Why Don't We Hang Pirates Anymore?By BRET STEPHENS
Op-ed, Wall Street Journal
Nov. 25, 2008
It's a safe bet, dear reader, that the title of this column has caused you to either (a) roll your eyes and wonder, What century do you think we're living in? or (b) scratch your head and ask, Yes, why don't we? Wherever you come down, the question defines a fault line in the civilized world's view about the latest encroachment of barbarism.
Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. Some 280 crew members are being held hostage, and two have been killed. Billions of dollars worth of cargo have been seized; millions have been paid in ransom. A multinational naval force has attempted to secure a corridor in the Gulf of Aden, through which 12% of the total volume of seaborne oil passes, and U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising.
Why? The view of senior U.S. military officials seems to be, in effect, that there is no controlling legal authority. Title 18, Chapter 81 of the United States Code establishes a sentence of life in prison for foreigners captured in the act of piracy. But, crucially, the law is only enforceable against pirates who attack U.S.-flagged vessels, of which today there are few.
What about international law? Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention -- ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. -- enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters -- provided Somalia's tottering government agrees -- but the resolution expires next week. As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate's prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers' organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.
Then there is the problem of what to do with captured pirates. No international body similar to the old Admiralty Courts is currently empowered to try pirates and imprison them. The British foreign office recently produced a legal opinion warning Royal Navy ships not to take pirates captive, lest they seek asylum in the U.K. or otherwise face repatriation in jurisdictions where they might be dealt with harshly, in violation of the British Human Rights Act.
In March 2006, the U.S. Navy took 11 pirates prisoner, six of whom were injured. Not wanting to set a precedent for trying pirates in U.S. courts, the State Department turned to Kenya to do the job. The injured spent weeks aboard the USS Nassau, enjoying First World medical care.
All this legal exquisiteness stands in contrast to what was once a more robust attitude. Pirates, said Cicero, were hostis humani generis -- enemies of the human race -- to be dealt with accordingly by their captors. Tellingly, Cicero's notion of piracy vanished in the Middle Ages; its recovery traces the recovery of the West itself.
By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained."
Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.
Today, by contrast, a Navy captain who takes captured pirates aboard his state-of-the-art warship will have a brig in which to keep them securely detained, and instantaneous communications through which he can obtain higher guidance and observe the rule of law.
Yet what ought to be a triumph for both justice and security has turned out closer to the opposite. Instead of greater security, we get the deteriorating situation described above. And in pursuit of a better form of justice -- chiefly defined nowadays as keeping a clear conscience -- we get (at best) a Kenyan jail. "We're humane warriors," says one U.S. Navy officer. "When the pirates put down their RPGs and raise their hands, we take them alive. And that's a lot tougher than taking bodies."
Piracy, of course, is hardly the only form of barbarism at work today: There are the suicide bombers on Israeli buses, the stonings of Iranian women, and so on. But piracy is certainly the most primordial of them, and our collective inability to deal with it says much about how far we've regressed in the pursuit of what is mistakenly thought of as a more humane policy. A society that erases the memory of how it overcame barbarism in the past inevitably loses sight of the meaning of civilization, and the means of sustaining it.
Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. Some 280 crew members are being held hostage, and two have been killed. Billions of dollars worth of cargo have been seized; millions have been paid in ransom. A multinational naval force has attempted to secure a corridor in the Gulf of Aden, through which 12% of the total volume of seaborne oil passes, and U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising.
Why? The view of senior U.S. military officials seems to be, in effect, that there is no controlling legal authority. Title 18, Chapter 81 of the United States Code establishes a sentence of life in prison for foreigners captured in the act of piracy. But, crucially, the law is only enforceable against pirates who attack U.S.-flagged vessels, of which today there are few.
What about international law? Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention -- ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. -- enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters -- provided Somalia's tottering government agrees -- but the resolution expires next week. As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate's prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers' organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.
Then there is the problem of what to do with captured pirates. No international body similar to the old Admiralty Courts is currently empowered to try pirates and imprison them. The British foreign office recently produced a legal opinion warning Royal Navy ships not to take pirates captive, lest they seek asylum in the U.K. or otherwise face repatriation in jurisdictions where they might be dealt with harshly, in violation of the British Human Rights Act.
In March 2006, the U.S. Navy took 11 pirates prisoner, six of whom were injured. Not wanting to set a precedent for trying pirates in U.S. courts, the State Department turned to Kenya to do the job. The injured spent weeks aboard the USS Nassau, enjoying First World medical care.
All this legal exquisiteness stands in contrast to what was once a more robust attitude. Pirates, said Cicero, were hostis humani generis -- enemies of the human race -- to be dealt with accordingly by their captors. Tellingly, Cicero's notion of piracy vanished in the Middle Ages; its recovery traces the recovery of the West itself.
By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained."
Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.
Today, by contrast, a Navy captain who takes captured pirates aboard his state-of-the-art warship will have a brig in which to keep them securely detained, and instantaneous communications through which he can obtain higher guidance and observe the rule of law.
Yet what ought to be a triumph for both justice and security has turned out closer to the opposite. Instead of greater security, we get the deteriorating situation described above. And in pursuit of a better form of justice -- chiefly defined nowadays as keeping a clear conscience -- we get (at best) a Kenyan jail. "We're humane warriors," says one U.S. Navy officer. "When the pirates put down their RPGs and raise their hands, we take them alive. And that's a lot tougher than taking bodies."
Piracy, of course, is hardly the only form of barbarism at work today: There are the suicide bombers on Israeli buses, the stonings of Iranian women, and so on. But piracy is certainly the most primordial of them, and our collective inability to deal with it says much about how far we've regressed in the pursuit of what is mistakenly thought of as a more humane policy. A society that erases the memory of how it overcame barbarism in the past inevitably loses sight of the meaning of civilization, and the means of sustaining it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/6129342.html
NATO rejects call for blockade along Somali coast
By EILEEN NG
Associated Press
Nov. 24, 2008
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Shipping officials from around the world called today for a military blockade along Somalia's coast to intercept pirate vessels heading out to sea.
But NATO, which has four warships off the coast of Somalia, rejected a blockade.Peter Swift, managing director of the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners, said stronger naval action — including aerial and aviation support — is necessary to battle rampant piracy in the Gulf of Aden near Somalia.
Some 20 tankers sail through the sea lane daily. But many tanker owners are considering a massive detour around southern Africa to avoid pirates, which will delay delivery and push costs up by 30 percent, Swift said.
The association, whose members own 2,900 tankers or 75 percent of the world's fleet, opposes attempts to arm merchant ships because it could escalate the violence and put crew members at even greater risk, he said.
"The other option is perhaps putting a blockade around Somalia and introducing the idea of intercepting vessels leaving Somalia rather than to try to protect the whole of the Gulf of Aden," Swift said.
Somali pirates have become increasingly brazen, seizing eight vessels in the past two weeks, including a huge Saudi supertanker loaded with $100 million worth of crude oil.
A blockade along Somalia's 2,400 mile coastline would not be easy.
"But some intervention there may be effective," Swift told reporters on the sidelines of a shipping conference in Malaysia.
U.S. Gen. John Craddock, NATO's supreme allied commander, said today the alliance's mandate is solely to escort World Food Program ships to Somalia and to conduct anti-piracy patrols.
Asked what he thought of a Russian proposal to jointly attack the pirate strongholds, Craddock answered: "That's far beyond what I've been tasked to do."
According to Lt. Nathan Christensen, spokesman of the U.S. 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, more than 14 warships from Denmark, France, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, the U.S. and NATO are currently patrolling a vast international maritime corridor. They escort some merchant ships and respond to distress calls in the area.
Christensen declined to comment on the idea of a blockade.
But the navies say it is virtually impossible to patrol the vast sea around the gulf.
NATO has ruled out a blockade.
"Blocking ports is not contemplated by NATO," said NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in Brussels. U.N. Security Council resolutions "do not include these kind of actions and as far as NATO is concerned, this is at the moment not on the cards," he said.
Secretary-General of the Arab League Amr Moussa said today Arabs should deploy their own naval forces to fight piracy in the Horn of Africa and also cooperate with foreign fleets in the area.
Diplomats of the Arab countries on the Red Sea met in Cairo last week to coordinate efforts to combat piracy, but some of these nations have been reluctant to get involved.
Somalia, an impoverished nation caught up in an Islamic insurgency, has had no functioning government since 1991. There have been 95 pirate attacks so far this year in Somali waters, with 39 ships hijacked.
Fifteen ships with nearly 300 crew are still in the hands of Somali pirates, who dock the hijacked vessels near the eastern and southern coast as they negotiate for ransom.
"Any action to prevent the pirates from heading out to sea is welcome," said Noel Choong, who heads the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Kuala Lumpur. He said it was up to the international community to decide how they can deploy their forces for the blockade.
The Baltic and International Maritime Council, the world's largest private shipping organization, echoed calls for greater military action.
"Despite increased patrols by coalition forces, piracy attacks continue. We hope a system ... will be put in place to coordinate the coalition forces," said Thomas Timlen, its Asian liaison officer. "It's clear from recent events ... that more needs to be done."
Both Swift and Timlen said a blockade is possible if the multi-coalition naval force coordinate their actions and more warships are sent to the area with a stronger mandate.
U.N. resolutions now allow pursuit of pirate ships but various countries interpret the law differently, Swift said.
He called for a clear mandate from the United Nations to allow warships to intercept pirate ships and arrest the sea bandits.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/piracy-somalia1
UN imposes fresh sanctions on Somalia after piracy talks
15-nation Security Council agrees to freeze pirates' assetsXan Rice in Nairobi, Matthew Weaver and agencies
Guardian.co.uk
November 20 2008
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.
Increasing piracy, he said, was "a clear indication of the further deterioration of the situation, with far-reaching consequences for (Somalia), the region and the larger international community".
Pirates who seized the Sirius Star and its $100m oil cargo have warned of "disastrous" consequences unless the money is paid, according to the news agency, AFP.
Mohamed Said, who claimed to be one of the pirates who seized the ship, told the agency: "We are demanding $25m [£17m] from the Saudi owners of the tanker.
"The Saudis have 10 days to comply, otherwise we will take action that could be disastrous."
The demand came as Egypt hosted an emergency meeting on piracy attended by representatives from Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Jordan and Somalia.
Egyptian diplomat Wafaa Bassem said several options would be discussed at the Cairo meeting, including establishing joint operations by Arab navies and setting up a piracy monitoring centre and warning systems for ship.
Egypt is concerned that piracy will force shipping companies to opt for safer routes that avoid the Suez canal, which links the Red Sea with the Mediterranean.
Odfjell SE, a big Norwegian shipping group, has already ordered its 90 tankers to take the long route around South Africa.
The British foreign secretary, David Miliband, signalled that Britain would not pay a ransom for the two British crew members held hostage on the Sirius Star.
Speaking to reporters, he said the international community must "stand firm" against hostage-taking in all its forms. He insisted that making payments in return for the release of hostages would only encourage further such incidents.
"There is a strong view of the British government, and actually the international community, that payments for hostage-taking are only an encouragement to further hostage-taking and we will be approaching this issue in a very delicate way, in a way that puts the security and safety of the hostages to the fore."
The Sirius Star, which is carrying $100m (£66m) worth of oil, was hijacked at the weekend.
The 330-metre oil tanker, the largest ship ever captured at sea, is reported to be anchored near the town of Harardheere on Somalia's eastern coast.
Its owner, Vela International, a subsidiary of the state oil company Saudi Aramco, yesterday opened ransom negotiations, according to the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal. "I know the owners of the tanker are negotiating on the issue. We do not like to negotiate with terrorists or hijackers. But the owners of the tanker, they are the final arbiters of what happens there," he said.
The UN estimates that pirates have received up to $30m in ransom payments this year.
Reports of the demand come as Russia announced it would send more warships to the east African coast to prevent pirate raids.
The Russian news agency RIA Novosti said the deployment of a missile frigate from Russia's northern fleet last month had helped prevent the seizure of at least two ships in the area.
"Russia will be sending warships from other fleets to this region," said Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, Russia's navy commander, attributing the decision to "the current developments off the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden, where Somali pirates have intensified their activity".
Yesterday, an Indian warship destroyed a pirate "mothership" in the Gulf of Aden. The Indian navy said its frigate, one of the numerous international warships dispatched to patrol the waters around the Horn of Africa, had approached the suspicious vessel on Tuesday evening.It turned out to be a previously captured ship being used by pirates as a base to launch their speedboats far out to sea.
"The INS Tabar closed in on the mother vessel and asked her to stop for investigation," an Indian navy spokesman said. "But on repeated calls, the vessel's threatening response was that she would blow up the naval warship if it approached."
After a heavy exchange of fire, the pirate ship was destroyed. Two speedboats escaped.
On the same day, pirates seized three other ships: a Greek bulk carrier, a Thai fishing boat and an Iranian-chartered cargo ship carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat from Germany.
In September, pirates who captured the Ukrainian ship MV Faina, carrying 33 army tanks, initially demanded $20m, although they later reduced their ransom.
The Faina and its crew are still being held near the north-eastern Somali fishing town of Eyl, together with more than a dozen other vessels with about 220 foreign seamen on board.
Al-Jazeera yesterday broadcast an audio tape featuring what it said was the voice of Farah Abd Jameh, a pirate on the Sirius Star, making his demands.
"Negotiators are located on board the ship and on land," he said. "Once they have agreed on the ransom it will be taken in cash to the oil tanker. We assure the safety of the ship that carries the ransom. We will mechanically count the money and we have machines that can detect fake money."
The authenticity of the tape could not be confirmed.
While the capture of so many passing cargo vessels makes a mockery of pirates' claims to be protecting the country from foreign exploitation, complaints about illegal fishing in Somali waters are genuine.
The Seafarers' Assistance Programme in Mombasa says that at any one time there can be hundreds of foreign trawlers, mostly from Europe and the Middle East, fishing within Somalia's 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone.
Local fishermen say their catches are declining as a result. While some foreign ships do have permits, corrupt officials often pocket the money.
Analysts say that in the long term the key to ending piracy is establishing an effective authority on land in Somalia. Piracy all but disappeared in 2006, when the Islamic Courts Union controlled most of southern and central Somalia for six months, bringing in law and order for the first time since the early 1990s.
Pirates began to flourish once more after invading Ethiopian forces ousted the Islamists. The transitional federal government, with Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed as president, exercises no authority on the ground or at sea and claims it can do little about the pirates.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIL TANKER FIRM: Military 'only solution' to piracy
Agence France Presse
November 21, 2008
SINGAPORE -- (UPDATE) A more aggressive military approach is the only answer to an escalation of piracy off Somalia, the world's biggest oil tanker company said Friday.
"I think that's the only solution," Martin Jensen, acting chief executive officer of Oslo-based Frontline Ltd, told Agence France-Presse in an interview.
He said Frontline, which has 80 tankers, is considering whether to divert its ships from Somalia and the treacherous Gulf of Aden, "if there's no quick international force or situation being applied."
Jensen, whose company has an office in Singapore, said Frontline is holding serious internal talks about whether to avoid the Gulf of Aden but the matter would have to be discussed with owners of the cargo.
"The main consideration, that's the safety of the crew and the ship," he said.
But Jensen added that piracy was not a problem that one company can solve, and his preference was for a military approach.
"It doesn't solve anything by diverting," he said.
Over the weekend pirates seized their biggest prize so far, the Saudi Arabian oil tanker Sirius Star. It was loaded with two million barrels of oil when they seized it hundreds of miles off the coast of Kenya.
The pirates have demanded a ransom of $25 million, while more than a dozen other vessels are being held in Somali waters by pirates.
In the face of their audacity, Russia's NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, called for a land military force to confront the pirates on their home turf.
NATO sent four warships into the Gulf of Aden last month on anti-piracy duties and to escort aid vessels, while a European Union anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia is to begin on December 8.
But the world's navies are struggling to find the right deterrent and any use of force might have little effect, experts say.
Jensen said his ships traveled near pirate-infested Somalia every week and one of them, the Front Voyager, recently had a narrow escape.
"A pirate boat approached but before they got too close the ship was able to get naval assistance," he said, adding that the problem was escalating.
One of the world's biggest shipping lines, Denmark's A.P. Moeller-Maersk, said Thursday it would divert some of its vessels around the tip of South Africa to avoid pirates in the Gulf of Aden.
In a statement, it said ships that are too slow -- or with decks low enough for pirates to scramble aboard -- would "seek alternative routing" around the Cape of Good Hope and Madagascar.
Alternatively, they could join a naval convoy through the Gulf of Aden, if one were available.
Norwegian shipping company Odfjell said on Monday it, too, would choose the longer, more expensive but also safer route around the Cape of Good Hope.
Jensen said the southern route was about 40 percent longer, "so of course that would be quite a cost".
One of the world's largest container shipping firms, Neptune Orient Lines, said it was "closely monitoring events" in the Gulf of Aden but was not planning to reroute ships.
"The relative risk of attack is lower for fast high-decked container ships than it is for slower low-decked vessels such as bulk carriers or tankers," said NOL spokesman Paul Barrett.
He said Singapore-based NOL has comprehensive -- but confidential -- measures in place to protect its crews.
"I think that's the only solution," Martin Jensen, acting chief executive officer of Oslo-based Frontline Ltd, told Agence France-Presse in an interview.
He said Frontline, which has 80 tankers, is considering whether to divert its ships from Somalia and the treacherous Gulf of Aden, "if there's no quick international force or situation being applied."
Jensen, whose company has an office in Singapore, said Frontline is holding serious internal talks about whether to avoid the Gulf of Aden but the matter would have to be discussed with owners of the cargo.
"The main consideration, that's the safety of the crew and the ship," he said.
But Jensen added that piracy was not a problem that one company can solve, and his preference was for a military approach.
"It doesn't solve anything by diverting," he said.
Over the weekend pirates seized their biggest prize so far, the Saudi Arabian oil tanker Sirius Star. It was loaded with two million barrels of oil when they seized it hundreds of miles off the coast of Kenya.
The pirates have demanded a ransom of $25 million, while more than a dozen other vessels are being held in Somali waters by pirates.
In the face of their audacity, Russia's NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, called for a land military force to confront the pirates on their home turf.
NATO sent four warships into the Gulf of Aden last month on anti-piracy duties and to escort aid vessels, while a European Union anti-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia is to begin on December 8.
But the world's navies are struggling to find the right deterrent and any use of force might have little effect, experts say.
Jensen said his ships traveled near pirate-infested Somalia every week and one of them, the Front Voyager, recently had a narrow escape.
"A pirate boat approached but before they got too close the ship was able to get naval assistance," he said, adding that the problem was escalating.
One of the world's biggest shipping lines, Denmark's A.P. Moeller-Maersk, said Thursday it would divert some of its vessels around the tip of South Africa to avoid pirates in the Gulf of Aden.
In a statement, it said ships that are too slow -- or with decks low enough for pirates to scramble aboard -- would "seek alternative routing" around the Cape of Good Hope and Madagascar.
Alternatively, they could join a naval convoy through the Gulf of Aden, if one were available.
Norwegian shipping company Odfjell said on Monday it, too, would choose the longer, more expensive but also safer route around the Cape of Good Hope.
Jensen said the southern route was about 40 percent longer, "so of course that would be quite a cost".
One of the world's largest container shipping firms, Neptune Orient Lines, said it was "closely monitoring events" in the Gulf of Aden but was not planning to reroute ships.
"The relative risk of attack is lower for fast high-decked container ships than it is for slower low-decked vessels such as bulk carriers or tankers," said NOL spokesman Paul Barrett.
He said Singapore-based NOL has comprehensive -- but confidential -- measures in place to protect its crews.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somali pirates pocket at least $1.67 million: 2 tankers released after payments to hijackers; U.N. backs arms sanctions
NBC News and news services
November 20, 2008
MOGADISHU, Somalia - Somali pirates released two hijacked ships after ransoms were paid, U.S. military officials said Thursday. The deals emerged as Britain warned that paying for the release of hostages risks encouraging more piracy.NBC News reported that the Great Creation, a Hong Kong-flagged chemical tanker seized on Sept. 18, was released after a $1.67 million ransom was paid. The Genius, another Hong Kong-flagged chemical tanker which was hijacked Sept. 26, was also returned in exchange for an unknown sum.
Earlier this week, pirates released the Stolt Valor, a Japanese chemical tanker after paying hijackers $2.5 million.
Gunmen from the chaotic Horn of Africa country grabbed world headlines with Saturday's spectacular capture of a huge Saudi Arabian supertanker loaded with $100 million worth of oil, the biggest ship hijacking in history.
Since seizing the Sirius Star oil tanker, pirates have hijacked at least three other ships, maritime officials say. The supertanker's owners are in ransom talks with the pirates who are reportedly demanding $25 million for its release.
The Saudi Arabian tanker was seized 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa, Kenya — far beyond the gangs' usual area of operations. It was believed to be anchored near Eyl, a former Somali fishing village that is now a well-defended pirate base.
The audacity of the attack underlined the extent of a crime wave that experts say has been fueled by the Iraq-style Islamist insurgency onshore, dimming hopes for U.N.-led peace talks, and the lure of multi-million-dollar ransoms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain opposes $25 million ransom payment to Somali pirates
By Tim Butcher, Middle East Correspondent
Telegraph.co.uk
November 20, 2008
Britain has said a $25 million ransom should not be paid to Somali pirates who seized the massive Sirius Star supertanker and its crew including two Britons.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband said he shared the view that ransoms should not be paid because it encourages further raids.
He spoke after a person claiming to be a pirate on board the Sirius Star demanded a fee of $25 million (£17 million) within ten days. If it is not paid he threatened "disastrous action''.
With Britain taking command next month of a European Union naval task force in the seas off Somalia some experts said the force was simply too small to cope with the threat from pirates ranging across wide swathes of the Indian Ocean.
Arab states in the region of the Red Sea met at an emergency summit in Cairo but came up with no new initiatives to deal with the problem.
Russia even suggested foreign powers arrange some sort of military assault on the towns on the lawless Somali coast to destroy pirate boats and infrastructure invoking the spirit of 18th century cutting-out attacks by the Royal Navy.
In the meantime Moscow said it would send more ships to reinforce the Russian frigate, Neustrashimy, which is already on station off the coast of Somalia. Russia did not indicate how many more ships would be sent.
[See: Dominic Wabala and Agencies, Russia seeks go-ahead with attack, Daily Nation (Oct. 23, 2008) at: http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/483372/-/tlh0sq/-/index.html ].
Mr Miliband spoke after the Foreign Office identified the two Britons on the Sirius Star as Peter French, 44, from County Durham, and James Grady from Strathclyde, in Scotland.
"There is a strong view of the British Government, and actually the international community, that payments for hostage-taking are only an encouragement to further hostage-taking,'' he said.
"We will be approaching this issue in a very delicate way, in a way that puts the security and safety of the hostages to the fore.'' He said he believed the deployment of a European flotilla was the best course of action.
"It is very important that the international community stands firm against the scourge of hostage-taking, whether it is on boats, whether it is on airlines or elsewhere,'' he said.
"All of our hearts go out to all of those people who are now hostages on that ship; obviously, in our case, especially for the two British hostages.
"Their families will be going through a wrenching hell of waiting. It is important we assure them we are fully engaged with all of our partners on this issue.''
Speaking by satellite phone from the ship, one of the pirates who identified himself as Mohammed Said threatened the results would be "disastrous" if the ransom was not paid.
The scuttling of the supertanker could cause an environmental catastrophe when its cargo of 2m barrels of Saudi crude oil starts to leak.
While the tone of the demand was threatening almost all recent incidents involving Somali pirates have ended peacefully following the payment of a ransom.
A spokesman for the ship's owners, Vela International Marine, which is controlled by the Saudi Arabian royal family, declined to comment on any ransom demand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules frustrate anti-piracy efforts
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website
November 19, 2008
The international effort to stop piracy off Somalia has not worked and the effort clearly needs to be stepped up into a higher gear.
The response so far has been twofold: first, to assemble naval forces to try to stop the pirates on the high seas; second, to encourage a political settlement within the fractured state of Somalia to enable law and order to be established.
The naval forces are growing all the time. There is already a small flotilla of warships in the region from the US, UK, Canada, France, Turkey, Germany, Russia and India, among others. This shows how the world's trading powers regard the piracy as a joint threat.
There has been some success. The warships have established a safe shipping lane and escort food aid ships into Somalia. The Royal Navy recently shot and killed two pirates and captured others. The French staged a daring capture of pirates who had taken over a yacht. The Indian navy has thwarted two attempted hijacks, though the pirates in both cases got away. (Update 19 November: The Indian Navy reports that it has sunk a pirate ship which refused to stop).
And the European Union is about to launch its first naval action. It has approved Operation Atalanta, in which about eight ships will add their weight to the international effort.
It is under the control of Commodore Antonius Papaioannou of Greece and Rear Admiral Philip Jones of the UK, whose command will be based at Northwood, outside London.
It offers a chance, perhaps, for some dashing naval commander to make his name in the style of some of the great anti-pirate commanders of the past.
Changing times
The problem these days, however, is that the operation is hemmed in by rules and regulations.
In 1815 the American Cmdr Stephen Decatur, sent to stop the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean, simply captured the flagship of the Algerian Dey and forced a capitulation. When the Dey later repudiated the agreement, the British and Dutch bombarded Algiers.
"The authorities these days have a real problem because of international law... As in the days of the Caribbean pirates, everything is on the pirates' side". Dr David Cordingly Maritime writer.
These days, there is no question of a bombardment of the port of Eyl, the main pirate base on the Somali coast. That might be the most effective response but it would require a UN Security Council resolution.
There is a resolution (1838, passed in October) which authorises the use of "necessary means", meaning force if need be, to stop piracy in international waters. There is also another resolution (1816) which allows anti-pirate operations within Somali waters, but only with the agreement of the Somali transitional government.
But even all these operations have to be conducted within international law, defined in this case as the provisions of the UN Law of the Sea Convention.There has also been a legal opinion by the Foreign Office in London that captured pirates cannot necessarily be sent back to whatever authorities can be found in Somalia, in case they are subject to harsh treatment. That would contravene the British Human Rights Act. The pirates captured in the Royal Navy action have now been handed over not to Somalia, but Kenya.
The Law of the Sea Convention places limitations on daring action. Under Article 100 of the convention a warship has first to send an officer-led party to board a suspected pirate ship to verify any suspicions.
The warship cannot just open fire. Any inspection has to be carried out "with all possible consideration". That sounds rather tentative.
(Update: I have heard from the Nautical Institute, an international professional body for mariners based in London that it has started a petition to the British prime minister urging tougher measures. Other readers have suggested various 'solutions', including having marines or private security guards on board ships or in escort vessels and declaring war in order to bombard pirate ports. I have also heard from someone who used to advise British forces in the region and he says you cannot under international law convert a commercial ship into a kind of warship. He also thinks the issue of who will put pirates in trial is a legal minefield and yet to be resolved.)
Historical measures
Maritime writer Dr David Cordingly, author of "Life among the Pirates", says that, historically, firm measures were taken against pirates.
"There would often be a show trial in London, Jamaica, Boston or Charleston," he said.
"That was followed by a public hanging and the bodies would be left swinging on the gallows at the entrance to harbours. Sailors would draw the conclusion that piracy was not a good career option.
"The authorities these days have a real problem because of international law. There are measures ship owners can take like having fire hoses to aim at the pirates, acoustic devices to hurt their hearing or electric fences but, as in the days of the Caribbean pirates, everything is on the pirates' side.
"Modern pirates use very similar methods to the old. They shadow and then board their victims. They usually outnumber the small crew on board the ship.
"The difference is in what they do next. They used to remove the valuables and maybe abandon or kill the ship's crew. The pirates of the Caribbean did not seek ransom though the Barbary pirates did, as the Somali pirates do.
"But the old ways of dealing with them are no longer possible."
Diplomatic effort
As for the diplomatic effort on land, that is going even more slowly. Somalia is basically split into three.
The capital, Mogadishu, is nominally under the control of a transitional government set up after an Ethiopian-led intervention that removed the Union of Islamic Courts.
Between the lack of decisive naval operations and the chaos on land, the pirates have thrived.
Since then, a breakaway Islamist group known as al-Shabab has gained control of much of the south and centre of the country. An African Union peacekeeping force has been ineffective.
There have been some calls for a larger UN force. Large parts of population survive on food aid.
The pirates, however, are based further north, in Puntland, a semi-autonomous region, where the port of Eyl is the main pirate base.
The pirates, however, are based further north, in Puntland, a semi-autonomous region, where the port of Eyl is the main pirate base.
There is a president but he has either no power or no interest in stopping a lucrative form of income.
It is believed that the money gained from ransom is more than the income of the local government of Puntland.
Further round the coast again is Somaliland, which would like international recognition of its independence. The chances of there being a united, peaceful Somalia in the foreseeable future are close to nil.
Between the lack of decisive naval operations and the chaos on land, the pirates have thrived.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14801497
Fourteen piracy attempts off Somalia in 10 days
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14801497
Fourteen piracy attempts off Somalia in 10 days
InterAsia News Service (IANS)
19 November , 2008
New Delhi: There have been 14 instances of piracy off the Somali coast in the past 10 days.
Prior to the three vessels seized Tuesday-Wednesday, the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) had reported 92 attempts at piracy off the coast of Somalia this year, 36 of which were successful.
The following are the details of the latest incidents as posted on the IMB website (barring the three incidents Tuesday-Wednesday):
Nov 18-19: A Hong Kong flagged vessel, a Kiribati fishing vessel and a Greek ship are seized in the Gulf of Aden and off the Somali coast.
Nov 15: Armed pirates attacked and hijacked a chemical tanker in the Gulf of Aden.
Nov 15: 450 nautical miles south east Mogadishu, armed pirates attacked and hijacked the Saudi Aramco super tanker Sirius Star.
Nov 14: Off southern Somalia, pirates heavily armed with automatic weapons and RPGs in two speedboats chased and fired at a container ship. Master increased speed, took evasive manoeuvres and crew activated fire hoses. Pirates aborted the attempted attack. Ship sustained damages due to gunshots and RPG fire. No injuries to crew.
Nov 14: Pirates armed with automatic weapons in three small speedboats approached a chemical tanker in the Gulf of Aden. Master contacted coalition warship and took evasive manoeuvres. The speedboats spread out and approached the vessel at high speed. The pirates failed in their attempt to board the vessel.
Nov 13: Six pirates in a fast speedboat approached a bulk carrier in the waters off Somalia. Master raised alarm, took evasive manoeuvres and crew activated fire hoses. The pirates ordered the ship to stop but master continued with the evasive manoeuvres. The pirates fired upon the ship with two rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons. Master called coalition warship and asked for immediate assistance. A coalition warship responded and came to the location in 15 minutes and chased away the pirate boat. No injuries to the crew or damages to the ship.
Nov 13: Off Somalia, pirates armed with automatic weapons and RPGs chased and fired upon a container ship. Because of the firing, fire broke out in the third officers' cabin. The vessel increased speed and made evasive manoeuvres. The pirate boat came alongside on port side. Pirates tried to embark on board but were unsuccessful. Later they aborted. Vessel continued to her destination port.
Nov 12: Armed pirates in two speedboats chased a tanker in the Gulf of Aden. Tanker took evasive manoeuvres and escaped from the pirates.
Nov 12: Armed pirates attacked and hijacked a chemical tanker in the Gulf of Aden.
Nov 11: Two speedboats with three-four armed pirates in each boat chased a bulk carrier in Gulf of Aden. Evasive manoeuvres made and Indian Navy warship contacted. An Indian Navy helicopter arrived at the location and interrupted the speedboats. Speedboats aborted the attack. Later, the warship, INS Tabar, was sighted and established contact.
Nov 10: 250 nautical miles east of Mogadishu, two speedboats approached a refrigerated cargo ship. One boat approached from the starboard quarter and the other from astern. The pirates armed with guns and RPGs started to open fire on the ship. Ship made evasive manoeuvres. The speedboats could not get closer due to the waves created by the evasive manoeuvres. Later the speedboats aborted the attempt. Ship sustained damages from gunfire. Crew safe.
Nov 10: Pirates armed with RPGs and guns boarded a chemical tanker underway and hijacked it in the Gulf of Aden.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: Pirates must be hit in their lairs
Arab News
19 November 2008
The seizure of an Aramco oil tanker, the Sirius Star, brings home to many people the extent of both the scourge and the dangers it poses for the Kingdom’s well-being if not confronted. This part of the world has always lived on trade, maritime trade in particular. Oil has not changed that. It has magnified it. These pirates, unless stopped, will continue their murderous, pillaging ways. This will not be the only tanker seized. There will be others. With cargoes around two million barrels, the pickings are just too tempting.
The seizure seven weeks ago of the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying a cargo of Russians tanks, galvanized some nations into a degree of action. There is now an increased NATO naval presence in the region as well as ships from India, Malaysia and Russia — and they have been cooperating. Recently the Russian and British navies prevented a Danish ship being captured. But this is not enough. The pirates are becoming daily bolder and more sophisticated in their operations — and have expanded into an ever wider area. There have been 92 attacks in the Arabian Sea and off the coast of East Africa this year, 36 of them successful. Fourteen vessels are currently held, including the MV Faina. The Sirius Star shows that, despite the naval presence, the problem is worsening. It is not only the biggest vessel to be seized but it was taken well outside what was thought to be the pirates’ zone of activity.
The root problem, as we all know, is the implosion of Somalia. While it remains a failed state, it provides a safe haven for the pirates. But the world cannot wait until law and order is re-established in Somalia, which is the de-facto international policy at the moment. It could be years before that happens. In the meantime, the attacks will continue and become ever more menacing. It is no exaggeration to say that the Kingdom’s very economy is at stake here — as well as that of other Gulf states.
Some years ago, piracy on the high seas was only ended when the major maritime powers decided no longer to license pirates as freelance buccaneers against each other but rather to pursue them and destroy them in their lairs. The policy worked and it seems to be what is needed today.
The policy of trying to contain the threat by increasing security on board ships is all very well, but it is ultimately futile — and expensive. It is not going to stop the pirates. They will find plenty of victims. The navy patrols cannot be everywhere. As for handing captured pirates to what limited authorities there are in Somalia’s breakaway region of Puntland — which is what the French Navy did with nine last month — it is insane. The pirates are closely linked to the warlords of Puntland who take their cut of the ransoms paid.
Negotiating with them and paying the ransom is also madness. It positively encourages them to strike again. This is now a multimillion dollar business.
Hitting the pirates in their lairs would mean naval action against Somali ports such as Eyl and the destruction of all potential pirate vessels there. That could only be done under UN authority. Seven weeks ago we suggested the creation of a UN naval force, a maritime equivalent of the UN peacekeeping forces in order to ensure safe shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. Whether it is that or providing the authority to move against the pirates, the UN has to address the issue — and immediately. It is already past time to deal with the problem before things grow even worse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buccaneers In Somali Waters - But They're Not Somalis
Black Agenda Report: The Journal of African-American Political Thought and Action
November 17, 2008
There is, indeed, piracy in the waters of Somalia, most of it perpetrated by foreign vessels that steal $300 million in fish per year. With no government to protect their national rights, Somali sailors find other ways to make a living. "Think of us like a coast guard." "Foreign ‘fish pirates' plunder Somali waters from about 700 vessels - an armada of commercial buccaneers."
So far this year, at least two dozen vessels have been boarded and seized by armed men off the coast of Somalia, the latest a Saudi Arabian supertanker capable of carrying two million barrels of oil. I'm avoiding using the term "pirates" because there is lots of piracy going on in Somali waters, most of it committed, not by Somalis, but by foreigners from around the globe. The northeast African nation, with 2,000 miles of coastline, once boasted some of the richest fisheries in the world, swarming with tuna, lobster, shark, shrimp and whitefish. But there has been no effective government in Somalia since 1991 and, therefore, no Somali coast guard to protect the fishing grounds from marauding foreign vessels. How much damage has been done by over fishing is unknown - foreigners sail into the fisheries as if they own them, and take what they wish.
Webster's Dictionary defines piracy as "robbery on the high seas." By that definition, Somalia is the victim of pirates from all over the world.
According to the United Nations, these foreign "fish pirates" plunder Somali waters from about 700 vessels - an armada of commercial buccaneers.
Before Somalia descended into chaos, 30,000 fishermen made their livings from the sea. But they can't compete with the modern, foreign vessels, and there is no one to keep the commercial fish pirates out.
Some foreign fishing interests make their own deals, purchasing fishing "licenses" from warlords purporting to represent authority on behalf of Somalia. That's very much like the "diplomacy" practiced by white settlers in the colonial and early United States, when they made "treaties" with bogus Indian "chiefs" who signed away Native American land for trinkets and liquor.
"The American fleet does little to interfere with the illegal dumping of radioactive waste in Somali waters."
Local and clan militias have replaced national authority in Somalia, which is partially occupied by the Ethiopian military. The Ethiopian invasion and occupation, instigated by the United States in late 2006, has displaced millions, many of whom face starvation. The coastal fishermen are also members of militias. Western media call them pirates, but as one armed sailor told the New York Times: "Think of us like a coast guard."
Somebody needs to guard Somali's water resources, but it certainly isn't the Americans. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, of the U.S. Navy's Central Command, patrols the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean - Somalia's neighborhood. It also bombs Somalis that resist the Ethiopian occupation and targets people the U.S. claims have ties to Al Qaida. But the American fleet does little to interfere with the illegal dumping of radioactive waste in Somali waters or any other crimes against the environment and Somalia's national treasure and sovereignty.
When it comes to piracy, Somalis are on balance the victims rather than the perpetrators. It is estimated that foreigners poach $300 million from Somali fisheries each year. Somalia's armed sailors extort about one-third that amount - $100 million - from the owners of captured ships. So, who are the real pirates?
The United States helped Ethiopia hijack the entire Somali nation: an international crime against peace. Uncle Sam is the biggest pirate of them all.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piracy - Threat at Sea: A Risk Analysis
Munich Re Group ((c) 2006)
(pp. 24-27)
"The term 'piracy' was defined by the Geneva Convention on the High Seas in 1958. This definition was adopted by the 1982 [UN] Convention [on the Law of the Sea UNCLOS].
For acts of violence against ships, persons, or property on board to be classified as piracy in accordance with Articles 101 and 102 of the 1982 Convention, the following conditions must all be met simultaneously:
The act of violence must be:
– committed by the crew or passengers of another vessel,
– illegal and serve private purposes,
– and it must be committed on the high seas or at a place not subject to state sovereignty.
Article 101 of the 1982 Convention defines the act of piracy very narrowly. Politically motivated acts, such as terrorist attacks, are not included according to the 1982 Convention.
The definition is unclear on the meaning of the word 'illegal'. It is left to the courts of the prosecuting countries to decide whether the act is to be designated “illegal” according to international law or according to the national law of the prosecuting countries."
"...Right of intervention against piracy
Article 110 of the 1982 Convention...grants warships the right to stop other vessels for the purpose of verifying their right to fly a flag. However, this is not a general right. It must be based on certain reasons, such as the suspicion of piracy, slave trading, or statelessness. The warship may send a socalled boarding team on board the stopped vessel in order to verify its right to fly the flag. The vessel may be searched if the suspicion is confirmed after inspecting the ship’s papers (Article 110, paragraph 2, 1982 Convention). When exercising this right, however, the commanding officers must remember that, if the suspicion proves to be unfounded, Article 110, paragraph 3 of the 1982 Convention stipulates that the shipping company be reimbursed for all losses incurred.
...According to the first sentence of Article 105 of the 1982 Convention, every state may take action against pirates (arrest and seizure) at any time in international waters (= high seas and waters not controlled by any state).
The second sentence of Article 105 states that the courts of the state which has seized the vessel (i.e. whose colours are being flown) can also decide on the penalties to be imposed and on the action to be taken with regard to the vessel or property...
...At the same time, Article 105 of the 1982 Convention specifies that a pirate ship cannot be pursued further once it has reached national waters.
Article 107 of the 1982 Convention, however, restricts the right of such intervention in international waters to warships or 'other ships which are clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and are authorized to that effect'.
– Exception: 'consent of the flag state'...
...Summary
Articles 100 to 107 of the 1982 Convention merely allow the community of states to take police action at sea but not to prosecute offences. On the high seas, this right is reserved for the individual states and based on their national law.
The 1982 Convention in itself is not sufficient to ensure adequate protection against piracy. Since the offence is restricted to the high seas, many cases do not qualify as piracy, for some 80% of all attacks occur in territorial waters and in ports.
A further shortcoming of the 1982 Convention is that an attack only qualifies as piracy according to the Convention’s own definition if it is committed for “private purposes”. The rights of intervention granted by the 1982 Convention therefore do not encompass the growing number of terrorist acts.
Furthermore, Article 100 of the 1982 Convention obliges the states to work together in the fight against piracy. That, however, does not mean that the states are under any obligation to incorporate standards penalising piracy in their legal systems."
[THERE IS ACTUALLY A BETTER LEGAL INSTRUMENT, BUT IT, TOO, HAS LIMITATIONS. - The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation of 1988 (SUA Convention)]
...The purpose of the SUA Convention was to fill the loopholes of the 1982 Convention. The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation was signed in Rome on 10 March 1988 and was prompted by the Achille Lauro incident in 1985. Members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation had seized the Italian liner and held the passengers hostage. One passenger was killed. At this moment it became clear that the international rulings in force were not sufficient.
It is interesting to note that the Convention is based on an initiative by Austria, Egypt, and Italy, none of which can be considered a leader in maritime navigation. By 30 April 2006, 135 states had acceded to the SUA Convention, including China, India, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Nigeria.
Important coastal states, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Somalia are still missing, however.
Important coastal states, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Somalia are still missing, however.
Definition of piracy according to the SUA Convention
While the first two Articles of the SUA Convention are devoted to the scope and definition of a “vessel”, Article 3 and the following articles are concerned with the definition and response to illegal actions against maritime navigation.
Among other things, illegal actions include the unlawful seizure of vessels, the attachment of materials to or installation of materials in vessels which could lead to damage or destruction of the vessel in question, and the killing of persons on board. Consequently, the SUA Convention, unlike the 1982 Convention, mainly relates to politically motivated terrorist acts. But it can also be applied to acts of piracy.
In addition, it covers a significantly larger geographical territory than the 1982 Convention. According to Article 4 of the SUA Convention, the vessel can be at sea anywhere at the time of the illegal act – on the high seas, in the exclusive economic zone, in coastal waters – and also on inland waterways. However, the vessel must be in international transit at the time of the illegal act, i.e. it must have come from a foreign territory or from the high seas or it must be passing through or heading for such areas at the time of the illegal act.
A loophole arises if the vessels only transit the territorial waters of one state – but that loophole could be filled by national laws.
Right of intervention permitted by the SUA Convention
Unlike the 1982 Convention, the SUA Convention does not grant any powers to take action against pirates and avert pirate attacks. Only the flag state (under the so-called flag state principle) and the state whose coastal waters are being transited by foreign vessels (territoriality principle) or whose citizens commit the offence (personality principle) have the right to take such action...This means that the SUA Convention, like the 1982 Convention, does not provide states with any right to pursue offenders in the territorial waters of other states...
...Criminal prosecution
Unlike the 1982 Convention, however, the SUA Convention does provide a legal foundation for the prosecution of pirates. Article 7, paragraph 1, SUA Convention obliges the treaty states to detain suspected persons in their territory or to take other measures to prevent their escape. This applies until criminal proceedings or extradition proceedings are instituted...
Summary
Although not all the loopholes of the 1982 Convention have been filled, the SUA Convention does constitute a further step towards repressing violence at sea. It compels states to make more efficient use of national legal standards. The signatories must exercise jurisdiction against all suspected offenders or extradite them. Unfortunately, however, this still does not mean that the offenders will also be punished.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Toxic waste' behind Somali piracy
By Najad Abdullahi
Aljazeera.net
UPDATED ON:Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:21 Mecca time, 09:21 GMT
Some pirates operating off Somalia's coast claim to act as coastguards
Somali pirates have accused European firms of dumping toxic waste off the Somali coast and are demanding an $8m ransom for the return of a Ukranian ship they captured, saying the money will go towards cleaning up the waste.
The ransom demand is a means of "reacting to the toxic waste that has been continually dumped on the shores of our country for nearly 20 years", Januna Ali Jama, a spokesman for the pirates, based in the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, said.
"The Somali coastline has been destroyed, and we believe this money is nothing compared to the devastation that we have seen on the seas."
The pirates are holding the MV Faina, a Ukrainian ship carrying tanks and military hardware, off Somalia's northern coast.
According to the International Maritime Bureau, 61 attacks by pirates have been reported since the start of the year.
While money is the primary objective of the hijackings, claims of the continued environmental destruction off Somalia's coast have been largely ignored by the regions's maritime authorities.
Dumping allegations
Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy for Somalia confirmed to Al Jazeera the world body has "reliable information" that European and Asian companies are dumping toxic waste, including nuclear waste, off the Somali coastline.
"I must stress however, that no government has endorsed this act, and that private companies and individuals acting alone are responsible," he said
The pirates are holding the MV Faina off Somalia's northern coast [Reuters]Allegations of the dumping of toxic waste, as well as illegal fishing, have circulated since the early 1990s.
But evidence of such practices literally appeared on the beaches of northern Somalia when the tsunami of 2004 hit the country.
The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) reported the tsunami had washed up rusting containers of toxic waste on the shores of Puntland.
Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a "frightening activity" that has been going on for more than decade.
"Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there," he said.
"European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne.
"And the waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes – you name it."
Nuttall also said that since the containers came ashore, hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments.
"We [the UNEP] had planned to do a proper, in-depth scientific assessment on the magnitude of the problem. But because of the high levels of insecurity onshore and off the Somali coast, we are unable to carry out an accurate assessment of the extent of the problem," he said.
However, Ould-Abdallah claims the practice still continues.
"What is most alarming here is that nuclear waste is being dumped. Radioactive uranium waste that is potentially killing Somalis and completely destroying the ocean," he said.
Toxic waste
Ould-Abdallah declined to name which companies are involved in waste dumping, citing legal reasons.
But he did say the practice helps fuel the 18-year-old civil war in Somalia as companies are paying Somali government ministers to dump their waste, or to secure licences and contracts.
"There is no government control ... and there are few people with high moral ground ... [and] yes, people in high positions are being paid off, but because of the fragility of the TFG [Transitional Federal Government], some of these companies now no longer ask the authorities – they simply dump their waste and leave."
Ould-Abdallah said there are ethical questions to be considered because the companies are negotiating contracts with a government that is largely divided along tribal lines.
"How can you negotiate these dealings with a country at war and with a government struggling to remain relevant?"
In 1992, a contract to secure the dumping of toxic waste was made by Swiss and Italian shipping firms Achair Partners and Progresso, with Nur Elmi Osman, a former official appointed to the government of Ali Mahdi Mohamed, one of many militia leaders involved in the ousting of Mohamed Siad Barre, Somalia's former president.
At the request of the Swiss and Italian governments, UNEP investigated the matter.
Both firms had denied entering into any agreement with militia leaders at the beginning of the Somali civil war.
Osman also denied signing any contract.
'Mafia involvement'
However, Mustafa Tolba, the former UNEP executive director, told Al Jazeera that he discovered the firms were set up as fictitious companies by larger industrial firms to dispose of hazardous waste.
"At the time, it felt like we were dealing with the Mafia, or some sort of organised crime group, possibly working with these industrial firms," he said.
Nations have found it difficult to tackle the problem of piracy [AFP]"It was very shady, and quite underground, and I would agree with Ould-Abdallah’s claims that it is still going on...
Unfortunately the war has not allowed environmental groups to investigate this fully."
The Italian mafia controls an estimated 30 per cent of Italy's waste disposal companies, including those that deal with toxic waste.
In 1998, Famiglia Cristiana, an Italian weekly magazine, claimed that although most of the waste-dumping took place after the start of the civil war in 1991, the activity actually began as early as 1989 under the Barre government.
Beyond the ethical question of trying to secure a hazardous waste agreement in an unstable country like Somalia, the alleged attempt by Swiss and Italian firms to dump waste in Somalia would violate international treaties to which both countries are signatories.
Legal ramifications
Switzerland and Italy signed and ratified the [UN] Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, which came into force in 1992.
EU member states, as well as 168 other countries have also signed the agreement.
The convention prohibits waste trade between countries that have signed the convention, as well as countries that have not signed the accord unless a bilateral agreement had been negotiated.
It is also prohibits the shipping of hazardous waste to a war zone.
Abdi Ismail Samatar, professor of Geography at the University of Minnesota, told Al Jazeera that because an international coalition of warships has been deployed to the Gulf of Aden, the alleged dumping of waste must have been observed.
Environmental damage
"If these acts are continuing, then surely they must have been seen by someone involved in maritime operations," he said.
"Is the cargo aimed at a certain destination more important than monitoring illegal activities in the region? Piracy is not the only problem for Somalia, and I think it's irresponsible on the part of the authorities to overlook this issue."
Mohammed Gure, chairman of the Somalia Concern Group, said that the social and environmental consequences will be felt for decades.
"The Somali coastline used to sustain hundreds of thousands of people, as a source of food and livelihoods. Now much of it is almost destroyed, primarily at the hands of these so-called ministers that have sold their nation to fill their own pockets."
Ould-Abdallah said piracy will not prevent waste dumping.
"The intentions of these pirates are not concerned with protecting their environment," he said. "What is ultimately needed is a functioning, effective government that will get its act together and take control of its affairs."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Green Jolly Roger? A Pirate Claims Environmental Concerns
By Mike Nizza
New York Times Blog
February 5, 2008
The latest pirate attack off Somalia, which hit the news on Monday, took an odd turn today as a radio station published a report on its Web site with a sublimely contradictory lede paragraph:
The spokesman of a group of gunmen who hijacked two ships off of Somalia’s northeastern coast has said that they are not pirates.
No? Then what are they, exactly?
“We are the gentlemen who work in the ocean … since the [Somali] civil war began the ocean has been our Mother,” the man said.
[… The] “group’s name is the Ocean Salvation Corps, and they are a group of Somali nationalists who took it upon themselves to protect the country’s shores.”
[ARE THESE PEOPLE CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE 'ENVIROMENTAL FREEDOM FIGHTERS'??]
While environmentally minded pirates might make a nice complement to the bishops who today urged followers to cut their carbon footprint for Lent, there was no way to verify the spokesman’s identity or what he said.
At the very least, though, there was a lucky coincidence between one of his claims and the record of the hijacked tugboat, the Svitzer Korsakov. The caller’s charge that the boat was “part of the environmental destruction” would not be the first levelled against the vessel. But that controversy is located thousands of nautical miles away at Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East, where oil companies are trying to build a hub for gas and oil production.
According to a statement from the ship’s owner, the tugboat was practically new, and had only recently rolled off the slipways of St. Petersburg, where it was built to help “facilitate year-round oil and gas exports,” in part by doing some icebreaking as well as tugging.
The Korsakov and three other vessels like it can “break a channel wide enough for the tankers calling at the terminal,” the company says. But activists trying to protect local ecosystems are concerned rather than impressed.
Whether or not the raids off Somalia are part of a buccaneering fight to help save the planet — which doesn’t sound like a bad sequel to “VeggieTales: The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything” — a resolution to this particular hijacking seemed to be in the offing.
Agence France-Presse reports that the tug boat’s owner was in continuing talks to win the vessel’s release, and that NATO naval forces in the area had been called. The military alliance has made quick work of pirates in the past, and are unlikely to care whether the hijackers consider themselves pirates or not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 2008: United Nations Secretary General supports anti-piracy mandate extension
International Maritime Organization
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has pledged his support for an extension of the mandate, given in United Nations Security Council resolution 1816 (2008), enabling States co operating with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia to enter the country's territorial waters and use all necessary means in order to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, consistent with relevant international law. That mandate is due to expire on 1 December 2008, i.e. six months after the adoption of the resolution, on 2 June 2008.
IMO Secretary-General Efthimios E. Mitropoulos wrote to Mr Ban in September proposing that the mandate be extended. Mr Ban has now confirmed that he supports the proposal and will be conveying the same to the Security Council, together with the concerns expressed by IMO and international shipping and seafaring organizations.
In a letter to Mr Mitropoulos, Mr Ban said he remains "seriously concerned" about the dangers posed by piracy in the Gulf of Aden and was "acutely aware" of its impact on the ability of the United Nations to deliver humanitarian assistance to Somalia. He also said he was encouraged by the Security Council's adoption, on 7 October 2008, of resolution 1838 (2008) on this issue. Mr Ban added, "We must do more and act quickly to fight this terrible scourge.
Mr Ban's letter came just days after a meeting at IMO, held at the invitation of Mr Mitropoulos, and involving the heads of the four shipping industry bodies known collectively as the Round Table (BIMCO, ICS/ISF, INTERCARGO and INTERTANKO), and the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) expressed its own support for an extension of the mandate (see IMO briefing 45/2008).
IMO Secretary-General Efthimios E. Mitropoulos wrote to Mr Ban in September proposing that the mandate be extended. Mr Ban has now confirmed that he supports the proposal and will be conveying the same to the Security Council, together with the concerns expressed by IMO and international shipping and seafaring organizations.
In a letter to Mr Mitropoulos, Mr Ban said he remains "seriously concerned" about the dangers posed by piracy in the Gulf of Aden and was "acutely aware" of its impact on the ability of the United Nations to deliver humanitarian assistance to Somalia. He also said he was encouraged by the Security Council's adoption, on 7 October 2008, of resolution 1838 (2008) on this issue. Mr Ban added, "We must do more and act quickly to fight this terrible scourge.
Mr Ban's letter came just days after a meeting at IMO, held at the invitation of Mr Mitropoulos, and involving the heads of the four shipping industry bodies known collectively as the Round Table (BIMCO, ICS/ISF, INTERCARGO and INTERTANKO), and the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) expressed its own support for an extension of the mandate (see IMO briefing 45/2008).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO and industry agree joint approaches on Somalia piracy
International Maritime Organization Briefing 45/2008
At the invitation of IMO Secretary-General Efthimios E. Mitropoulos, a meeting took place yesterday involving the heads of the four shipping industry bodies known collectively as the Round Table (BIMCO, ICS/ISF, INTERCARGO and INTERTANKO), and of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF). The meeting aimed at exploring common approaches, additional to measures already taken, to address the increasingly serious incidence of piracy attacks on shipping off the coast of Somalia and, in particular, in the Gulf of Aden - a strategic corridor leading to the Red Sea and to the Suez Canal, which represents a key conduit for almost 12% of the world's crude oil, not to mention other energy, container and general bulk traffic.
In the face of the recent alarming deterioration of the situation - both in the number of attacks, hijackings and hostage takings off Somalia, and the ferocity with which they are carried out - and in the light of some 13 vessels and over 200 seafarers reportedly now in the hands of pirates, the meeting, which took place at IMO Headquarters, identified a number of key issues that it felt needed to be addressed in order to alleviate the situation and strengthen further the safeguarding of shipping, including fishing vessels and pleasure craft, in the region.
The meeting called for sustained coordination between all naval forces operating in the area currently and in the future; for clear rules of engagement that would enable military assets to intervene effectively to protect shipping; and for an extension, for an adequate duration, of the mandate given in United Nations Security Council resolution 1816 (2008) enabling States co operating with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia to enter the country's territorial waters and use all necessary means in order to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, consistent with relevant international law. That mandate is due to expire on 1 December 2008, i.e. six months after the adoption of the resolution on 2 June 2008.
The meeting agreed on a number of specific measures to be taken by the IMO Secretary-General and the participating organizations, individually and collectively, to mobilize support and action from all sides in a position to assist.
The meeting further agreed that the need for any such measures was becoming increasingly urgent because of the immediate human concerns for the safety and wellbeing of seafarers and passengers who are currently being held hostage or may be caught up in future attacks; the continuing impact of the situation on the viability of transporting much-needed humanitarian assistance to Somalia; and its potential and significant detrimental effect on the world's commerce.
It was considered that, without adequate and coordinated protection for shipping, the current situation off Somalia might cause ship operators to avoid transiting through the Gulf of Aden, using the Cape of Good Hope instead, which would lead to increased shipping costs and, in turn, possible negative consequences for global trade - and, in the final analysis, the consumer - at a time when all nations are making efforts to address the current global financial crisis.
In this respect, the meeting was encouraged by the UN Security Council's adoption, on 7 October 2008, of resolution 1838 (2008), which calls upon States interested in the security of maritime activities to deploy naval vessels and military aircraft to actively fight piracy off the coast of Somalia, and expresses the Council's intention to remain seized of the matter with a view, in particular, to renewing the mandate granted in its earlier resolution 1816.
Briefing 45, 10 October 2008
In the face of the recent alarming deterioration of the situation - both in the number of attacks, hijackings and hostage takings off Somalia, and the ferocity with which they are carried out - and in the light of some 13 vessels and over 200 seafarers reportedly now in the hands of pirates, the meeting, which took place at IMO Headquarters, identified a number of key issues that it felt needed to be addressed in order to alleviate the situation and strengthen further the safeguarding of shipping, including fishing vessels and pleasure craft, in the region.
The meeting called for sustained coordination between all naval forces operating in the area currently and in the future; for clear rules of engagement that would enable military assets to intervene effectively to protect shipping; and for an extension, for an adequate duration, of the mandate given in United Nations Security Council resolution 1816 (2008) enabling States co operating with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia to enter the country's territorial waters and use all necessary means in order to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, consistent with relevant international law. That mandate is due to expire on 1 December 2008, i.e. six months after the adoption of the resolution on 2 June 2008.
The meeting agreed on a number of specific measures to be taken by the IMO Secretary-General and the participating organizations, individually and collectively, to mobilize support and action from all sides in a position to assist.
The meeting further agreed that the need for any such measures was becoming increasingly urgent because of the immediate human concerns for the safety and wellbeing of seafarers and passengers who are currently being held hostage or may be caught up in future attacks; the continuing impact of the situation on the viability of transporting much-needed humanitarian assistance to Somalia; and its potential and significant detrimental effect on the world's commerce.
It was considered that, without adequate and coordinated protection for shipping, the current situation off Somalia might cause ship operators to avoid transiting through the Gulf of Aden, using the Cape of Good Hope instead, which would lead to increased shipping costs and, in turn, possible negative consequences for global trade - and, in the final analysis, the consumer - at a time when all nations are making efforts to address the current global financial crisis.
In this respect, the meeting was encouraged by the UN Security Council's adoption, on 7 October 2008, of resolution 1838 (2008), which calls upon States interested in the security of maritime activities to deploy naval vessels and military aircraft to actively fight piracy off the coast of Somalia, and expresses the Council's intention to remain seized of the matter with a view, in particular, to renewing the mandate granted in its earlier resolution 1816.
Briefing 45, 10 October 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nations Security Council
SC/9467
Security Council
5987th Meeting (AM)
5987th Meeting (AM)
October 7, 2008
SECURITY COUNCIL ASKS NATIONS WITH MILITARY CAPACITY IN AREA
TO ‘ACTIVELY FIGHT PIRACY’ ON HIGH SEAS OFF SOMALIA
Unanimous Resolution 1838 (2008) Seeks Repressive Action
In Manner Consistent with United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea
TO ‘ACTIVELY FIGHT PIRACY’ ON HIGH SEAS OFF SOMALIA
Unanimous Resolution 1838 (2008) Seeks Repressive Action
In Manner Consistent with United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea
Condemning and deploring all acts of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia, the Security Council today called upon States interested in the security of maritime activities to deploy naval vessels and military aircraft to actively fight piracy on the high seas off the coast of Somalia.
Unanimously adopting resolution 1838 (2008) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council called upon States with naval vessels and military aircraft operating in the area to use, on the high seas and airspace off the coast of Somalia, the necessary means to repress acts of piracy in a manner consistent with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The Council urged States that had the capacity to do so to cooperate with Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government in conformity with the provision of resolution 1816 (2008) of 2 June, which allowed States cooperating with the Government, for a period of six months, to enter Somalia’s territorial waters and use “all necessary means” to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea in a manner consistent with international law (see Press Release SC/9344). Today, the Council expressed its intention to consider renewing that provision for an additional period.
States and regional organizations were urged to continue to take action to protect the World Food Programme (WFP) convoys, which was “vital” to bring humanitarian assistance to the affected populations in Somalia.
The draft resolution was sponsored by Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.
After the vote, the representative of South Africa said he had voted in favour of the resolution, because the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia had issued a call for the international community to assist with the piracy issue. The threat to international peace and security in Somalia, however, originated from the conflict that had ravaged the country for decades.
He said that, in the same letter that had conveyed the request for help against piracy, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia had also asked for help regarding the transition to a permanent Government, urging the Security Council to seriously consider such help. He, therefore, reiterated the call of the African Union for deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation and for United Nations support for African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). In resolution 1814 (2008), the Council had committed itself to consider a peacekeeping operation to take over from AMISOM. He hoped the Council would also consider the second request the Government of Somalia had submitted.
The representative of France said the Somali pirates were a global threat. The international community must respond in line with international law and in particular with the Law of the Sea. It would be essential that in November the Council would extend the provisions of resolution 1816 (2008). He agreed that the Council must not lose sight of the situation in Somalia itself. The Council had asked the Secretary-General in November to offer recommendations on the matter, but that should not stop the Council from taking action now. Every day, the pirates were slowly killing the people of Somalia. It was therefore a matter of urgency to act now.
Indonesia’s representative said his country’s favourable vote reflected its concern over the threat posed by piracy, but such piracy was not a “stand-alone problem”. It was part of the instability of Somalia in general. He urged the international community to redouble its efforts to achieve stability in the country. He also stressed that the resolution must be seen as applying only to the situation at hand and did not establish new international law.
The representative of Italy joined other members in welcoming the resolution, expressing hope that it would spur new action to fight piracy for the benefit of Somalia and the entire international community. He also underlined the need, however, for the Council to address the entire crisis in Somalia with urgency.
The meeting started at 10:10 a.m. and adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Resolution
The full text of resolution 1838 (2008) reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling its resolutions 1814 (2008) and 1816 (2008),
“Gravely concerned by the recent proliferation of acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea against vessels off the coast of Somalia, and by the serious threat it poses to the prompt, safe and effective delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia, to international navigation and the safety of commercial maritime routes, and to fishing activities conducted in conformity with international law,
“Noting with concern also that increasingly violent acts of piracy are carried out with heavier weaponry, in a larger area off the coast of Somalia, using long-range assets such as mother ships, and demonstrating more sophisticated organization and methods of attack,
“Reaffirming that international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (“the Convention”), sets out the legal framework applicable to combating piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as other ocean activities,
[PRESUMABLY, THE UNCLOS SANCTIONS, CONSISTENT WITH THE UN CHARTER, THE PAYMENT OF RANSOMS AS THE MOST EFFICIENT, HARMONIOUS AND PEACEFUL MEANS OF RESOLVING PIRACY ATTACKS THAT THREATEN THE ESSENCE OF INTERNATIONAL OCEAN-BORNE COMMERCE - FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION??]
“Commending the contribution made by some States since November 2007 to protect the World Food Programme (“WFP”) maritime convoys, and, the establishment by the European Union of a coordination unit with the task of supporting the surveillance and protection activities carried out by some member States of the European Union off the coast of Somalia, and the ongoing planning process towards a possible European Union naval operation, as well as other international or national initiatives taken with a view to implementing resolutions 1814 (2008) and 1816 (2008),
“Noting recent humanitarian reports that as many as three-and-a-half million Somalis will be dependent on humanitarian food aid by the end of the year, and that maritime contractors for the WFP will not deliver food aid to Somalia without naval warship escorts, expressing its determination to ensure long-term security of WFP deliveries to Somalia and recalling that it requested the Secretary-General in resolution 1814 (2008) to provide his support for efforts to protect WFP maritime convoys,
“Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and unity of Somalia,
“Taking note of the letter dated 1 September 2008 of the President of Somalia to the Secretary-General of the United Nations expressing the appreciation of the Transitional Federal Government (“TFG”) to the Security Council for its assistance and expressing the TFG’s willingness to consider working with other States, as well as regional organizations, to provide advance notifications additional to those already provided, in accordance with paragraph 7 of resolution 1816 (2008), to combat piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia,
“Recalling that in the statement of its President dated 4 September 2008 (S/PRST/2008/33) it welcomed the signing of a peace and reconciliation agreement in Djibouti and commended the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia, Mr. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, for his ongoing efforts, and emphasizing the importance of promoting a comprehensive and lasting settlement in Somalia,
“Recalling also that in the statement of its President dated 4 September (S/PRST/2008/33) it took note of the parties’ request in the Djibouti Agreement that the United Nations, within a period of 120 days, authorize and deploy an international stabilization force and looking forward to the Secretary-General’s report due 60 days from its passage, in particular a detailed and consolidated description of a feasible multinational force, as well as a detailed concept of operations for a feasible United Nations peacekeeping operation,
“Emphasizing that peace and stability, the strengthening of State institutions, economic and social development and respect for human rights and the rule of law are necessary to create the conditions for a full eradication of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia,
“Determining that the incidents of piracy and armed robbery against vessels in the territorial waters of Somalia and the high seas off the coast of Somalia exacerbate the situation in Somalia which continues to constitute a threat against international peace and security in the region,
“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
“1. Reiterates that it condemns and deplores all acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea against vessels off the coast of Somalia;
“2. Calls upon States interested in the security of maritime activities to take part actively in the fight against piracy on the high seas off the coast of Somalia, in particular by deploying naval vessels and military aircraft, in accordance with international law, as reflected in the Convention;
“3. Calls upon States whose naval vessels and military aircraft operate on the high seas and airspace off the coast of Somalia to use on the high seas and airspace off the coast of Somalia the necessary means, in conformity with international law, as reflected in the Convention, for the repression of acts of piracy;
“4. Urges States that have the capacity to do so to cooperate with the TFG in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea in conformity with the provisions of resolution 1816 (2008);
“5. Urges also States and regional organizations, in conformity with the provisions of resolution 1814 (2008), to continue to take action to protect the World Food Programme maritime convoys, which is vital to bring humanitarian assistance to the affected populations in Somalia;
“6. Urges States, as requested in particular by International Maritime Organization resolution (“IMO”) A-1002(25), to issue to ships entitled to fly their flag, as necessary, advice and guidance on appropriate precautionary measures to protect themselves from attack or actions to take if under attack or the threat of attack when sailing in waters off the coast of Somalia;
“7. Calls upon States and regional organizations to coordinate their actions pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above;
“8. Affirms that the provisions in this resolution apply only with respect to the situation in Somalia and shall not affect the rights or obligations or responsibilities of member States under international law, including any rights or obligations under the Convention, with respect to any situation, and underscores in particular that this resolution shall not be considered as establishing customary international law;
“9. Looks forward to the report of the Secretary-General requested in paragraph 13 of resolution 1816 (2008) and expresses its intention to review the situation with respect to piracy and armed robbery at sea against vessels off the coast of Somalia with a view, in particular, upon the request of the TFG, to renewing the authority provided in paragraph 7 of resolution 1816 (2008) for an additional period;
“10. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Council
SC/9344
Security Council
5902nd Meeting (PM)
5902nd Meeting (PM)
2 June 2008
SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNS ACTS OF PIRACY, ARMED ROBBERY OFF SOMALIA’S COAST,
AUTHORIZES FOR SIX MONTHS ‘ALL NECESSARY MEANS’ TO REPRESS SUCH ACTS
Resolution 1816 (2008) Adopted Unanimously with Somalia’s Consent;
Measures Do Not Affect Rights, Obligations under Law of Sea Convention
AUTHORIZES FOR SIX MONTHS ‘ALL NECESSARY MEANS’ TO REPRESS SUCH ACTS
Resolution 1816 (2008) Adopted Unanimously with Somalia’s Consent;
Measures Do Not Affect Rights, Obligations under Law of Sea Convention
Condemning all acts of piracy and armed robbery against vessels off the coast of Somalia, the Security Council this afternoon authorized a series of decisive measures to combat those crimes.
By the terms of resolution 1816 (2008), which was unanimously adopted today, the Council decided that the States cooperating with the country’s transitional Government would be allowed, for a period of six months, to enter the territorial waters of Somalia and use “all necessary means” to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, in a manner consistent with relevant provisions of international law.
By the terms of resolution 1816 (2008), which was unanimously adopted today, the Council decided that the States cooperating with the country’s transitional Government would be allowed, for a period of six months, to enter the territorial waters of Somalia and use “all necessary means” to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, in a manner consistent with relevant provisions of international law.
The text was adopted with consent of Somalia, which lacks the capacity to interdict pirates or patrol and secure its territorial waters, following a surge in attacks on ships in the waters off the country’s coast, including hijackings of vessels operated by the World Food Programme and numerous commercial vessels -- all of which posed a threat “to the prompt, safe and effective delivery of food aid and other humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia”, and a grave danger to vessels, crews, passengers and cargo.
Affirming that the authorization provided in the resolution applies only to the situation in Somalia and shall not affect the rights and obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention, nor be considered as establishing customary international law, the Council also requested cooperating States to ensure that anti-piracy actions they undertake do not deny or impair the right of innocent passage to the ships of any third State.
While urging States, whose naval vessels and military aircraft operate on the high seas and airspace of the coast of Somalia to be vigilant, the Council encouraged States interested in the use of commercial routes off the coast of Somalia to increase and coordinate their efforts to deter attacks upon and hijacking of vessels, in cooperation with the country’s Government. All States were urged to cooperate with each other, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and, as appropriate, regional organizations and render assistance to vessels threatened by or under attack by pirates.
Speaking prior to action on the draft, Indonesia’s representative emphasized the need for the draft to be consistent with international law, particularly the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and to avoid creating a basis for customary international law for the repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Actions envisaged in the resolution should only apply to the territorial waters of Somalia, based upon that country’s prior consent. The resolution addressed solely the specific situation off the coast of Somalia, as requested by the Government.
Speaking after the vote, Viet Nam’s representative said the resolution should not be interpreted as allowing any actions in the maritime areas other than Somalia’s or under conditions contrary to international law and the Law of the Sea Convention.
The representative of Libya said he had voted in favour of the draft on the understanding that the resolution related only to acts of piracy in the maritime areas under jurisdiction of Somalia.
South Africa’s representative said that it was necessary to be clear that it was the situation in Somalia that constituted a threat to international peace and security and not sea piracy in itself.
Furthermore, the resolution must respect the Law of the Sea Convention, which remained the basis for cooperation among States on the issue of piracy. The Council should not lose focus on the larger situation in the country, most importantly the need to address the political, security and humanitarian situation on the ground.
China’s representative said that the Council’s actions should facilitate international assistance in combating piracy and avoid negative consequences. Such assistance should be based on the wishes of the Government and be applied only to the territorial waters of Somalia. It must comply with the Law of the Sea Convention and must not constitute conflict with existing international legislation. The resolution adopted today responded to those requirements to the greatest extent possible.
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. and adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met this afternoon to consider the situation in Somalia. It had before it a draft resolution (document S/2008/351) sponsored by Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Republic of Korea, Spain, United Kingdom and the United States, which reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling its previous resolutions and the statements of its President concerning the situation in Somalia,
“Gravely concerned by the threat that acts of piracy and armed robbery against vessels pose to the prompt, safe and effective delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia, the safety of commercial maritime routes and to international navigation,
“Expressing its concerns at the quarterly reports from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) since 2005, which provide evidence of continuing piracy and armed robbery in particular in the waters off the coast of Somalia,
“Affirming that international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (“the Convention”), sets out the legal framework applicable to combating piracy and armed robbery, as well as other ocean activities,
“Reaffirming the relevant provisions of international law with respect to the repression of piracy, including the Convention, and recalling that they provide guiding principles for cooperation to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, including but not limited to boarding, searching, and seizing vessels engaged in or suspected of engaging in acts of piracy, and to apprehending persons engaged in such acts with a view to such persons being prosecuted,
“Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and unity of Somalia,
“Taking into account the crisis situation in Somalia, and the lack of capacity of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to interdict pirates or patrol and secure either the international sea lanes off the coast of Somalia or Somalia’s territorial waters,
“Deploring the recent incidents of attacks upon and hijacking of vessels in the territorial waters and on the high seas off the coast of Somalia including attacks upon and hijackings of vessels operated by the World Food Programme and numerous commercial vessels and the serious adverse impact of these attacks on the prompt, safe and effective delivery of food aid and other humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia, and the grave dangers they pose to vessels, crews, passengers, and cargo,
“Noting the letters to the Secretary-General from the Secretary-General of the IMO dated 5 July 2007 and 18 September 2007 regarding the piracy problems off the coast of Somalia and the IMO Assembly resolution A.1002 (25), which strongly urged Governments to increase their efforts to prevent and repress, within the provisions of international law, acts of piracy and armed robbery against vessels irrespective of where such acts occur, and recalling the joint communiqué of the IMO and the World Food Programme of 10 July 2007,
“Taking note of the Secretary-General’s letter of 9 November 2007 to the President of the Security Council reporting that the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) needs and would welcome international assistance to address the problem,
“Taking further note of the letter from the Permanent Representative of the Somali Republic to the United Nations to the President of the Security Council dated 27 February 2008, conveying the consent of the TFG to the Security Council for urgent assistance in securing the territorial and international waters off the coast of Somalia for the safe conduct of shipping and navigation,
“Determining that the incidents of piracy and armed robbery against vessels in the territorial waters of Somalia and the high seas off the coast of Somalia exacerbate the situation in Somalia which continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region,
“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
“1. Condemns and deplores all acts of piracy and armed robbery against vessels in territorial waters and the high seas off the coast of Somalia;
“2. Urges States whose naval vessels and military aircraft operate on the high seas and airspace off the coast of Somalia to be vigilant to acts of piracy and armed robbery and, in this context, encourages, in particular, States interested in the use of commercial maritime routes off the coast of Somalia, to increase and coordinate their efforts to deter acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea in cooperation with the TFG;
“3. Urges all States to cooperate with each other, with the IMO and, as appropriate, with the relevant regional organizations in connection with, and share information about, acts of piracy and armed robbery in the territorial waters and on the high seas off the coast of Somalia, and to render assistance to vessels threatened by or under attack by pirates or armed robbers, in accordance with relevant international law;
“4. Further urges States to work in cooperation with interested organizations, including the IMO, to ensure that vessels entitled to fly their flag receive appropriate guidance and training on avoidance, evasion, and defensive techniques and to avoid the area whenever possible;
“5. Calls upon States and interested organizations, including the IMO, to provide technical assistance to Somalia and nearby coastal States upon their request to enhance the capacity of these States to ensure coastal and maritime security, including combating piracy and armed robbery off the Somali and nearby coastlines;
“6. Affirms that the measures imposed by paragraph 5 of resolution 733 (1992) and further elaborated upon by paragraphs 1 and 2 of resolution 1425 (2002) do not apply to supplies of technical assistance to Somalia solely for the purposes set out in paragraph 5 above which have been exempted from those measures in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 11 (b) and 12 of resolution 1772 (2007);
“7. Decides that for a period of six months from the date of this resolution, States cooperating with the TFG in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, for which advance notification has been provided by the TFG to the Secretary General, may:
(a) Enter the territorial waters of Somalia for the purpose of repressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, in a manner consistent with such action permitted on the high seas with respect to piracy under relevant international law; and
(b) Use, within the territorial waters of Somalia, in a manner consistent with action permitted on the high seas with respect to piracy under relevant international law, all necessary means to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery;
“8. Requests that cooperating States take appropriate steps to ensure that the activities they undertake pursuant to the authorization in paragraph 7 do not have the practical effect of denying or impairing the right of innocent passage to the ships of any third State;
“9. Affirms that the authorization provided in this resolution applies only with respect to the situation in Somalia and shall not affect the rights or obligations or responsibilities of Member States under international law, including any rights or obligations under the Convention, with respect to any other situation, and underscores in particular that it shall not be considered as establishing customary international law, and affirms further that this authorization has been provided only following receipt of the letter from the Permanent Representative of the Somalia Republic to the United Nations to the President of the Security Council dated 27 February 2008 (S/2008/XXX) conveying the consent of the TFG;
“10. Calls upon States to coordinate their actions with other participating States taken pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 7 above;
“11. Calls upon all States, and in particular flag, port and coastal States, States of the nationality of victims and perpetrators or piracy and armed robbery, and other States with relevant jurisdiction under international law and national legislation, to cooperate in determining jurisdiction, and in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for acts of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia, consistent with applicable international law including international human rights law, and to render assistance by, among other actions, providing disposition and logistics assistance with respect to persons under their jurisdiction and control, such victims and witnesses and persons detained as a result of operations conducted under this resolution;
“12. Requests States cooperating with the TFG to inform the Security Council within 3 months of the progress of actions undertaken in the exercise of the authority provided in paragraph 7 above;
“13. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council within 5 months of adoption of this resolution on the implementation of this resolution and on the situation with respect to piracy and armed robbery in territorial waters and the high seas off the coast of Somalia;
“14. Requests the Secretary-General of the IMO to brief the Council on the basis of cases brought to his attention by the agreement of all affected coastal States, and duly taking into account the existing bilateral and regional cooperative arrangements, on the situation with respect to piracy and armed robbery;
“15. Expresses its intention to review the situation and consider, as appropriate, renewing the authority provided in paragraph 7 above for additional periods upon the request of the TFG;
“16. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
Statements
Speaking prior to the vote, HASAN KLEIB (Indonesia) said that his country fully supported the request of Somalia -- as reflected in the Transitional Government’s letter to the President of the Council -- for international assistance in its efforts to address the acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships off the coast of Somalia. In drafting a positive response to Somalia’s request, Indonesia had been guided by the need for the draft to be consistent with international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and would not envisage any modification of the existing carefully balanced law. Also, the text should not become a basis of customary international law for the repression of piracy and armed robbery at sea. Actions envisaged in the resolution shall only apply to the territorial waters of Somalia, based upon that country’s prior consent. The draft resolution must address solely the specific situation off the coast of Somalia, as requested by the Government.
Like Somalia and most Members of the United Nations, Indonesia was a faithful party to the Law of the Sea Convention and had a legal obligation to preserve the rights, obligations and responsibilities of Member States derived from it. Those had been carefully negotiated, in order to ensure, in a balanced manner, the interests of coastal and user States. Thus, it was his duty to voice strong reservations if there were actions envisioned by the Council, or any other forum, that could lead to modification, rewriting or redefining the Convention. Ample safeguards were needed. He was pleased that those considerations had materialized in the formulation of operative paragraph 9, which stated that “the authorization provided in this resolution … shall not affect the rights or obligations or responsibilities of Member States under international law, including any rights or obligations under the Convention, … and … it shall not be considered as establishing customary international law.” It was in the interests of all that existing laws and norms not be violated when taking steps against illegal or criminal acts.
Continued political instability in the country had led to the inability of its law enforcement to maintain stability and security, he continued. That situation also extended to the waters off the coast of Somalia. Thus, Somalia’s unique situation required an exceptional measure by the international community to deal with the problem of piracy and armed robbery against vessels.
In that regard, the request and consent from the Somali Government served as the legal basis for the Council to formulate appropriate responses within the parameter of international law, in particular the Law of the Sea Convention.
Piracy and armed robbery at sea could affect the safety of international navigation, but the Council needed to exercise caution in trying to address such acts in other parts of the globe. He was pleased that such caution was exercised in operative paragraph 14, which requested the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to brief the Council on the basis of cases brought to his attention by the agreement of all affected coastal States, and duly taking into account the existing bilateral and cooperative arrangement, on the situation with respect to piracy and armed robbery. That caution undoubtedly reflected the Council’s commitment to uphold international law, in spirit and in letter. The principles of respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in the Charter had to be espoused by the Council at all times. In exercising its mandate in the maintenance of international peace and security, it was possible to do so without having to challenge the integrity of international law. Those two objectives were mutually reinforcing and not exclusive.
As it stood now, the text had accommodated those two fundamental principles, he said. Those were about consistency with the Law of the Sea Convention and the specific situation of piracy and armed robbery off the coast of Somalia. After all, the text, first and foremost, was about Somalia. It was about how the Council, together with the international community, could assist Somalia to fight the crime. The text would ensure that Somalia would be the beneficiary of common efforts. His delegation was now ready to support the draft.
The Council then unanimously adopted resolution 1816 (2008).
After the vote, HOANG CHI TRUNG ( Viet Nam) said his country was fully committed to fight against piracy under the provisions of international law and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The resolution adopted should not be interpreted as allowing any actions taken in the maritime areas other than Somalia’s, or under conditions contrary to international law and the Law of the Sea Convention.
IBRAHIM O.A. DABBASHI ( Libya) said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft on the understanding that the resolution related only to acts of piracy in the maritime areas under jurisdiction of Somalia.
BASO SANGQU ( South Africa) welcomed the adoption of the text and said that in negotiating and agreeing on the resolution, his delegation had been guided by the fact that the text limited itself to the situation in Somalia. It was necessary to be clear that it was the situation in Somalia that constituted a threat to international peace and security, and not piracy in itself. Sea piracy was a symptom. Furthermore, the resolution must respect the Law of the Sea Convention, which remained the basis for cooperation among States on the issue of piracy. The Council should not lose focus on the larger situation in the country, most importantly the need to address the political, security and humanitarian situation on the ground.
He welcomed the adoption of resolution 1814 (2008) last month, which provided a signal to the people of Somalia that the international community was serious about assisting them in resolving their conflict. As provided in 1814, the Council was willing to consider, at the appropriate time, a peacekeeping operation to take over from the African Union Mission in Somalia, once there was progress in the political process and improvement in the security situation on the ground. He was pleased that the Council’s visit to Africa had begun with a discussion in Djibouti with key parties in Somalia. He hoped the visit would provide impetus to the ongoing international efforts to resolve the conflict in Somalia.
LA YIFAN ( China) said that his country had always respected the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of countries and supported the national reconciliation process in Somalia, which was trying to achieve peace and stability after 17 years of conflict. The Council’s visit to Africa had fully demonstrated the importance its members attached to the situation in Somalia.
The rise of piracy off the coast of that country constituted a great threat to its peace process and international efforts for humanitarian relief. Somalia had asked for assistance in combating piracy, and the international community was widely supportive of that request. The Council had authorized Member States to assist the Government in combating piracy, and China supported prompt adoption of the text.
The issue of piracy was closely related to the rights and obligations in the oceans, and the Council had to act with great prudence, he continued. Its actions should facilitate international assistance in combating piracy and avoid negative consequences. Such assistance should be based on the wishes of the Government and applied only to the territorial waters of Somalia, not expanding to other regions. It must comply with the Law of the Sea Convention and must not constitute conflict with existing international legislation. The resolution adopted today responded to those requirements to the greatest extent possible. It was both positive and prudent, and China had voted in favour of the draft.
In the course of its application, various problems might come up and might require international cooperation, he added. The piracy should not be seen as a stand-alone issue, but as an expression of the situation in the country. The international community should focus on removing the root causes of the current situation in Somalia. China was ready to join others in the continued effort to achieve peace and stability in that country.
No comments:
Post a Comment