Feral Jundi

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Maritime Security: The Insanity Of ‘Catch And Release’

Filed under: Legal News,Letter Of Marque,Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:49 PM

A EU NAVFOR spokesman was unable to provide Sky News with a figure for how many suspected pirates had been returned to Somalia without charge.
“I don’t have the number for those returned to Somalia – a number of reasons but largely because it was not initially considered important to maintain the number,” the spokesman told Sky News. -Link to quote here.

This is the part of our global anti-piracy campaign that absolutely kills me. It’s as if these navies are sport fishermen, and they are releasing their catch so it can grow bigger, and spawn more fish, so they have more fish to ‘catch and release’ in the future.

Now of course we are dealing with the legal mechanisms, or lack there of, of each country that has laws that deal with piracy.  So when a navy captures a pirate or suspected pirate, those navies are operating under the guidelines of those laws. Because these countries have not implemented sound anti-piracy laws, we unfortunately see pirates captured and then release because of some legal mistake or loophole. Or, those that did the arresting of the pirates did not capture and detain properly, or properly document or obtain witnesses, etc.

So who are the worst offenders of ‘catch and release’?  That is a good question and I tried to do a little search for any comprehensive reports on this problem. Below, I have found a few recent articles on Canada and the UK, and their deficient legal mechanisms in place for prosecuting pirates. Here is a sample for the UK.

Fewer than one in every five suspects picked up around the Horn of Africa over the past four years have been prosecuted for piracy-related offences, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. The figures will fuel growing criticism of Britain’s involvement in the anti-piracy operation.
Official MoD figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show the Royal Navy has boarded 34 vessels suspected of piracy in the Indian Ocean since volunteering to lead Operation Atalanta, the EU’s first naval mission, in 2008. However, on all but six occasions, the gangs rounded up were taken to the nearest beach and released – despite often being caught with equipment including guns and ladders. A list of boardings since November 2008 shows that the navy has detained a total of 279 likely pirates but allowed 229 of them to go free, some in groups of up to 17 at a time. Fifty more were sent on for prosecution in Kenya, the Seychelles or Italy.

Amazing. This is just insane, and this practice of catch and release must end.  Also, I wanted to mention that all the nations involved have had similar catch and release stories, so the UK or Canada are not the only ones. I have been documenting this for awhile now, and it is very frustrating.

I also wanted to mention that we are missing opportunities of detention by not allowing private security companies to detain and arrest these pirates. Every engagement could turn into an arrest and a removal of these criminals off of the high seas. By issuing Letters of Marque to PSC’s or the captain on these boats, nations could give them the same arresting powers that their navies currently have.

Within the terms of the LoM, you can define exactly how arrests are to be done and the specific rules for detention and transportation of prisoners. A country can also offer bounties for each pirate that was legally detained and prosecuted. We have GPS and video filming capability, and these can all be tools required under the terms of the LoM in these modern times.

As it stands now, security companies are executing the ultimate in extreme justice on the high seas. That would be actually killing pirates during the defense. So the question I have is why is killing pirates more appropriate than detaining them? If anything, a security company should have the option of capturing those pirates instead of just killing them. It would also take a load off of the larger navies who are tasked with anti-piracy.

So why capture them alive? Well, for intelligence purposes, a pirate that is alive and talking, is far better than a dead one. Also, by capturing them, we take them out of the game.  Of course killing them takes them out of the game permanently, but sometimes killing these pirates is not feasible within the course of current rules of engagement.

In one scenario, what if the pirates attacking the ship decided to stop their attack and just give up for whatever reason? Or during their attack, their engine fails and they get within killing range–so they raise their white flag right there. Does an armed guard execute these pirates who are trying to give up, or do they detain them? Or do we just let them go?  And also, if that pirate vessel is no longer sea worthy because armed guards made it so, and now pirates are sinking, is there any obligation at all to save and detain those pirates? These are all questions that could be answered with an effective Letter of Marque regime and bounty program, that makes capturing pirates something of interest to security companies on these vessels.

I mention bounty, because even with a LoM, security companies will not be entirely motivated to detain. An effective bounty or reimbursement program would be necessary to make up for the costs of such an offense industry. You must also incentivize the process in order to create a vibrant offense industry. A company would be risking life and limb to go that extra mile to capture a pirate crew, so companies must have some mechanism in place for compensation.

So those are my thoughts on the whole thing. The laws dealing with piracy need to catch up, and we also must look at legal mechanisms that will help to make the elimination of piracy more efficient and effective. –Matt

 

Navy frees four out of five suspected Somali pirates
Britain criticised for ‘particularly poor record’ in international crackdown on Indian Ocean piracy
Brian Brady
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Hundreds of suspected pirates arrested by the Royal Navy off the coast of East Africa have been immediately set free – to continue threatening merchant vessels in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. Fewer than one in every five suspects picked up around the Horn of Africa over the past four years have been prosecuted for piracy-related offences, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. The figures will fuel growing criticism of Britain’s involvement in the anti-piracy operation.
Official MoD figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show the Royal Navy has boarded 34 vessels suspected of piracy in the Indian Ocean since volunteering to lead Operation Atalanta, the EU’s first naval mission, in 2008. However, on all but six occasions, the gangs rounded up were taken to the nearest beach and released – despite often being caught with equipment including guns and ladders. A list of boardings since November 2008 shows that the navy has detained a total of 279 likely pirates but allowed 229 of them to go free, some in groups of up to 17 at a time. Fifty more were sent on for prosecution in Kenya, the Seychelles or Italy.
The Government has acknowledged the “catch and release” strategy is often an “unsatisfactory outcome”, although ministers also maintain it helps to disrupt pirate networks.

(more…)

Friday, April 6, 2012

Maritime Security: Caught On Film– Armed Private Security Repels Pirate Attack

Filed under: Maritime Security,Video — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:21 AM

I do not know who this company is and what their rules of engagement were, so if anyone has anything to add, feel free to do so in the comments. Warning shots were ordered first, but as the attackers kept coming, then the defenders had to open up and repel the attack. Also notice that ‘two’ skiffs attacked, and this seems to be the common tactic of pirates–or to work in pairs. Good on these security contractors and it looks like their defenses and planning worked. –Matt

Edit: 5/08/2012 It looks like the folks at Lloyd’s List were able to get some information about this video.  The ship was an Eagle Bulk Shipping vessel, and the security force was Trident Group. Here is a statement from the owner of Trident Group about this incident.

In an emailed statement to Lloyd’s List, Trident president Tom Rothrauff said: “This action came 72 hours following another attack by this exact same pirate action group against this very same vessel. Further, the same PAG had attacked a tanker in the week prior, so this was a killer PAG. Our team acted with poise, and used every rule for the use of force as prescribed by the US Coast Guard in PSA 3-09.

“The skiff was identified as carrying RPG’s and AK 47’s. The team was compelled to wait before they initiated warning shots until the master gave permission to the team to release repelling force. When the warning shots were fired, it just so happened that the skiff opened up on our team at the exact same time.”

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Iraq: The Oil Ministry Wants To Ban Security Firms On Oil Fields

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:37 AM

How I read this is that the Oil Ministry wants to pull what Afghanistan is wanting to do, and get paid for Oil Police to protect these oil companies. So what they do is demonize these private security firms so they can justify this action.

Which is fine except Iraq is going to run into the same problems as Afghanistan with their APPF farce. The Oil Police are probably still corrupt, and honestly I could see them dropping the ball on quality of service or even allowing an infiltrator or two to make their way onto these oil drilling sites or arranging for kidnap type deals. Until Iraq is free and clear of this insurgency and Al Qaeda, or free of Quds forces/Iranian influence, I would have to say that trust of the Oil Police would be pretty low.

And speaking to that trust, usually a company has a buffer between it’s employees out in the field and a local guard force. A protective detail that provides some comfort to these companies so they can operate and know they have a trusted force watching their back. Most companies already operate like that now–with a local guard force running the perimeter and a PSD force watching over and managing the local guard force.  It works well, but to take that buffer out of the picture is a big mistake. Especially in an active war zone.

I am also wary of cost. How much more will companies have to pay for this Oil Police protection? What will these companies have in the way of checks and balances if this force steals from them or does something in violation of a contract? In other words, you can fire a private security company, but how can you fire a government force–and especially if it is criminal/corrupt or provides poor service?

Personally, Iraq should do all it can to accommodate these oil companies. Let them have their private security, but also encourage them to contract local guard forces–which they already do.  Focus the Oil Police on actual police duties that would further protect these oil assets. Believe me, they have plenty to do when it comes to preventing attacks and crime against oil infrastructure. Private security also does not patrol out in the towns and cities, nor do they have arresting authority.  So why use the police as body guards, when they would be far more useful just being police?

We will see how this turns out. I am sure Iraq will do whatever they want, and this is more of the same when it comes to hassling PSC’s there. I am also wondering if they are treating all PSC’s like this, or just the western PSC’s?  I say this because if you look at the graphic below, there are oil companies from all over the world operating in Iraq. If there is any discrimination here, I would like to hear about it and please feel free to post that in the comments below. I would also be curious if this new statement violates any prior contracts or memorandums signed between Iraq and these companies? –Matt

 

 

Iraq bans security firms on oil fields
March. 19, 2012
With U.S. forces gone from Iraq, Baghdad has banned foreign security contractors, long abhorred by Iraqis, from the 12 major oil fields being developed by international companies, mainly in the south.
But the government may find that hard to enforce.
Iraq’s military and security forces, still being trained by Americans, have shown themselves incapable of maintaining stability and protecting these vital and vulnerable facilities amid a surge in political violence since the U.S. withdrawal was completed Dec. 18.
The order by Iraq’s Oil Ministry was issued Feb. 29 and signed by Director General Faisal Walid. The contractors, the ministry declared, will be replaced by Iraq’s Oil Police who “will provide the necessary protection.”
Whether the 31,000-strong U.S.-trained force is capable of shielding Iraq’s vast oil and gas infrastructure, that includes 4,500 miles of pipelines which Baghdad is expanding under a $50 billion upgrade program, remains to be seen.
The ban reflects a wider drive by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government to impose tough restrictions on the tens of thousands of private security personnel who remain in Iraq, and eventually to throw them all out.

(more…)

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Afghanistan: Government Extends Deadline For APPF Transition

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 11:24 AM

Go figure? The APPF needs more time…. lol I imagine they will need a lot of things in the near future. Like more money, more training, more drugs, more guns and bullets to sell, and more sleep time on post, etc. For those companies signing contracts with them, enjoy your overpriced government security force/Karzai money machine.

The other hypocrisy about this is that it was foreign PSC’s that protected Karzai in his beginning years. So for him to criticize this industry and at the same time basically create another government raised army, is certainly telling. Karzai is purely focused on money, and the APPF is just another money making scheme that he can use to juice these western companies and agencies. Might I add that the APPF is more expensive and with the current arrangement, a western company will have no real buffer force to protect it’s people from any rogue guards or enemy infiltrators. How could any company trust this arrangement?

Of course this is also about money for these western companies as well. They know the situation, and the contractors that work for them know the situation. These companies and contractors are making their bets, and banking on the hope that nothing bad will come out of the arrangement. That the money is more important than their personal safety and security.

I guess you can tell that I am not that impressed by this force and arrangement? lol Yes, I am vocal against it, because you can just look at the arrangement and know how this will turn out. It’s like watching a car heading into a rioting crowd. You know that car is getting damaged or destroyed, and the driver might be killed or hurt in the process, and doom on that driver for making such a poor decision.

My other view on this is that I am a champion of private industry.  I am absolutely biased against government run programs like this, and especially governments that are corrupt and poorly run. And when lives are in the hands of such government programs….look out. This isn’t cutting grass (which government would probably suck at as well), this is the profession of arms and providing security in a war zone. This is not a matter that should be taken lightly. –Matt

 

A Blue Hackle security contractor handing over his weapon to an APPF guard during a ceremony.

 

Afghan government extends deadline for abolishing private security guards
March 18, 2012
The Afghan government is giving companies extensions ranging from a few weeks to 90 days to change from private security guards to a government-run force, officials said Sunday.
The reprieve comes just three days before the March 21 deadline that the Afghan government had set for the majority of companies to start using government-provided security.
Private development companies have said the move is threatening billions in U.S. aid to the country because companies would delay projects or leave altogether because they didn’t feel safe using strictly local security over whose training and procedures they have little control.
President Hamid Karzai has railed for years against the large number of guns-for-hire in Afghanistan, saying private security companies skirt the law and risk becoming militias.
It’s been part of Karzai’s larger push for more control over the way his international allies operate in Afghanistan, as seen most recently in his call for NATO troops to pull back from village outposts and to hand over security responsibilities to Afghans more quickly.

(more…)

Friday, March 16, 2012

Somalia: Halliday Finch Signs Contract For Standing Up TFG’s National Coast Guard

Filed under: Industry Talk,Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:20 PM

“With the help of several members of the international community and in partnership with Halliday Finch International we will deliver, under the auspices of the TFG Ministry of Defence and through theTFG Anti-Piracy Task Force, a National Coast Guard capability with immediate effect. In developing a national capability we recognise that we need the help and assistance of our regional partners and we will establish many of the training facilities and bases in their areas. Halliday Finch International will provide training and logistic support as well as other services.“

This is great news for Halliday Finch and I hope they can get in there and do some good. I wrote briefly about them in a prior post because they were mentioned as a replacement for Saracen after a UNSC resolution was passed.

Might I also add that HF has some serious connections. They are the personal protective detail for Sir Richard Branson when he visits Africa, they protect The Elders, and are the go to company for numerous celebrities that come to Africa for whatever reason. In other words, CEO Sam Mattock knows how to gain influence and rub elbows with the power brokers in Africa. Hence why this company has been able to edge their way into places like Somalia without a lot of protest or attention.

Now will they perform and actually deliver a good service?  Can they produce results and truly help the TFG in their goal of fighting piracy? Who knows and time will tell….

Another point I wanted to make is the money involved. According to the first article, the source of funding for this contract is very intriguing. Will they really make enough money from ‘fishing licenses’, or will this purely be a donor venture? I didn’t know they could potentially make that much from fishing licenses, but you never know. Also, from my prior post, it was Kuwait that donated this $52 million.

Now that the contract has been signed, Halliday Finch is seeking both national and private donors to fund the operation. Qatar, Mauritius, Nigeria and Angola have expressed interest, and the firm has already secured the $52 million required for the first year of operation. Halliday Finch has predicted that the 10-year project will cost approximately $900 million, and the organisation hopes that some proportion of the funding will eventually come from domestic revenue streams, including the sale of fishing licenses.

The other thing that perked me up was the quote from the press release. I would be curious about the full scope of services that HF will be delivering. Because to me, this could include a whole host of things, and especially in a failed state like Somalia.

Also, will they be using any sub-contractors in Somalia, like SKA or even Bancroft Global?

Halliday Finch International will provide training and logistic support as well as other services.“

Who knows and we will check in on this from time to time. A private security company trying to make things work in a place like Somalia, will have to work pretty damned hard to deliver and I wish them well. –Matt

 

From The Weekly Piracy Report on Somalia -Volume4
March, 05 2012
….TFG Ministry of Defence Announces Creation Of A National Coastguard
The TFG Ministry of Defence announced the establishment of the Somali Anti Piracy Task Force Coast Guard, in association with Halliday Finch International, a Nairobi-based private security company.The new force will be part of the Somali National Security Forces, and will consist of land, sea and air components.
In a press release issued this week, the Minister of Defence, Hussein Arab Essa announced:
“With the help of several members of the international community and in partnership with Halliday Finch International we will deliver, under the auspices of the TFG Ministry of Defence and through theTFG Anti-Piracy Task Force, a National Coast Guard capability with immediate effect. In developing a national capability we recognise that we need the help and assistance of our regional partners and we will establish many of the training facilities and bases in their areas. Halliday Finch International will provide training and logistic support as well as other services.”
Now that the contract has been signed, Halliday Finch is seeking both national and private donors to fund the operation. Qatar, Mauritius, Nigeria and Angola have expressed interest, and the firm has already secured the $52 million required for the first year of operation. Halliday Finch has predicted that the 10-year project will cost approximately $900 million, and the organisation hopes that some proportion of the funding will eventually come from domestic revenue streams, including the sale of fishing licenses.
Puntland’s Administration is already on board, and has agreed to plans to locate the initial training camp in Bosaso, according to Halliday Finch. In the first phase, 500 individuals (yet to be identified, but likely to come from the coastal communities) will be trained by international consultants and Somali security forces.
The ultimate plan is to integrate the numerous of maritime security efforts along the coast, which will require cooperation from the semi-autonomous region of Somaliland. Talks are ongoing, but coordination will likely be difficult given both Somaliland’s bid for secession and its immense pride over its own coastguard.
The initiative is but the latest TFG bid to promote security on the Somali coastline. In 2010, the TFG contracted private security company Saracen International to train its anti-piracy task force. Following allegations that Saracen had violated a UN arms embargo, the contract was cancelled in February 2010. Saracen swiftly shifted focus to its operations in Puntland, where it works with the Farole administration.
Story here.
—————————————————————

PRESS RELEASE FOR TFG MINISTRY OF DEFENCE THE SOMALI SOLUTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL PIRACY PROBLEM: ANTI PIRACY TASK FORCE (APTF) COASTGUARD INITIATIVE
25.02.2012 | The Transitional Federal Government of Somalia recognises the importance of securing Somalia’s territorial integrity. Significant effort and resources have already been devoted by the African Union, Somalia’s neighbours and the International Community to recover and secure Somalia’s borders, including its shores.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress