Feral Jundi

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Maritime Security: Firearms An Odd Casualty Of Piracy

     Interesting little article. It kind of reminds me of how some German shipping companies are registering under flags of convenience in order to accomplish the goal of getting armed security on a boat. Desperate times require desperate measures.

     Still, I had no idea that guards on some of these boats were being instructed to throw their weapons overboard before coming into port.  It makes sense to a degree, but it still makes me wince that a weapon is being treated like a disposable razor. Perhaps a new market might emerge for renting guns out in international waters? That way these weapons could continue to be of good use to those that need them. (although maybe that is illegal–who knows?)

     Also, a few companies were listed in this article worth mentioning. They are the OrchidGroup, WhisperingBell, and ControlRisks. –Matt

Firearms an odd casualty of piracy

Bradley Hope

Feb 6, 2011

Thousands of guns are being dumped in the ocean by private security companies hired to protect ships against pirate attacks, top security executives say.

As Somali pirates grow bolder and launch attacks further into the Indian Ocean, shipping companies and yacht owners are increasingly using armed security to protect their vessels.

But there are varying laws and regulations about taking weapons into ports across the region, leading some security companies to cut costs and save time by getting rid of their guns before arriving in various countries’ territorial waters.

“This is happening on a daily basis,” said Richard Skinner, the Dubai director at the security company the Orchid Group. “I suspect there are literally thousands of semi-automatic and automatic weapons down there at the bottom of the Red Sea for fish to swim around.”

(more…)

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Maritime Security: Hostage Taking At Record Levels In 2010 As Pirates Use Q-ship Strategies

     IMB Director Pottengal Mukundan commented: “Whilst the use of hijacked vessels as mother ships is not a new phenomenon, the abduction of crew members could signal a significant new development.”

     At least five large hijacked cargo ships and three fishing vessels have acted as mother ships in the last couple of months, posing a new and significant threat to the safety of shipping. The five cargo vessels range in size from MT 5,000 to 72,000 in deadweight – or cargo carrying capacity – and include four tankers and a general cargo vessel. More than 100 crew members from these hijacked cargo vessels, are being forced to facilitate the attacks and in effect provide a human shield to any potential naval intervention. 

     This is infuriating to read, because the world is just standing by as a crime wave takes place.  It is frustrating from my point of view because here we have this vibrant and experienced wartime security contracting industry willing and able to protect every boat out there, and yet the response to this fast paced piracy scourge has been to throw money at them.  Keep paying ransoms and keep fueling the very industry that benefits from these criminal acts–insanity…..

     The other story here is the piracy strategies out there are evolving and these folks are able to scale up their operations because of these new strategies.  What they are doing is using one vessel to attack another larger vessel, and then using those larger vessels to prey on similar larger vessels. Then they use the hostages from the prior vessels taken as a kind of mobile human shield/hostage currency.

     This strategy is also great for false flag or Q-ship style attacks.  If vessels are unable to tell if another captured vessel is under pirate control, then these captured ships can do all sorts of interesting things.  They can maneuver closer to other ships, they can increase their speed to match that of other ships, they can pretend to be a ship in distress, and they can force all of their captured hostages to pretend to be active crew members on the top decks.  Today’s pirates certainly understand the value of Q-ships to their industry.

     Finally, today’s current anti-piracy strategy sucks.  We have billions of dollars of naval hardware from around the world, that cost millions of dollars to operate every day, and their strategies have not stopped today’s piracy. We have more hostages taken, more boats taken, and an expansion of piracy territories. In other words, we have yet to offer an effective challenge to this innovative and vibrant piracy industry.

     And now other entrepreneurs are watching and learning from today’s pirates.  So yes, it would be nice to square away Somalia on the mainland and that might put a little bit of a dent in the industry itself.  But I think what today’s strategists forget is that what we are looking at are the beginnings of an ‘open source piracy’ era. Pirates are emerging from all over the world, and they are learning from what the Somali’s are doing.  It is a very basic concept, and because there is no effective anti-piracy strategy to stop them this open source piracy will just spread and flourish.

     Of course putting armed security on the boats is a no-brainer, but that alone will not stop this open source piracy scourge.  You need to create an industry out of destroying these folks, and not just an industry that deals with the effects of piracy. We could also learn a thing or two from those that actually wiped out piracy. Guys like Pompey or Woodes Rogers did an excellent job of eradicating this scum, and yet here we are in modern times with the same problems they faced and we have yet to get organized and do what is necessary. –Matt

Hostage-taking at sea rises to record levels, says IMB

Latest attack changes dynamic of Somali piracy

Somali pirates closer to India; premiums up 

Hostage-taking at sea rises to record levels, says IMB

Monday, 17 January 2011

More people were taken hostage at sea in 2010 than in any year on record, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Maritime Bureau’s (IMB) global piracy report disclosed today. Pirates captured 1,181 seafarers and killed eight.  A total of 53 ships were hijacked.

The number of pirate attacks against ships has risen every year for the last four years, IMB revealed.  Ships reported 445 attacks in 2010, up 10% from 2009. While 188 crew members were taken hostage in 2006, 1,050 were taken in 2009 and 1,181 in 2010.

“These figures for the number of hostages and vessels taken are the highest we have ever seen,” said Captain Pottengal Mukundan, Director of the IMB’s Piracy Reporting Centre, which has monitored piracy worldwide since 1991. “The continued increase in these numbers is alarming.”

“As a percentage of global incidents, piracy on the high seas has increased dramatically over armed robbery in territorial waters,” said Captain Mukundan. “On the high seas off Somalia, heavily armed pirates are overpowering ocean-going fishing or merchant vessels to use as a base for further attacks.  They capture the crew and force them to sail to within attacking distance of other unsuspecting vessels.”

(more…)

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Maritime Security: Maersk Line, CMA CGM, And MSC Unite In Piracy Fight

The three lines also called for other steps to be taken, including creation of an effective regional coast guard and possible transit corridors to East Africa.

Meanwhile most shipowners are reluctant to have guns onboard, with Maersk repeating its opposition to armed personnel on its ships while MSC is reviewing the situation after several piracy incidents.

“We do not have armed guards at the moment but we are considering their use, to protect our crew, the ship and the cargo,” MSC assistant operations manager Pasquale Ferraro said. 

*****

     Interesting news. I think what we are seeing here is a consolidation of companies to help alleviate costs for such things as protection of ships.  Strength in unity and economy of scale stuff here. So with that said, will we see investments from this trio towards this ‘effective regional coast guard’? And is this coast guard going to be operated by a private company or what?

     Or perhaps they are referring to the insurance backed private navy that was discussed earlier? The insurers that Maersk works with is Chubb and Marsh.  Could these two insurers be contemplating what JLT has been proposing?

     The other story that I attached to this one, is the increase of piracy off the coast of Nigeria.  Africa Energy Intelligence is reporting on all of the security company activity there in regards to increased threats to the energy sector. The insurgency (MEND) will get stronger because piracy will soon become a source of income that will only increase the strength and capability of that insurgency. Bottom line is that they are copying what the Somali pirates are doing, and will use that money for their fight against the oil interests and government in that country.

     So protecting boats from Nigerian pirates, Jihadist pirates, and Somali pirates is slowly becoming a focus of the companies and those that insure them. Because paying ransoms only makes piracy, terrorism, and land based conflict worse by inadvertently financing those activities. Interesting stuff. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Box trio unite in piracy fight

Sep 22, 2010

Maersk Line, CMA CGM and MSC are joining up to draw attention to the continued threat of piracy.

The carriers also intend to swap ideas about how best to tackle the problem, which is likely to worsen as the monsoon season comes to an end.

With no sign that piracy attacks are likely to recede, the three lines are hoping their combined voice will send out a clear message that more needs to be done to safeguard commercial shipping lanes.

(more…)

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Maritime Security: Insurance Firms Plan Private Navy To Take On Somali Pirates

Sean Woollerson, a senior partner with JLT, told The Independent: “We are looking at setting up a private navy to escort vessels through the danger zones. We would have armed personnel with fast boats escorting ships and make it very clear to any Somali vessels in the vicinity that they are entering a protected area.

“At the moment there is a disconnect between the private security sector and the international naval force. We think we can help remedy that and place this force under the control of the multi-national force. We look after about 5,000 ships and have had 10 vessels taken in total, including a seizure where one crew member was shot and killed. Piracy is a serious problem, these are criminals basically extorting funds, so why not do something more proactive?” 

*****

Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group (JLT), which insures 14 per cent of the world’s commercial shipping fleet, said the unprecedented “private navy” would work under the direct control of the military with clear rules of engagement valid under international law. Early discussions have also been held with the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport and the Foreign Office. 

*****

     I posted an article back in April that hinted at this private navy concept, and I had no idea that it would get to this level.  This is fantastic news and I totally support such a thing.  Mr. Woollerson is right and companies must do something more proactive.

    Now on to the control mechanism for this force. Perhaps now would be a time for Britain to re-evaluate their position on the Letter of Marque and Reprisal?  The Declaration of Paris might have been a nice concept at the time of ratification, but it removed a tool of the British government for dealing with non-state actors like pirates? They could actually license this private navy to do what it is doing.

     Within the terms of the license, that is where they can define who the companies answer too and what legal mechanisms they are to abide by. They can also put fail safe measures on this private navy, like an expiration date or something similar. Because if this private navy ‘would work under the direct control of the military with clear rules of engagement valid under international law’, then you guys might as well go all the way and issue the LoM?

    Another thing that I was thinking about here is that if JLT is successful with this insurance/private navy model, then will other insurance companies get the hint and be ‘proactive’ as well?  I guess time will tell and if the action does equate to a cost savings and safer voyages for the shipping industry, I am sure it will catch on.

    Finally, there is the cost factor.  It is extremely costly for the navies of the world to continue these anti-piracy operations using these large vessels/expensive air assets to go after pirates armed with AK’s in little motor boats. How is this sustainable economically? Eventually, the work load would have to be shared in order for it to continue, and perhaps private industry is looking into the future here. They are also looking at the fact that boats are still being taken, and all these fancy high tech navies are not able to stop these pirates. Nor is there anything being done on land, and the profitable piracy industry has no where to go but up.  Being proactive makes sense given the current state of things.

    Interesting stuff and I would like to know what company JLT will go through for raising this private navy?  If any readers, or even JLT can answer that one, that would be very cool. Hell, I will even post the recruitment ad for this ‘private navy’, and I will guarantee that JLT’s contractor will get a huge response. –Matt

Edit: 10/01/2010 -Be sure to check this show out in regards to the story. They discuss how the LoM could be used as a legal mechanism for this private navy.

Insurance firms plan private navy to take on Somali pirates

Somali Pirate Attacks Sink Premiums as Insurers Leap Aboard

Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group Plc

—————————————————————–

Insurance firms plan private navy to take on Somali pirates

By Cahal Milmo

September 28, 2010

Patrol boats crewed by armed guards to protect valuable ships in Gulf of Aden

Insurers have drawn up plans for the world’s first private navy to try to turn the tide against Somali pirates who continue to plague the global shipping industry by hijacking vessels for ransoms of more than £100m a year, The Independent has learnt.

The new navy, which has the agreement in principle of several shipping groups and is being considered by the British Government, is the latest attempt to counter the increasingly sophisticated and aggressive piracy gangs who operate up to 1,200 miles from their bases in the Horn of Africa and are about to launch a new wave of seaborne attacks following the monsoon season.

A multi-national naval force, including an EU fleet currently commanded by a British officer, has dramatically reduced the number of assaults in the Gulf of Aden in recent months. But seizures continue with 16 ships and 354 sailors currently being held hostage. The Independent has seen Nato documents which show both ransom payments and the period that pirates are holding vessels have doubled in the last 12 months to an average $4m and 117 days respectively.

In response, a leading London insurer is pushing ahead with radical proposals to create a private fleet of about 20 patrol boats crewed by armed guards to bolster the international military presence off the Somali coast. They would act as escorts and fast-response vessels for shipping passing through the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean.

(more…)

Monday, August 16, 2010

Maritime Security: Attack On Tanker In Strait Of Hormuz Shows Why Armed Security On Ships Is Essential

The lesson learned from the terrorist attack on the USS Cole – the bombing in Yemen’s Aden port in 2000 killed 17 sailors on the U.S. Navy destroyer – applied equally to supertankers, cargo vessels or cruise ships, he said: allowing small vessels alongside carries significant risks.

 Murray said companies were for various reasons reluctant to consider employing armed personnel, apparently believing security should be left to navies.

 “We believe that national navies should be reinforced by a protective presence on privately-owned ships for the same reason that banks and other firms that deal with money and money transfer use armed protective personnel who can react immediately during an event and before the local police can intervene,” he said.  

*****

     I don’t know how many other ways I can communicate the urgency here.  Today’s navies cannot be everywhere at once.  They were not able to stop this attack on a Japanese Tanker in the Strait of Hormuz (SoH), and it was pure luck that these booger eaters were not successful.  Look at the photo below?

     Let’s discuss what is at stake here. If 40 percent of the world’s oil transits through the SoH , then why are we not doing everything that is necessary to insure the SoH is not endangered by an attack on shipping like this again? If these guys destroy, or even capture a boat and purposely sink it in the SoH, that would have immense repercussions on the global economy.  A global economy already on edge and in trouble with recession. Because an attack in the SoH, would be an attack that would drive up oil prices and thus drive fuel prices through the roof.

     Now going back to the most effective strategy, and for that matter the most cost effective strategy to deal with this.  A real push by private and public leadership needs to be focused on getting the shipping industry up to speed on protecting itself.  Every boat going through the SoH should be required to have armed security that can adequately defend itself from not just one attack, but from a ‘swarming‘ attack.  Because knowing how Al Qaeda and company operate, they will more than likely attempt this type of attack again in the future and modify the attack for a better chance of success. They are learning and they will apply those lessons.

     As for the cost effectiveness? That comes from standing down Navies and limiting them to a quick reaction capacity for ships that are in trouble, as well as having them continue anti-piracy operations. Keep them on the offense. But in terms of trying to protect all ships everywhere via escort is an impossibility, and far too costly.(although I would still recommend escorting through choke points if possible, much like with the SoH)  Have the shipping industry protect it’s own assets, much like banks or jewelry stores hire security to protect their assets. A super tanker is a costly thing, with an equally valuable payload, yet companies try to go cheap when protecting these two things?  That dynamic needs to change, and having the Navies of the world allow that change to happen takes telling the shipping industry that they need to absorb this cost and take their fair share of the load in this endeavor. Besides, how does a destroyer or aircraft carrier meet the demands of the ‘many and small‘ with today’s enemies? We are talking about guys in small boats, armed with AK’s or explosive cargo?

     The other angle that I keep thinking about is the concept of Qursaans or Jihadist Privateers.  Al Shabab obviously has contacts with some of the best pirates in the world operating off the coast of Somalia.  To tap into this industry and use it for other means would not be a stretch.  A Somali pirate captain, who was the best in his industry, could take down one of these commercial ships in the SoH and then hand it, along with the hostages over to Al Qaeda.  That’s probably if Al Qaeda offered a significant bounty for such a thing. The point being is that Al Qaeda could potentially take control of a ship and either ram it into another ship, sink it in place by blowing it and it’s hostages up, or using it as a weapon against a port (one that deals in oil). The imagination is the only limit.

     Time is also not on our side.  Jihadists know that economic problems throughout the west makes this the most opportune time to attack.  That is why I declare that this is of utmost importance for armed security to be a top priority for today’s shipping, and especially those that are running through the SoH. There should be no more debate about it, no more conflicting expert analysis, no more talk about cost, or legal debates about the right of self defense on the high seas. Because at the end of the day, all of that will be shadowed by the massive economic destruction caused by such an attack or attacks.  How long will ‘wishing’ and ‘hoping’ away reality last?-Matt

Tanker Damage Caused by Attack, Inquiry Finds

Act Now on Terror Threat to Key Oil Routes, Say Experts

—————————————————————–

In this photo released by the Emirates News Agency (WAM), damage is seen on the side of the M. Star supertanker as it arrived at Fujairah port in the United Arab Emirates on Wednesday, July 28, 2010. (AP Photo/Emirates News Agency)

*****

Tanker Damage Caused by Attack, Inquiry Finds

By ROBERT F. WORTH

August 6, 2010

WASHINGTON — Investigators in the United Arab Emirates said Friday that a terrorist attack caused the mysterious damage a Japanese oil tanker suffered last week as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, raising fears of future attacks in the narrow channel that serves as a passageway for shipping crude oil from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

The damage to the tanker — which an Emirati official said was caused by “homemade explosives” aboard a dinghy — was not considered serious, and there was little immediate impact on oil markets on Friday.

But the news instantly fanned worries about shipping security. If confirmed, the attack would be the first of its kind in the volatile strait, which has long been a focal point for tensions with Iran, just across the water from the Arabian Peninsula.

About 17 million barrels of oil a day pass through the strait, close to 40 percent of the oil shipped by tankers worldwide.

The account of the attack came in a report published Friday by the state-run Emirates news agency WAM, from an Emirati coast guard official.

Earlier this week, the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, a militant group with ties to Al Qaeda, claimed it had carried out a suicide attack against the tanker, the M. Star.

American officials on Friday would not confirm that the episode was a terror attack, but one intelligence official said that the damage to the tanker — a large square dent on the hull’s port side — was “from an external explosion.” The official said it remained unclear whether the group taking credit for bombing the tanker was indeed involved.

Lt. John Fage, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, said that a team of Navy divers had recently traveled to Fujairah to assess the ship’s damage.

The Japanese government was conducting its own investigation. Japan’s transportation minister, Seiji Maehara, said at a news conference in Tokyo that the government had obtained samples taken from the damaged portion of the tanker and would “conduct analyses for all possible causes, without prejudice.”

The ship, loaded with two million barrels of oil, was heading toward Japan on July 28 when a sudden force shattered windows, ripped off deck railings and blew off a lifeboat, in addition to punching the dent into its black-and-red hull. One crew member was slightly hurt.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress