Is there a legal, practical way to stop the Somali pirates?
Discussion
I am sure I am being naive and simplistic, but it seems inconceivable to me that people with a few machine guns and light boats can storm commercial shipping with impunity. It seems odd that they are let go when captured. It seems odd that $5million ransoms are preferable to arming the ships, and that there is a complete prohibition on blowing these people out of the water.
What is the legal construct?. I cannot imagine any world protest to an armed response.
Doubtless I am completely missing a whole slew of obstacles, but I don't know what they are.
What is the legal construct?. I cannot imagine any world protest to an armed response.
Doubtless I am completely missing a whole slew of obstacles, but I don't know what they are.
RDMcG said:
I am sure I am being naive and simplistic, but it seems inconceivable to me that people with a few machine guns and light boats can storm commercial shipping with impunity. It seems odd that they are let go when captured. It seems odd that $5million ransoms are preferable to arming the ships, and that there is a complete prohibition on blowing these people out of the water.
What is the legal construct?. I cannot imagine any world protest to an armed response.
Doubtless I am completely missing a whole slew of obstacles, but I don't know what they are.
The west has faced many such situations before. Back when they had some spine the typical response would be to raid the settlements from whence the pirates came to discourage the activity. This was the policy not only of the established european powers but also the US. In fact one of the first acts of the navy of the newly independent USA was to fight the pirates of the barbary coast. What is the legal construct?. I cannot imagine any world protest to an armed response.
Doubtless I am completely missing a whole slew of obstacles, but I don't know what they are.
JagLover said:
The west has faced many such situations before. Back when they had some spine the typical response would be to raid the settlements from whence the pirates came to discourage the activity. This was the policy not only of the established european powers but also the US. In fact one of the first acts of the navy of the newly independent USA was to fight the pirates of the barbary coast.
Apart from them no longer having a spine, what are the reasons for no longer doing so? Blow a few of their ships sky f
king high and I doubt they'll be so keen to try it on for a while.
ALawson said:
I suspect with 24 Hr news, the internet, mobile phones taking video and the backlash that would ensue from the videos of pirates being blow out of the water being televised. The US and UK haven't got the stomach for it or in the case of the UK the resources.
Plenty of other governments (and their troops/Navies) have taken swift and extremely prejudiced action to keep their ships sailing. I think our governments also fear reprisals back on home turf if we start fighting fire with fire.I think this was discussed a number of weeks back. The obvious answer for merchant vessels is to arm themselves with security personnel and have plans to 'repel boarders'. However, it was said that ships have to comply with the laws of the country they are based in AND the laws of all the countries they visit. So I guess having rocket launchers and miniguns on deck plus armed personnel would cause problems when returning to Southampton etc 
I guess there's a business opportunity there for some security companies who could outfit a vessel with portable and mercenaries defences just before the vessel enters the risky seas.
I guess there's a business opportunity there for some security companies who could outfit a vessel with portable and mercenaries defences just before the vessel enters the risky seas.
I will add one proviso to my previous post.
Most merchant shipping these days is registered under 'flags of conveniance'. If they want to be registered in Panama or Liberia that is up to them, but as a result they have less claim to the protection of their country's navies than their 19th century counter-parts. They could always ask Panama or Liberia to mount anti-piracy operations I suppose.
Most merchant shipping these days is registered under 'flags of conveniance'. If they want to be registered in Panama or Liberia that is up to them, but as a result they have less claim to the protection of their country's navies than their 19th century counter-parts. They could always ask Panama or Liberia to mount anti-piracy operations I suppose.
JagLover said:
I will add one proviso to my previous post.
Most merchant shipping these days is registered under 'flags of conveniance'. If they want to be registered in Panama or Liberia that is up to them, but as a result they have less claim to the protection of their country's navies than their 19th century counter-parts. They could always ask Panama or Liberia to mount anti-piracy operations I suppose.
Who do the goods aboard the ships belong to? Mostly companies that aren't based in Panama and Liberia.Most merchant shipping these days is registered under 'flags of conveniance'. If they want to be registered in Panama or Liberia that is up to them, but as a result they have less claim to the protection of their country's navies than their 19th century counter-parts. They could always ask Panama or Liberia to mount anti-piracy operations I suppose.
The nationality of the ship is largely irrelevant, as we rely on sea trade for the vast majority of our imports and exports. It is therefore very much in our interest to secure the shipping lanes regardless of whose ships are using them.
Tiggsy said:
Is it a big deal? No one is getting killed and the cost to pay ransom demands is prob lower than outfitting boats with hardcore defenses.
People are knifed to death in the UK everyday but we dont give our cops RPG's......stastically, is it an issue?
That is hardly the point. If I and some mates came and sat at the end of your road and robbed you every time you left your house would that be OK, if we didn't kill you? It's hardly a big deal in the scheme of things really, as there are plenty of other people we wouldn't rob.People are knifed to death in the UK everyday but we dont give our cops RPG's......stastically, is it an issue?
Tiggsy said:
Is it a big deal? No one is getting killed and the cost to pay ransom demands is prob lower than outfitting boats with hardcore defenses.
People are knifed to death in the UK everyday but we dont give our cops RPG's......stastically, is it an issue?
People are getting killed, and not just pirates, try Googling "Beluga Nomination"; depending on which press report you read, one, two or three crew members have been murdered by the pirates onboard following a botched intervention by a Seychelles gunboat.People are knifed to death in the UK everyday but we dont give our cops RPG's......stastically, is it an issue?
This is a massive issue in the shipping industry, and the movement towards having armed personnel onboard is gathering pace; It is a fact that no vessel with armed personnel onboard has been hijacked.
RDMcG said:
I wonder about the cost of outfitting vs the cost of piracy. Say a ransom is $5 million. Surely the cost over a fleet of a few deck guns and some training would be nothing like that. Also, the cost of tying up a vessel for months has to be enormous in terms of lest revenue.
The insurers are already on to itV8mate said:
The insurers are already on to it
Excellent information. Thanks. Strikes me as the right thing to do. On my last trip out (Merchant Vessel - Container Ship) we went via the Gulf of Aden 4 times. Sailing between India and Europe. We were armed with 3 mercenaries who were all ex-Royal Marines.
Some of them had been 'attacked' before, one having an RPG fired at him while he was returning fire. Just during my time passing through there were reports of vessels being attacked and the like and we saw a fair few suspicious characters milling around. A few deffinate pirates aswell (How did we know? When the 'mothership' came past towing the skivs, and later a skiv with people waving AK's!!!)
The only way I can see piracy being limited, as I dont believe it can ever be completly stopped, is by changing laws. Actually being able to prosecute the pirates, what ever nation gets them gets to put them under their courts. That and arming vessels. Maybe the old style Q-Boats could come in use again!
Some of them had been 'attacked' before, one having an RPG fired at him while he was returning fire. Just during my time passing through there were reports of vessels being attacked and the like and we saw a fair few suspicious characters milling around. A few deffinate pirates aswell (How did we know? When the 'mothership' came past towing the skivs, and later a skiv with people waving AK's!!!)
The only way I can see piracy being limited, as I dont believe it can ever be completly stopped, is by changing laws. Actually being able to prosecute the pirates, what ever nation gets them gets to put them under their courts. That and arming vessels. Maybe the old style Q-Boats could come in use again!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff