Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Ocean of opportunity for modern pirates

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 19 November 2008
CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow they ain't. The pirates believed to have hijacked the supertanker Sirius Star were doubtless armed to the teeth, but with a far more fearsome arsenal than Johnny Depp's romantic hero in Pirates of the Caribbean.
Welcome to the world of 21st-century piracy, where attacks are launched from GPS-equipped speed boats by gangs armed with automatic weapons, anti-tank rockets and grenades.

The modern-day brigands are also amassing hauls like never before – in mul
ti-million-pound ransoms rather than gleaming treasure.

Up to $1 million (£660,000) per vessel is being secured, with the pirates' total loot estimated to have reached some $30 million.

Somalia, on the Horn of Africa, has become the global piracy hotspot, fuelled by a combination of desperate men in a lawless country and its proximity to one of the world's major trade routes through the Suez Canal and Gulf of Aden – known as "the gates of hell".

Nigeria and Indonesia – the epicentre of piracy a decade ago – are among the other trouble spots.

A sharp increase in pirate attacks has been reported by the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), with half of the 200 incidents this year off Somalia, compared with just a handful four years ago. Nearly 700 sailors have been taken hostage, with more than a third of them – and 15 vessels – still being held, awaiting ransom payments.

Hostages are not normally harmed, but nine crew members have been killed in attacks this year and a further nine are missing.

There are some 18 gangs operating off Somalia, using up to 60 vessels, including "mother ships", which take pirates into deep water, from where attacks are launched in speed boats.

Pirates often open fire at a target's bridge to stop the vessel and make it easier to board, using grappling hooks and ladders.

The weekend attack on the 319,400-tonne Sirius Star has shown pirates are upping the stakes – and intensifying the headache for shipping lines and security forces attempting to combat the threat.

The supertanker is the largest vessel yet hijacked, and it was much further out to sea – 450 miles – than previous attacks in the region. The incident would suggest any merchant vessel, however far offshore, could fall prey to pirates. The total area of "dangerous waters" is now estimated to cover some 2.5 million square miles.

Captain Pottengal Mukundan, the IMB's director, said: "The number of piracy attacks off the coast of Somalia is unprecedented. Pirates in the Gulf of Aden are growing increasingly brazen, attacking vessels, including tankers and large bulk carriers, with impunity.

"This major international seaway requires immediate increased protection and naval intervention. The increased frequency of piracy and heightening levels of violence are of significant concern to the shipping industry and all mariners.

"The types of attacks, the violence associated with the attacks, the number of hostages taken and the amounts paid in ransoms for the release of the vessels have all increased considerably."

There are no easy – or cheap – answers. Ship operators are already diverting vessels on to longer routes to avoid the Gulf of Aden and Suez Canal, and multinational security patrols are being stepped up. A coalition of international navies established a maritime security patrol area around the Gulf of Aden in August.

However, with the pirates' reach apparently extending, experts said longer routes would ramp up the cost of goods, while law enforcers were left with increasingly vast areas of ocean to scour.

Sailing via the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa adds some three weeks to journeys.

Arming ships is seen as no panacea either, despite that idea being welcomed by the United States Navy. Consultants said it could prompt pirates to open fire more readily, putting crews at greater risk.

Lieutenant Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the Bahrain-based US 5th Fleet, said: "This is a great trend. We would encourage shipping companies to take proactive measures to help ensure their own safety."

But, Cyrus Mody, of the IMB, said armed guards aboard ships could spark an arms race between predators and prey.

He said pirates often fired indiscriminately during an attack but did not aim to kill or injure crew. He said: "If someone onboard a ship pulls a gun, will the other side pull a grenade?"

Commodore Keith Winstanley of the Royal Navy, the deputy commander of the combined maritime forces in the Middle East, said: "It's inconceivable that the coalition can be everywhere. The pirates will go somewhere we are not. If we patrol the Gulf of Aden, then they will go to Mogadishu (the Somali capital], and vice versa."

BGN Risk, a London-based corporate security risk firm, said piracy in the Gulf of Aden could increase insurance and transport costs by $400 million (£260 million). It said the special risks insurance levy for crossing the gulf had rocketed from $500 (£330) per voyage last year to $20,000.

Liam Morrissey, a partner with the company, said: "This dramatic rise in piracy impacts the entire global supply chain by interrupting deliveries and escalating costs.

"Five warships can't guarantee complete safety. Logistics in the area are difficult, and the ongoing regional instability creates challenges for private security firms.

"The alternative option of travelling the long way around Africa in safer waters adds a minimum of 20 days transit time, bringing associated increased costs in fuel, payroll and lost delivery time."

Another problem is what to do with the pirates once captured. OB Sisay, an Africa specialist at risk consultancy Exclusive Analysis, told the shipping journal Lloyd's List: "While the UK could prosecute the pirates under the UK criminal offence of piracy, Royal Navy officers on anti-piracy duties currently have no law enforcement powers and therefore any evidence that they produced in the event of a UK prosecution would be likely to be thrown out."

The Rail Maritime and Transport union, which represents seafarers, has called for international action against piracy, which should include tackling Somalia's problems.

Bob Crow, its general secretary, said: "There are clearly deep economic and social problems in poverty-stricken countries like Somalia that are feeding the piracy problem, and they, too, require international co-operation because they are also a result of the global economy."

Clearly, as long as there are riches afloat on the high seas, there will be pirates out there to plunder them.

Robbing thugs or Robin Hoods?

THE pirates of Puntland, the northern breakaway area of Somalia, are unapologetic about their trade.

Their spokesman, Januna Ali Jama, based in the port of Eyl, where scores of hijacked vessels are anchored, argues vehemently that the increasingly professional pirates are the Robin Hoods of the sea, righting numerous wrongs against Somalia.

"Our country is destroyed by foreigners who dump toxic waste at our shores," Ali Jama argued in an interview with the BBC Somali Service.

Huge waves that battered Puntland after the Asian tsunami at Christmas 2004 killed 300 people, destroying thousands of homes and stirring up tonnes of nuclear and toxic waste illegally dumped offshore in the 1990s. The United Nations Environment Programme reported many unusual illnesses in the region following the tsunami. It said European companies were involved in the dumping, but there was never any accurate assessment of the extent of the problem.

Abdullah Elmi Mohamed, a Somali academic studying in Sweden, said that the European companies charged "approximately $8 per tonne (for dumping off Somalia], while in Europe the cost for the disposal and treatment of toxic waste material could go up to $1,000 per tonne."

With Puntland unrecognised internationally, little diplomatic pressure can be put on the region's authorities, which say piracy also grew after international "sea robber" fishing fleets plundered and wrecked its fishing grounds. The UN estimates fish worth at least £50 million a year has been taken illegally from Somali waters by Spanish, South Korean and other foreign boats, which also raided Somali fishermen's nets and used destructive techniques that have wiped out tuna shoals, destroyed fish eggs and caused havoc with the marine environment.

Most of Puntland's pirates are former poor fishermen with no particular political ideology who have turned to more lucrative work, plying the seas in search of ransom targets, travelling in light speedboats from at least two mother ships far out at sea.

The pirates are heroes in a shattered land. Millions of dollars in ransoms are being paid by desperate ship-owners – more than $30 million so far this year, one and a half times the annual budget of the Puntland authorities – and once-impoverished ports like Eyl have become boomtowns.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 November 2008 9:05 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Piracy
 
1

Papa? Nicole! Papa?,

19/11/2008 01:18:21
Hang 'em from the yardarm.
2

Tom in Belmont,

Belmont 19/11/2008 02:27:35
Pirates haven't been able to beat a determined modern navy since the Napoleonic wars and the invention of exploding shot. If we want 'em, we can get 'em. Is it worth it to have safe sea-lanes?
3

Venachar,

19/11/2008 10:05:43
What's the point of the Royal Navy if they are impotent? Locate and destroy the "mother ships" and as for the risk assessment expert - well the pirates are taking the risk engageing in piracy, if they end up dead that's their problem. If the Royal Navy can't do it then train and re -arm the merchant ships. Piracy isn't new, it was still rife in this area and the far east between the two world wars. Then they had metal grills covering walkways and ladders, barbed wire and firearms for protection. Now you have a fire hose and the PC brigade. If Commodore Winstanley cared to get rid of lets say half the Admirals ( we have more Admirals than active ships) he might be able to use some of the maritime patrols aircraft we have. But I forget they are being used in Afganistan.
4

AJ Fife,

19/11/2008 10:16:20
Somebody mentioned the old 'Q' ships yesterday. Surely using armed merchantmen, crewed by the RN, would be the way to sort the pirates out?

Unleashing awesome firepower into the little speed boats and the rusting mother ships would stop the pirates in their tracks, and the sharks could take care of any initial survivors!

Problem solved.....
5

Phil the Flooter,

19/11/2008 10:35:05
Good Idea AJ,a fleet of these, jointly funded by the worlds ship owners, steaming about about would definately deter them, they could also run cargo to help with running costs.
Ship owners paying big ransoms to get their ships back only encourages the Animals to attack more ships.
6

An Greumach Mor,

Scotland 19/11/2008 12:30:43
I must laugh at the fact it is the Saudi's who have been attacked most recently.

They most likely paid for the weapons in the first place through their support for the various different armed groups.

Chickens coming home to roost.
7

An Greumach Mor,

Scotland 19/11/2008 12:47:15
On a more serious note. Why can we not block the Satelite phones being used, track all shipping in the area and just blow them up.



8

Jay Kay,

19/11/2008 13:17:23
Just wait a minute here, what the hell has happened to a few old mates of mine who after leaving the services of her Majesty began working for themselves? these guys can be quite easily hired by contractors to provide security in international waters? whats the deal, is the Sultan of Oman paying more these days, Hmmm maybe I should consider a change in job.

These ships if protected by a few well trained (shall we say) individuals shouldn't have any piracy problems I just dont get it, this is nothing new, this kind of activity has been going on in the shipping lanes for ever.

Is there something more political at work here that I am missing??????

Maybe the mercs have changed sides for better booty or as a double edged sword are trying to force the shipping companies to hire more mercs through blackmail and extortion.

Or just a bunch of well armed men taking what they can all for ransome, ship+ cargo+crew all being held in a fortress town.

I would pay up mate or else kinda thing no!

Simple solution, nuke the b*stards see how many are so keen to comit acts of piracy then.

I am of course being very tongue in cheek, for gods sake dont take me seriously I dont want the plod at my door or my name to end up on some BNP list of members.
9

James C,

Aberdeen 19/11/2008 14:22:22
Bob Crow and the RMT doesn't represent all Seamen, only Ratings. Officers are represented by Nautilus UK.

#8
Jay Kay, the problem is that it is illegal under UK Law (and many other countries) to defensively arm a Merchant Vessel. Even if there was a pirate attack and it was successfully repelled by arms, the Owners, Captain and the 'Guard Force' would face criminal charges in the UK.

As usual the utterly impotent UK of modern times is governed by Human Rights and legalities, what about the Human Rights of the crews?
To hell with the Pirates, shoot first and ask questions later - there is no other option.
10

SouthernGent,

19/11/2008 14:55:17
For the conspiracy theorists:

OPEC is financing the pirates in order to drive the price of oil back into the strasphere. Just watch the price as it moves up because of "supply problems".
11

An Greumach Mor,

Scotland 19/11/2008 15:06:09
#10 SouthernGent

This would fit very well into the the fact that the Saudi's actually finance all of the insurgents operating in North Africa.

It may be just as you state that the Saudi's are not the victims but the puppet masters.

Oh well, I was hoping they were finally paying for their continued support of armed Islamic groups.
12

Venachar,

19/11/2008 15:24:17
#9 can you tell me what Statutory Instrument makes it illegal, I'm interested to know.
Seem to remember quite a lot on machine guns and decoy mortors around back in 1982.
13

James C,

Aberdeen 19/11/2008 19:00:52
#12
UK (English) Firearms law apply, thereby making all civilian owned firearms with the exception of shotguns and rifles illegal onboard. As with UK law, any firearms onboard must be officially registered and a designated person appointed to maintain them and be responsible for their use. Any use in an offensive role by Private would automatically invoke charges of Assault, Manslaughter or indeed Murder - self defence is not an excuse, as has been well illustrated over the years in the UK.
The likes of RFA and Merchant Vessels in an official conflict zone was due to those operating such weapons being Forces Personnel (as in WW1/2) or are internal MOD personnel having completed the appropriate training (as with RFA).
Therefore it would be illegal to arm Merchant Crews or embark Private Military personnel, as they would be violating British law. I've spent time on a Cruise ship which had a few shotguns onboard for the amusement of passengers (clay pigeon shooting), and the legal hoops which had to be jumped through were unreal.
It would be legal to have armed members of HM Forces onboard a Merchant vessel (as my current vessel does), but they would operate 'outwith' and not be a part of the crew. They would also require official rules of engagement from Whitehall.
As I recall, the only Merchant ships armed down the Falklands were those with MOD personnel onboard, e.g. Canberra, QE2, Rangatira, Atlantic Conveyor/Causeway, Norsea, Contender Bezant as well as the other Ro-Ros etc. I don't remember any of the BP tankers being armed, nor the G.A Walker, I can't recall what the situation was with Uganda, however she was of course the designated hospital ship.
14

An Greumach Mor,

Scotland 19/11/2008 21:42:19
I have been thinking about this some more.

Why do we not have the many submarines that are cruising around the world playing spy games with the Russians not patrol these area's and pop up when the trouble is being launched.

I imagine there is something more going on here at the moment, that you and I are not informed of.
15

Brodric,

19/11/2008 23:40:35
JOB VACANCIES: Swashbuckling rambos required to defend shipping against marauding plundering pirates. Experience in repelling boarders, hangings from the yardarm and heavily armed combat absolutely necessary. Strictly BYOW (bring your own weapon).
16

UZI4U,

Iowa, USA 20/11/2008 05:12:08
Not... that's right NOT!, arming merchant ships is simply common sense. Consider the facts, this year there were what, like 500 + crew members of pirated ships involved, with 9 killed. Not to mention the fact that reports show the pirates were not aiming to kill or harm any of the crew members in nearly any of the incidents.
If you start giving the crews of these merchant ships weapons, the only thing that will happen is more people will be killed. Sure some of the pirates may bite the big one in the process, but in turn more innocent crew member will be killed. Aswell as more ships and cargo being destroyed.
Also, with those crew members being killed, the employers must replace them, not to mention pay the life insurance, or equivalent there of, to the families of the killed. This is not only expensive, but highly inconvenient. Which would lead to companies having to cut corners to get their ships crewed. Leading to less and less desirable crews by causing less checking of employee backgrounds, and less strict employment policies.
In the end having the crews armed, or having armed security personnel on board would only cause more death, destruction, and loss of time, money, and product. Which would cause the companies to raise their prices due to the losses they suffer. Raised prices which would be passed onto you, the consumer.
You may ask, why not get more Naval military involved... Naval forces are for defending a country from attack by sea. If we have them all out trolling around international waters trying to find pirates, we reduce our country's military forces. Millions of miles of water... and limited military resources, it just doesn't work like that.

#7 Blocking satellite phones... Many use CB/VHF/and UHF radios. Not only that, but how do you expect a body of people to legally listen in to every conversation, determine which are that of a pirate actually committing the act of piracy at that moment, then get the military to authorize a
17

UZI4U,

Iowa USA 20/11/2008 05:16:30
**an attack? The notion is senseless!
#2 The notion of committing a Naval military to protecting merchant ships... See my above statement on the matter...
It is simply as such, as long as there is so much open sea, there will be piracy. A nation, a company, or a body of people can not simply kill off all pirates. The English tried that back in the days of olde. Sure it dropped the numbers of incident down significantly... for a time. But see how long that lasted? they're back at it. And trying to arm the victims will only lead to a higher loss of life, cargo, ships, and money. Mostly because attacking an armed vessel, will simply cause the pirates to use more deadly and destructive force. As they are not currently out to kill and destroy. If their victims decide to start fighting, the pirates would naturally begin shooting first and shooting to kill, then take their spoils after the threat is dead.
18

SouthernGent,

20/11/2008 15:19:26
16/17
Utter baloney.

Where about in Iowa do you live, as I'm sure there are plenty of crooks wanting to know where they can take all your possessions and you won't put up a fight.

By doing as you say, the problem will only INCREASE. No deterent will lead to carte blanche crime, and MORE pirates.

Maybe you haven't noticed the problem in the US with illegal immigration. Amnesty in the 80's only INCREASED the problem.

19

Venachar,

21/11/2008 10:58:22
Thank you James. Simple solution to your point is as with everything else at sea is to make the Master responsible for the weapons care and use.
Somalia is a broken state and clearly cannot control it's own borders of territory.
No country recognises anything more than 12 miles as teritorrial waters and 200 miles for EEZ's. The highjacking of the Sirius Star happened outwith any recognisable boundary. Article 100 on, in the Law of the Sea Convention is quite clear on piracy and the United Nations have already issued a resolution on this matter. I am ashamed of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and the lack of action by the Royal Navy. Would the politicians put up with 50 aircraft with their crew and passengers being hijacked every year?
20

UZI4U,

21/11/2008 13:09:55
Well you've obviously faild to see the point... #18

In point of fact I am a Shotgun toting, guitar picking, shoot first - shoot again - if anything moves shoot some more - and if anyones left alive... ask questions, type redneck. Im not saying measures shouldnt be taken. Im simply saying that the measures already in effect are the best for the time being. Think about it. If you were a pirate and were determined enough to attack a merchant ship, whilst bearing arms, would you be more likely to turn away if a few of the crew started fighting back, or would you rather fire that nifty RPG 7 into their hull and blow then out of the water? The simple fact is, if you arm the crew, more lives will be lost. But not only lives, but money, as more employees would need to be replaced on a regular basis, aswell as ships/cargo/ and other equipment. Not only that, but if, and more likely when, the pirates win, they'll have another set of weapons and ammunition to arm themselves with. If you're just going to be spending the money to replace the 20 crew members, ship, and cargo that the pirates sunk/burned/blew up/ or otherwise destroyed due to the fact that an actual firefight broke out, instead of them intimidating/taking/and leaving relativly peacably, you may aswell just pay off the pirates to leave you alone.
21

oder,

Scotland 18/12/2008 10:48:54
why not put a squad of commando`s on each ship! 15/20 men should be able to deal with, and prevent the pirates getting on on board! if they know they have to fight to get on and take losses as well they will eventually have to stop!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.