Feral Jundi

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Maritime Security: More Information About Yemen’s ‘Rent-A-Navy’

     Tariq said Yemen’s navy and coast guard agree to the escorts only if they already have patrols planned in the areas where shippers are asking for the guards. The navy and coast guard turn down “more than half” of the escort requests that his company forwards from shippers because the duties of Yemen’s national defense require them elsewhere, he said.

     Government officials in Yemen ”will not risk jeopardizing their relationship with supporting countries just for this,” Tariq insisted, in a reference to any qualms the United States and other donor countries might have. 

     Well, this is not really a new story, but still pretty interesting to read about. I also have to critique the loose use of the word ‘privateer’ in the title below. There is nothing private about this venture and this is the government of Yemen selling the services of their navy to shipping companies. This is certainly not privateering by any definition.

     Also, the Tanzanian Navy was contracted out to protect a Maersk ship, so the statement below about Yemen being the only country to do this is wrong. Here is the story I posted awhile back about the matter.

     But that does bring up an interesting thought. If Yemen is so strapped for cash and they are willing to rent out their navy, then maybe they might actually contemplate granting Letters of Marque to private industry? It is a shame they have to turn down all of those requests by the shipping industry.

     Yemen could stand to make some money off implementing a LoM system. They could take 10 percent (or whatever amount) of the fee paid to private companies by shipping or insurance companies, to do this kind of escort service. In turn, Yemen could grant a LoM to these companies and give them the legal backing to protect these vessels.

     Or better yet, if Yemen set up a good ol’ fashion ‘Prize Court’, then companies could take captured vessels and hardware back to these courts and gain legal ownership of those goods.(with Yemen taking their cut of course)

     Although like I have mentioned before, these thugs really don’t carry a lot of valuable things on them when they do these attacks. But you never know?  With all of these multi-million dollar ransoms being paid out, it wouldn’t surprise me to see some of these pirates buzzing around in Cigarette Boats or Yachts and wearing gold chains around their necks.

     These companies could even bring back captured pirates and have the legal system in Yemen deal with these guys–especially if there was incentive for Yemen to hold these pirates.  The international community continues to look for countries that would be willing to prosecute and imprison pirates, and Yemen would work. It definitely sounds like we have an interest in doing business in Yemen for the war effort, and this could be one part of that.-Matt

The Privateers of Yemen

Starved for revenue and riddled with corruption, the Yemeni navy and coast guard have adopted a novel fundraising strategy: guns for hire.

By Ellen Knickmeyer

November 17, 2010

Yemen’s leaders are pushing the United States to increase its military aid roughly 40-fold for their country to fight al Qaeda — but Yemen isn’t just relying on aid to generate cash from the international security threats burgeoning on its lands and seas.

For more than a year, Yemen’s financially pragmatic civilian and military officials have been contracting with at least one maritime-security broker to hire out commissioned Yemeni warships and active-duty and armed Yemeni coast guard and navy sailors as private escorts for merchant ships and oil tankers crossing the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden. The cost for Yemen’s escort service: up to $55,000 per ship, per trip.

Guaranteeing “the ultimate protection for your vessel and crew,” the website of Gulf of Aden Group Transits, Yemen’s London-based broker, offers shippers “a dedicated escort by a heavily armored 37.5 meter Yemen Navy Austal patrol boat” and ”six serving Yemen military or coast guard personnel to embark and protect your vessel.”

The fee apparently also guarantees shippers a degree of immunity regarding any ensuing battles at sea: “Any action taken by the teams or vessels provided … is fully authorized by the Yemeni Government,” says the website of Lotus Maritime Security, the Yemeni company that claims to serve as a liaison between the London-based broker, the Yemeni government and military, and shippers.

(more…)

Friday, November 12, 2010

Maritime Security: Somali Piracy Getting Worse Despite The Efforts Of Worldwide Navies

     Man, this is not a very good report card about the effectiveness of the current strategy. It also shows to me that the pirates are getting better at what they are doing, and they are also increasing their reach.

     Not to mention the scalability of the whole thing. If an operation costs $ 30,000, and a pirate has fetched millions of dollars in ransom in the past, then with each ransom, they can dramatically scale up the amount of operations. This increases the odds of success. The numbers below speak for themselves.

     Now on to the solutions. There are two things that have to happen that the world community just does not have the will to do, or the spine to promote, in order to stop this. They have to effectively deal with the problems in Somalia on land, and shipping must have a viable means to protect itself on the high seas. In my book, ‘viable means’ is defined as armed security on every boat.

     Along with those armed security professionals, must also come the legal mechanism necessary to allow this force to do what it needs to do.  Here on the blog I continue to promote how countries could provide such a legal mechanism through the granting of the Letter of Marque (LoM). I have also posted numerous legal treatments on the subject here on the blog with the hopes that folks will start thinking about the concept.

     The other area of interest for me is that as pirates become more asset rich, the possibilities of seizing their assets on the high seas or somehow taking what they stole, increases. With a LoM system right now, there is nothing of value that the pirates have because they have such low operating costs.  So the LoM would only serve as a legal framework for PSC’s to protect vessels.

     But as ship owners continue to pay ransoms and pirates begin to upgrade to more valuable ships and hardware, I could see a day where a privateer might benefit from the seizure of a prize like this.

     A privateer might also be able to benefit by retrieving that ransom money somehow. Either on the high seas right after the exchange, or if they were able to get on land and take it from the pirate. My thoughts on the matter is that if there is any mechanism at all for allowing companies to legally take from the pirates, then now you would have a competitive strategy to counter the current piracy business model. Pirates profit by taking from the weak, and privateers would profit by taking from the pirates.

     I estimate that a system such as this would eradicate piracy pretty effectively. Just think of the size and scope of such a thing? The entire world and all of it’s private naval industries, armed with licenses to take from pirates, versus a few hundred Somali pirates off the coast of Africa or where ever they want to exist. Out of that process we would see some really innovative and effective pirate hunters, and that is the kind of thing that would put the fear of god into these thugs. I would imagine that some of the best pirate hunters, would be former Somali pirates themselves. Or who knows who would rise to the top in such an environment?

     And if a value was assigned to Somali pirates in the form of bounties, then that would really create the profit motive needed to fuel such an anti-pirate industry. Call it a clash of industries or privateers versus pirates. And get this, today’s shipping companies are creating an asset rich pirate by continuing to pay these ransoms. Until then though, an LoM would probably be most effective as a legal mechanism used to help defend private shipping. –Matt

Somalia Pirates’ Success Rate Rises, Stunting East Africa Economies

By Bill Varner

Nov 2, 2010

The international naval presence off the coast of Somalia is failing to reduce the success rate of pirates whose attacks on commercial ships are stunting the economies of East Africa, the United Nations said.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reported to the Security Council that 37 of 164 attacks on ships operating off the coast of Somalia succeeded in the first nine months of this year. That 22.6 percent rate of successful hijackings compares with 17.1 percent, of 193 attempts, for the same period in 2009.

“Piracy in the region has had an immense impact on the economies of East Africa and also the wider world,” Ban said in his report. “International trade routes are threatened and goods in the region as well as Somalia are becoming more expensive. This is made worst by the bleak state of the global economy.”

The pirates concentrate on the Gulf of Aden, a chokepoint leading to the Suez Canal that is used by 30,000 ships a year carrying about one-tenth of world trade. Attacks have spread to the Indian Ocean, as much as 1,000 miles from shore.

The rate of successful hijackings increased even with the presence of warships from the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and 25 other nations including the U.S., China, India, Iran and Japan. Commercial ships are using defensive measures such as netting, wire, electric fences and fire hoses to prevent boarding.

More Sophisticated Weapons

Ban said the pirates have countered with more sophisticated weaponry and use of “action groups” consisting of a large command boat towing attack skiffs.

“I am afraid that the problem will not only be with us for a long time to come, but also has the potential to become worse unless both Somalis and the international community address its root causes,” Ban said. “There is an urgent need to combine vital sea-based and judicial counter-piracy initiatives.”

(more…)

Monday, November 8, 2010

Publications: Corsairs In The Crosshairs–A Strategic Plan To Eliminate Modern Day Piracy, By Alexandra Schwartz

Corsairs in the Crosshairs: A Strategic Plan To Eliminate Modern Day Piracy, By Alexandra Schwartz

Letter Of Marque: A Review Of Corsairs In the Crosshairs

     This note proposes that the solution to the rapidly escalating problem of piracy is for the U.S. government to issue the license equivalent of historical letters of marque to private actors, thereby granting them increased legal immunity and political approval to use force to protect private vessels against piracy.  Letters of marque were legal commissions granted by Congress to private citizens granting them cover to engage enemies of the country.  At the same time, it is important for the U.S. to regulate the forces that they sanction and this note will discuss the current state of such regulation. The legal background of authority to address pirates, emanating from customary, international, and municipal law demonstrates that, despite some potential hurdles, this proposed solution is a legally valid and efficient option. -Alexandra Schwartz from Corsairs in the Crosshairs

     David Isenberg was the one that found this gem of a paper and a big hat tip to him. As you can see in the post above, I have also downloaded a copy into Scribd so you can read the whole thing. This post will be dedicated to some of the highlights of the paper that jumped out at me.

    Specifically, I really liked the various legal mechanisms that Alexandra dug up and I learned some new stuff. If you are interested in the legal side of privatized anti-piracy operations, then this paper is for you.

     There are a few areas that I wanted to put up for the reader to check out and note. One is the 1819 US Law titled ‘Resistance of Pirates by Merchant Vessels’.  Like with the Letter of Marque, this little guy exists in the books as a vigorous means of defense that even involves capture if need be. Here it is:

     The commander and crew of any merchant vessel of the United States, owned wholly, or in part, by a citizen thereof, may oppose and defend against any aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure, which shall be attempted upon such vessel, or upon any other vessel so owned, by the commander or crew of any armed vessel whatsoever, not being a public armed vessel of some nation in amity with the United States, and may subdue and capture the same; and may also retake any vessel so owned which may have been captured by the commander or crew of any such armed vessel, and send the same into any port of the United States. -33 U.S.C. § 383 (2000)

     The next area was in regards to the Declaration of Paris. Alexandra only confirms exactly what I have been repeating here. That the US did not sign the DoP, and that we even signed laws at that time that further enforced our right as a nation to issue LoM’s. She mentioned this law, and I had never heard of it before. Check it out:

     Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all domestic and foreign wars the President of the United States is authorized to issue to private armed vessels of the United States, commissions, or letters of marque and general reprisal in such forms as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, and make all needful rules and regulations for the government and conduct thereof, and for the adjudication That the authority conferred by this act shall cease and terminatethree years from the passage of this act. -An Act concerning Letters of Marque Prizes, and Prize Goods, ch. LXXXV, 12 Stat. 758 (1863) (This act was passed on Mar. 3, 1863, and provided that the authority it conferred would “cease and terminate” three years after its passage). 

     Alexandra also covers some of the particulars of a modern version of a Letter of Marque, and draws from a certain publication written by Robert P. DeWitte called ‘Let Privateers Marque Terrorism: A Proposal for a Reawakening’. So I will have to further research what he has to offer and get that up on blog as well. Check it out and let me know what you think. –Matt

Link to Scribd Publication here.

Edit: 11/09/2010- I wanted to add this one little piece for everyone to check out as well. The author here claimed the Spain and Britain both did not abide by the Declaration of Paris. I had never heard of Britain’s use of Prize Courts and paying prize money to folks to attack the enemy during WW 2. I am definitely trying to find out more about this.

Quote from Corsairs in the Crosshairs:

Moreover, even if one were to argue that the Declaration of Paris has become customary law, it is important to observe that many countries that signed it have continued the practice of issuing letters of marque in the modern era.

See Jacob W.F. Sundberg, Piracy: Air and Sea, 20 DEPAUL L. REV. 337, 353 (1971) (“Even after Spain, in 1908, had acceded to the Declaration of Paris of 1856 which outlawed privateering in naval war between parties to the treaty, the opinion was advanced that it is perfectly possible under general international law to issue letters of marque.”). The British navy utilized prize money to reward those who fought for them in World War II, with the British Prize Court in London awarding about $40 million dollars. Id. at 354. 

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Letter Of Marque: The Morgan Doctrine–A Blog Dedicated To Exploring The Cyber Privateer Concept

     This is neat. A couple of days ago, Rick Bennet popped up on the blog to discuss the Letter of Marque and cyber privateering and I thought it was cool that he had a blog dedicated to exploring the concepts. This is good because we need more folks with a different eye to pick this stuff apart. Be sure to also check out Rick’s book and I have provided the link below.

     His recent post on Australia and the potential of them issuing a LoM is interesting, and I made the comment that the individual states there are free to structure their constitutions to allow things like ‘bills of attainder‘ . So a state setting up a Letter of Marque might not be a stretch. The Declaration of Paris comes into play as well, but if bills of attainder could be done, I don’t see how a LoM would be a bridge too far? So with that said, here is the link to his blog. –Matt

The Morgan Doctrine

By Rick Bennett

Author of Destroying Angel

     CYBER PRIVATEERS could be the new, effective, and highly paid army of swashbucklers. The Monroe Doctrine stated any attack in the Americas would be considered an attack on the United States. THE MORGAN DOCTRINE (after my fictional Morgan Rapier) asserts that any foreign cyber attack on US-based computers is an act of war, and retaliation (ie, looting) may take place on the perpetrator of that attack, wherever he/she/it may be located. Good policy or just a good novel?

Background: Welcome black hats, white hats and cyber swashbucklers

     The Revolutionary War was fought, financed, and pretty well WON by bonded privateers, legalized pirates who were given Letters of Marque and Reprisal by the Continental Congress and authorized to attack, capture and monetize British ships. The purpose of this site is to explore the possibility of a modern-day doctrine much like the Monroe Doctrine, by means of which the U.S. government could legally and, more importantly, effectively stop international hackers. Current cybercrime law is not only ineffective, but downright stupid. My Linux servers are attacked hundreds of times a day (mostly from China and former USSR domains), yet if I retaliate against those servers with some creative technology at my disposal (I know some VERY smart guys), then I am in violation of federal law and subject to some onerous penalties. We need more than a new law. We need a new international doctrine. I call it The Morgan Doctrine, named after Morgan Rapier, a fictional character I’ve created (hey, this is my way of establishing ownership of the concept, should it ever see the light of day).

     Why a new international doctrine? Simply, nothing else will work. Introduced on December 2, 1823, the Monroe Doctrine told the world to keep their hands off the Americas. Combine this with current legal thinking on “hot pursuit” of fugitives. In 1917 the US Army went into Mexico after Pancho Villa. More recently, in 1960 Israeli Mossad agents abducted Adolf Eichmann from Argentina. Granted, much of the world regards the Eichmann advanture as a violation of international law. I don’t share that opinion and therefore use it as the third leg of my Monroe-Pancho-Aldof platform for The Morgan Doctrine.

     If someone comes into your home and attacks or attempts to rob you, you may shoot them dead. You may do so as long as they expire on your property. But what about cyber criminals? They attack you in your home from their homes. Retaliate in kind, and you go to jail. The Morgan Doctrine states simply that if you attack my computers (or my banking assets held in US-based computers), then under a certain set of well-defined conditions, a licensed and bonded “cyber privateer” may attack you in your home country and split the proceeds with the U.S. government. For the sake of argument, let’s call it a 50-50 split (heh heh).

     Right now, American law enforcement is completely unequipped to deal with the sheer number international cyber hackers. Sure, I could report each of the thousand daily attacks to the FBI, as could the millions of other attackees in the USA. But the volume of such reports would make any meaningful resolution laughable. Not to mention that the FBI has no jurisdiction outside the USA. Yet to make such “enforcement” profitable to recognized (ie, “bonded” “deputized”) privateers, as Heath Ledger’s Joker said in his last role, “Now you’re talking!” You raid our bank accounts, we raid yours. You make money from off-shore child pornography, we’re going to loot your bank accounts and, with some REALLY creative black hat operations, you will be taken off the grid worldwide to the extent that you’ll not even complete a cell phone conversation for the remainder of your miserable depraved life. Okay, that last part probably won’t fly, but you get my drift.

     The purpose of this site is to explore the mechanics, legalities and practicality of The Morgan Doctrine.

     And I will be the sole arbiter of whether or not your comments get posted. As Mel Brooks wrote, “It’s good to be king.”

Link to blog here.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress