this forgets that the UN and its various units - such as the World Food Programme - do much more to help the people of Somalia than we are aware of. Their main concern is to feed, clothe and care for millions of people, so it's that bit about safeguarding the delivery of humanitarian aid that's important.

Somali Islamic Courts Union responds to issue of piracy

In today's online edition of the London-based, Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, a spokesman for the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in Mogadishu is interviewed about the piracy situation in Somalia. Sheikh Abdul Raheem Isa Ado says the Islamic forces are warning pirates to effectively cease and desist, just as ICU did when they briefly held power in Somalia in 2006. Of note to Somalia-watchers is that Abdul Raheem also says that there are no disputes between the ICU and al Shabaab, the Islamist organization holding sway over parts of southern Somalia.

Assessing recent pirate incidents off the Horn of Africa

With the capture of another vessel off the Horn of Africa earlier today - the 97th this year - pirates in that region are making it even more difficult to combat the problem. The Liberian-flagged product tanker MT Biscaglia was reported hijacked in the Gulf of Aden, and the vessel is now under the control of Somali pirates, who also hold the tanker's crew of 27 Indian and Bangladeshi mariners.

Undated photo of product tanker MT Biscaglia saling in unknown waters; note fire hoses deployed as anti-piracy measures (photo: Daily Mail/AFP/Getty Images)

Since the hijacking of the MV Faina on September 25, international attention has been more and more focused on the problems created by pirates operating off East Africa, reaching a crescendo, of sorts, with the seizure of the Saudi supertanker Sirius Star last week. This has led to many to wonder whether the time has come for a robust and forceful response to this threat, and among the most common ideas put forth are:

• Should international governments dispatch their navies to take up station in those waters?
• Should those warships be allowed to engage pirate vessels, destroying them, arresting suspects, even killing those who resist?
  
• Should vessels just avoid the waters off the Horn of Africa and the Suez Canal, taking the longer journey around the Cape of Good Hope?
  
• Is it time to arm civilians seafarers, or place guards on their ships to protect against attacks?

They sound like good ideas, but it may come as a surprise to many to discover that each and every one of these is currently being tried, yet piracy continues unabated off Somalia. For instance, it is reported that there are presently at least 14 foreign warships patrolling those seas, representing the navies of the United States, Russia, India, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Germany, Pakistan, Turkey, Italy and Greece, and it's expected that these will be augmented by more warships shortly. So there is already a presence in the region, though it hasn't necessarily prevented that many pirate incidents.

Some of those warships have, indeed, engaged in actions against suspected pirate vessels, including the French sending commandos to rescue hostages being held, the British sending forces who killed several pirates, and the Indian navy destroying a vessel believed being used by pirates. Pirates have been arrested by the US Navy and deposited ashore in Mombasa, Kenya, where the Somali men were later tried, convicted and remain imprisoned. So there is a very robust degree of activity going on from the naval end of things. However, since the Indian navy's recent actions turned out to be tragically wrong, there may be some hesitancy before weapons are next brought to bear on a suspected pirate boat.

As to avoiding the region entirely, this was exactly what the Sirius Star was doing when she was abducted, albeit on a route that is often taken by supertankers of her size (avoiding the confines of the Suez Canal). But the further away from the main shipping routes, the more isolated and potentially vulnerable a vessel becomes. The route through the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea is relatively confined, which could make it easier to protect vessels if a more organized naval protection force could be assembled.

The idea of arming mariners remains controversial for a variety of reasons, not the least for fear it will make attackers more likely to fire their own weapons while boarding and seizing ships. For instance, one might assume that the Ukrainian and Russian crew of the Faina knew a little about how to handle small and long arms, having probably done their compulsory military service at home. But even with a cargo full of weapons and munitions, they opted not to fight back against the Somali pirates who overwhelmed the civilian crew.

Finally, we get to the idea of placing guards aboard merchant vessels. This is an expensive proposition - costing at least $10,000 for a short trip, though one could easily expend much more than that on a private escort boat (such as Blackwater Marine's McArthur). It also opens things up to an even greater disparity between wealthy and poor seafarers, where Third World mariners become the ransom fodder of pirates.

Most importantly, though, security guards are no guarantee that pirate attacks can be foiled, as the hijacking of the MT Biscaglia shows. It turns out there were three guards aboard the tanker who were employees of Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Solutions (APMSS), a UK-based firm hired to defend the Biscaglia. For reasons still unknown, the guards were unable to thwart the attack and the men (two British, one Irish) ended up jumping overboard. They were later rescued by a German naval warship.

(As reported in the Times Online today, APMSS head Nick Davis discounts any suggestion that his men ran away, saying that, "They had no option...As far as I'm concerned they deserve a medal." One should be extremely cautious about making critical comments regarding this incident without having a complete picture of the events that transpired, something that may not develop until the Biscaglia and her crew are freed. It's possible that some of the hostages might feel better about their current situation had the security guards still been there. Hopefully there will be some among the tanker's crew who will show leadership in the face of an extreme situation and provide hope for their fellow prisoners, as it is clear that these mariners are on their own for the time being.)

To sum up, sending vessels the long way around Africa hasn't deterred pirates. Placing security personnel aboard merchant ships hasn't stopped pirates. Deploying over a dozen warships from a variety of nations hasn't prevented attacks. And using armed force has only resulted in the deaths of innocent seafarers.

All of this should be a signal that the current efforts to deal with Somali piracy are failing and that it's time to look at other solutions. Chief among these will be thinking long and hard about addressing the situation ashore, from where these pirates gain their support. And how international efforts are coordinated to suppress Somali piracy will become a litmus test for how we react to the next threat posed by pirates, such as in the waters off West Africa.

Three private security guards being rescued from the Gulf of Aden after
fleeing the hijacked tanker MT Biscaglia (photo: Daily Mail/AFP/Getty Images)

Hijacked supertanker Sirius Star's position identified

Britain's Guardian newspaper paid to have a satellite pass over the waters off Somalia where the pirate-hijacked supertanker Sirius Star was believed to be anchored and found the vessel. The tanker's position is given as latitude 4.595 N, longitude 48.085 E. A low rez image is below.

Supertanker Sirius Star visible to the extreme right (GeoEye/Guardian image)

In related news, Military.com is reporting that the negotiations with the pirates holding the supertanker are now being carried out by an American businesswoman, Michele Lynn Ballarin. Ballarin's Virginia-based firm makes body armor and provides executive protection services and she has extensive experience with Somalia, forging connections fostered through years of travel there.

NPR's "To the Point" radio show talks about piracy

You can listen to an excellent panel discussion about piracy from yesterday's episode of To The Point, the current affairs show hosted by Warren Olney on NPR, by following this link (downloadable as a podcast, too.). The original show aired Tuesday, November 25, 2008.

Guest hosted by Sara Terry, the panel consisted of Chatham House African expert Roger Middleton, American maritime lawyer Mark Tempest, shipping industry organization Intertanko's deputy managing director Joe Angelo, International Transport Workers' Federation general secretary David Cockroft, and yours truly offering a little bit of input as a journalist who's been investigating piracy the last few years. It was an interesting panel and you'll hear some excellent analyses from the other guests.