"Penalties for NGO operations to rescue irregular immigrants at sea" An Answer from the EU Parliment and Why Some NGOs May Be a Problem

During last Sunday's Midrats Episode 397: Migrants, NGOs & the Mediterranean with Claude Berube, Chris Rawley, one topic of discussion was what law governs non-governmental organizations (NGOs) out there in the Mediterranean who are either "rescuing" various forms of migrants and delivering to an EU country or "seeking to prevent" said migrants from reaching EU shores.

As suggested during the discussion, the answer appears to lie with the country whose flag the "rescuer" or "preventer" ship is sailing under. It seems this question was raised in some form to an EU Parliment Commission, which rendered this advice in March 2017. Here's the question from January 2017:

Between January and December 2016, a total of 173 000 irregular immigrants reached Italy by sea, more than in the whole of 2015. The EU sea rescue operation, Triton, is considered to be acting as a powerful magnet for those attempting to migrate illegally from Libya to Italy. Irregular immigrants who have come by the central Mediterranean route are for the most part economic migrants, who are not entitled to international protection. This latter category of migrants includes Nigerians, Ivorians, Senegalese, Malians, Guineans, and Gambians.

In October last year 40% of all operations in the central Mediterranean to rescue irregular immigrants at sea were carried out by NGOs. Frontex experts say that NGO sea rescue operations take place quite close to the Libyan coast, thus tempting immigrants to set out on the perilous crossing. NGO personnel have also guided immigrants’ boats by means of light signals. Frontex has, in addition, put forward serious accusations to the effect that NGO personnel make it impossible to gather evidence about people smugglers and that they encourage immigrants to refuse to cooperate with Italian and EU authorities. In one case irregular immigrants were even brought directly from North Africa to Italy by a vessel owned by an NGO.

According to a recent report by the Austrian military intelligence service, the EU will face a wave of 15 million economic migrants from Africa within the next few years if irregular immigration to Europe is not brought under control. In order to stop irregular immigration, sea rescue operations by NGOs, given that they are fuelling migration, should be made punishable by law. Denying licences to NGOs which take part in operations to rescue irregular migrants at sea might be one way to penalise such organisations.

Will the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, take steps to ensure that penalties are imposed for NGO sea rescue operations to pick up irregular immigrants?

And here's the answer:

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its reply to the major interpellation on the cooperation between human traffickers and NGOs engaged in search and rescue in the Mediterranean that was debated during the plenary session on 16 March 2017.

The duty to render assistance to persons or vessels in distress at sea is an obligation under international law(1). International law is binding on States, who are obliged to subject shipmasters of private, commercial or military vessels to the corresponding duty to render assistance. The shipmasters of vessels of non-governmental organisations (NGO) are therefore bound to respect the same obligations of international law as shipmasters of State vessels.

European Border and Coast Guard's Risk Analysis 2017 does not constitute evidence of NGOs having cooperated or colluded with criminal smuggling networks to intentionally facilitate unauthorised entry to the EU. This shall however be seen as a reminder that close coordination between all participants in the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR) operations in the Mediterranean is key to the effective implementation of the existing rules and to ensure the safety of all concerned, migrants and crews alike.

The Commission has not received any official information from the competent national authorities about investigations or prosecution of NGOs involved in search and rescue activities for having cooperated with criminal smuggling networks. It is for the national authorities to assess whether the conduct of any NGO or other legal or natural person that rescue people in a concrete case can be sanctioned under EU or national law as a criminal activity.


(1) This principle is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) (Art. 98) as well as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR). In addition, the applicable legal framework includes additional treaties related to maritime traffic, salvage and International Maritime Organisation (IMO) resolutions.

As set out here, the European Commission "is the executive of the European Union and promotes its general interest."

The European Border and Coast Guard's Risk Analysis 2017 can be found here:

A staggering 96% of newly-arrived migrants interviewed in the Central Mediterranean region stated that they had used the services of smuggling networks to illegally enter the EU. This suggests that irregular migration via Libya is entirely dependent on the services of the smuggling networks. Therefore, any activity that would disrupt or deter these groups could significantly curb the flow of irregular
migrants into the EU.
***
In 2016, the Central Mediterranean saw the highest number of migrant arrivals ever recorded from sub-Sahara, West Africa and the Horn of Africa (181 459 migrants, increase of 18% compared with 2015). This trend, which is consistent with previous year-on-year increases, shows that the Central Mediterranean has become the main route for African migrants to the EU and it is very likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.Specifically, 89% of migrants arrived from Libya, making Italy the main entrypoint to the EU. As a result, most of the EU, civilian and NGO vessels in the region focused their Search and Rescue(SAR) activities on migrant boats departing from Libya.

Important changes were observed on this migratory route in 2016. During 2015, and the first months of 2016, smuggling groups instructed migrants to make satellite phone calls to the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) in Rome to initiate targeted rescues on the high seas. SAR operations were mainly undertaken by Italian law-enforcement, EUNAVFOR Med or Frontex vessels with NGO vessels involved in less than 5% of the incidents. As shown in Figure 5, more than half of all rescue operations were initiated in this manner. From June until October 2016, however, the pattern was reversed. Satellite phone calls to MRCC Rome decreased sharply to 10% and NGO rescue operations rose significantly to more than 40% of all incidents.

Since June 2016, a significant number of boats were intercepted or rescued by NGO vessels without any prior distress call and without official information as to the rescue location. NGO presence and activities close to, and occasionally within, the 12-mile Libyan territorial waters nearly doubled compared with the previous year, totalling 15 NGO assets (14 maritime and 1 aerial). In parallel, the overall number of incidents increased dramatically.

The statistical data show that the criminal networks behind illegal bordercrossings along the Central Mediterranean route continued to exploit criminal business opportunities by handling a great demand for smuggling services and thus posed formidable challenges for EU border control. Libyan-based smugglers,in particular, heavily relied on the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), and associated SAR as well as humanitarian assistance efforts, turning it into a distinct tactical advantage. This is not a new strategy, but the scope of the problem is alarming.

In this context, it transpired that both border surveillance and SAR missions close to, or within, the 12-mile territorial waters of Libya have unintended consequences. Namely, they influence smugglers’ planning and act as a pull factor that compounds the difficulties inherent in border control and saving lives at sea. Dangerous crossings on unseaworthy and overloaded vessels were
organised with the main purpose of being detected by EUNAVFOR Med/Frontex and NGO vessels.

Apparently, all parties involved in SAR operations in the Central Mediterranean unintentionally help criminals achieve their objectives at minimum cost, strengthen their business model by increasing the chances of success. Migrants and refugees – encouraged by the stories of those who had successfully made it in the past – attempt the dangerous crossing since they are aware of and rely on humanitarian assistance to reach the EU.

So it may not be a matter of "collusion" but it sure seems like the "do-gooders" may be a bigger part of the problem than you might have thought. And, given that perhaps only a few of the "flag states" of their ships are being impacted by the wave of migrants, it seems "State control" might be a little weak. A list of these NGO ships and their flags was in the Berube and Rawly CIMSEC post THE MED MIGRANT CRISIS AND DEFEND EUROPE.

UPDATE: The EU debates of 16 March 2017 can be found here:

David Coburn, author. – Mr President, I think this is a good innovation – more like Prime Minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, so perhaps the centre of the European democracy is following the Mother of Parliaments.

Cooperation between human traffickers and NGOs engaged in search and rescue in the Mediterranean.

On 15 December 2016, the Financial Times, which I am sure you all know, published several excerpts from leaked Frontex reports that suggest a high level of cooperation between smugglers and NGOs:

- ‘…criminal networks were smuggling migrants directly on an NGO vessel’;

- ‘…clear indications before departure on the precise direction to be followed in order to reach the NGO boats’

- ‘…people rescued by NGO vessels were often “not willing to cooperate with debriefing experts at all, with some claiming that they were warned not to cooperate with Italian law enforcement or Frontex”.’

This period has also witnessed a surge in NGO activity in the region and a sharp drop in rescues in response to distress signals. Frontex suggested the latter is due to ‘NGOs cooperating closer to Libyan territorial waters’ or even the lights used by rescue boats, which the agency said acted ‘as a beam for the migrants’.

Does the Commission believe that such actions constitute cooperation with the smugglers, and if not, could it define what would?

Does it believe that such actions constitute collusion, and if not would it define what would?

Does the EU provide any financial assistance to NGOs engaged in search and rescue in the Mediterranean?

Is Frontex hiding anything we should all know about, since we are paying them? I think this place should know more.



Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank you for the opportunity afforded by those questions to clarify one or two issues.

First, as has been reiterated in the EU action plan against migrant smuggling, the duty to render assistance to persons or vessels in distress at sea is an obligation under international law. This is a binding obligation on states, who are obliged to ask ship masters of private, commercial or military vessels to render assistance. The ship masters vessels of nongovernmental organisations are bound by the same duties as ship masters of state vessels.

Second, it does not help to make, if I may say so, general assumptions on the role of all civil society organisations. These organisations are mostly active in support of governments and international organisations. At the same time, rules must be respected, and close coordination between all involved in search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean is obviously key to ensuring the safety of all concerned, migrants and crews alike.

Coordination of the rescue efforts is ensured primarily by the state responsible for the region where an incident is taking place. Any assisting vessel, be it private owned or state controlled, must therefore follow the instructions of the responsible Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre. So to take this example, in the case of search and rescue in the central Mediterranean region, coordination must take place with the Italian authorities.

Third, when it comes to criminalisation of migrant smuggling, we need to be clear about the existing legal framework. According to existing EU legislation, facilitation of unauthorised entry is the act of intentionally assisting a person who is not a national of a Member State to enter or transit across the territory of a Member State in breach of that Member State’s immigration laws. National authorities are the competent body to judge this. They are also competent to assess whether the conduct of any NGO, or indeed other legal or natural person, rescuing people in a specific case could amount to a form of collusion or cooperation with migrant smuggling networks.

So far the Commission has not received any official information from any Member States about investigations or prosecutions of NGOs involved in search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean for having participated in migrant smuggling.

Finally I would like to emphasise that the Commission does not provide any financial assistance to NGOs engaged in search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean. EU funding through the International Security Fund can support search and rescue operations at sea which arise during maritime border surveillance operations. These are the exclusive responsibility of public authorities, hence search and rescue operations carried out by third parties, such as NGOs, are not eligible under the Internal Security Fund for EU funding.

Mass Migrations: How to know who's being impacted by a the surge in "refugees"

Ripped from the headlines - UN urges Europe to help Italy with refugee 'tragedy'

The UN refugee agency is putting pressure on Europe to help Italy defuse the "unfolding tragedy" of tens of thousands of migrants and refugees flooding its shores.

The move comes as interior ministers of France, Germany and Italy prepare to meet in Paris on Sunday to discuss a "coordinated approach" to help Rome.

Italy needs more international support to cope with a growing number of people who have braved a perilous Mediterranean crossing to reach Europe this year, Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees, said on Saturday in a statement.

"What is happening in front of our eyes in Italy is an unfolding tragedy.

"In the course of last weekend, 12,600 migrants and refugees arrived on its shores, and an estimated 2,030 have lost their lives in the Mediterranean since the beginning of the year."

Italy, he said, was "playing its part" in taking in those rescued and offering protection to those in need.

"These efforts must be continued and strengthened. But this cannot be an Italian problem alone."

Last week, Italy threatened to close its doors to people arriving on boats that were not flying Italian flags.

But the EU says "no" to opening more European ports to migrants:

EU interior ministers have refused to support an Italian proposal to open up European ports to ships carrying migrants.

But governments did agree to help the Libyan coastguards do more and step up deportations of failed asylum-seekers.

“Returns in this case are being backed up by a common visa policy. That means that those countries, which don’t comply with returns will have to face visa restrictions, by single EU countries, said Marco Minitti, Italian interior minister.

Italy plans to draw up a code of conduct for NGOs as some EU officials believe sea rescue services are a pull factor for would-be migrants.

“We abide by Humanitarian principles, by the principle of Humanitarian action, by Medical Ethics, by International Refugee Law and by International Maritime Law, because we operate at sea. So, we are quite clear about the frame in which we operate, and we doubt that a Code of Conduct will complement that,” said Aurélie Ponthieu of Doctors Without Borders.

Italy had sought help, even at one point, threatening to close their ports to foreign humanitarian ships

Escaping wars and poverty, more than 360,000 refugees and migrants arrived on European shores across the Mediterranean last year. More than 85,000 have reached Italy so far this year.

So, Italy mulls sending navy into Libyan waters to stop migrants:

Italy is considering a plan to send its navy into Libyan waters to stop migrants and send them back. Approval for the mission could go before parliament as early as next week.

taly's center-left government will brief lawmakers about a plan to deploy Italian navy vessels along Libya's shores to stop traffickers sending migrants to Italy, Premier Paolo Gentiloni said Thursday.
A Libyan request to send Italian navy ships to patrol its waters was "a possible turning point" in the migration crisis, said Gentiloni, who convened military chiefs and ministers on Thursday to discuss immigration, security, and Libya.
Libyan Prime Minister Fayez Serraj, who leads the UN-backed unity government in Tripoli, made the request for Italian naval help while in Rome on Wednesday. His visit came after Serraj and the rival government of General Khalifa Hifter met in France and agreed on a ceasefire and possible national elections in the unstable North African country.
Nearly 600,000 boat migrants have arrived in Italy since 2014 after making the dangerous cross-Mediterranean journey in boats.

Which generates a response from another Libyan group Libya's eastern commander vows to destroy Italian warships if sailed to Libyan water:

The Libyan eastern commander of Dignity Operation forces, Khalifa Haftar, has ordered to bombard any warships sailing into the Libyan waters, in a U-turn that could see escalations between eastern Libya and the UN-proposed government's bodies in western Libya get tense.
The call of Haftar came just hours after the Tobruk-based House of Representatives (HoR), which backs Haftar's Dignity Operation forces, announced in a statement the rejection of any agreements made by the Head of the UN-proposed government's Presidential Council, Fayez Al-Sirraj, and any requests he made to Italy.
"We reject Al-Sirraj request to Italy which can vividly violate the sovereignty of Libya under the pretext of fighting illegal immigration." The spokesman of the HoR Abdullah Belheeq said.
He also said that agreements with other countries come from legislative bodies like the HoR, not by executive ones like the UN-proposed government, which has not been given the confidence vote by the HoR yet, he added.
The HoR statement warned that Italy - by its deal with Al-Sirraj - is trying to export the crisis of illegal immigration to Libya by returning scores of migrants to Libya, making a new security, social and economic dilemma for the country.
The HoR also urged the UN to help thwart the current violation of Libya's sovereignty as it is a member of the UN just like Italy, which means that the latter should commit to the international laws and conventions by respecting Libya's sovereignty.
Meanwhile, Wednesday afternoon, the Italian parliament voted for sending a naval mission to Libya's waters to help stem the current migrants flow right from the inside, knowing that Amnesty International called the step earlier this week a shameful attempt by the Italian authorities to circumvent their duty to rescue refugees and migrants at sea and to offer protection to those who need it.

For those who follow such things, Amnesty International is an NGO which offers up the EU as a resettlement area for migrants and refugees because . . . Central Mediterranean: Death toll soars as EU turns its back on refugees and migrants:

The soaring death toll in the central Mediterranean and the horrific abuses faced by thousands of refugees and migrants in Libyan detention centres are clearly linked to failing EU policies, said Amnesty International in a report published today.

A perfect storm: The failure of European policies in the Central Mediterranean finds that by ceding the lion’s share of responsibility for search and rescue to NGOs and by increasing cooperation with the Libyan coastguard, European governments are failing to prevent drownings and turning a blind eye to abuse, including torture and rape.
***
“Rather than acting to save lives and offer protection, European Ministers meeting today are shamelessly prioritizing reckless deals with Libya in a desperate bid to prevent refugees and migrants from reaching Italy,” said John Dalhuisen, Amnesty International’s Europe Director.

“European states have progressively turned their backs on a search and rescue strategy that was reducing mortality at sea in favour of one that has seen thousands drown and left desperate men, women and children trapped in Libya, exposed to horrific abuses.”

Measures implemented by EU leaders to strengthen search and rescue capacity in the central Mediterranean in April 2015 dramatically decreased deaths at sea. But this priority, which saw several countries provide more rescue boats closer to Libyan territorial waters, was short-lived. Instead, EU governments have shifted their focus to disrupting smugglers and preventing departures of boats from Libya: a failing strategy that has led to ever more dangerous crossings and a threefold increase in the death-rate from 0.89% in the second half of 2015 to 2.7% in 2017.

Changes to smugglers’ practices and an increasing use of unseaworthy boats with a complete lack of safety equipment on board have made the sea crossing even more unsafe. But despite a spike in deaths - more than 2,000 since January – the EU is failing to deploy an adequately resourced and dedicated humanitarian operation near Libyan territorial waters. Instead it is focusing on strengthening the abilities of the Libyan coastguard to better prevent departures and perform interceptions.

So, what prompted this mass movement again? The EU or the miserable states these people are fleeing? What's AI saying about that? Not much, as the AI piece from which I just quoted quotes a man from Bangladesh and one from Gambia.

Here we get to the nut of the issue. Given that EU governments are paid for by the taxes of their citizenry and those taxes are being used to sustain tens of thousands of migrants many of whom are not "refugees" at all, at what point can a government tell migrants "No vacancy?"

An excellent post by Claude Berube and Chris Rawley at War on the Rocks, DUELING NGOS ON THE SEAS: ‘WHAT SHIPS ARE FOR’ covers what happens when nation states don't react as non-state actors may wish and the Non-state actors start taking matters into their own hands and perhaps into confrontation with other non-state actors with a different view of matters:

Today’s ideological battles are not simply confined to land or cyberspace. Nor is conflict at sea reserved for state-sponsored navies. The high seas are increasingly a battlespace for non-government organizations (NGOs). Although organizations such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have been conducting maritime operations in support of their environmental missions for four decades, in recent years other maritime NGOs have emerged for a variety of causes.

The recent wave of migration from Africa and the Middle East into Europe – often by boat – has encouraged both state and non-state navies to begin rescue and interdiction operations in the Mediterranean. The thousands of people fleeing growing instability in North Africa and the Near East have set the stage for competing political positions.

Search-and-rescue organizations seeking to help migrants have found themselves in conflict not with the government, but with a competing NGO, Defend Europe. The dispute highlights that future maritime battles may not be restricted to governments or to militant groups on the seas, especially as government resources shrink and NGOs see increasing political incentives to enter this space.

This could get interesting.

It seems some NGOs are "more equal than others" and are getting local law enforement to reject other NGOs. As in Far-Right Anti-Migrant Ship Told It’s Not Welcome In Crete:

The Djibouti-flagged C-Star is part of an operation by the far-right Generation Identity movement called Defend Europe, aimed at stopping nongovernmental organizations and national coast guards from rescuing refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean.

Defend Europe set out its mission:

Every week, every day, every hour – ships packed with illegal Immigrants are flooding into European waters. An invasion is taking place. This massive immigration is changing the face of our continent. We are losing our safety and our way of life and there is a danger we Europeans will become a minority in our own European homelands.

We want to start an identitarian search-and-rescue (SAR) mission in July on the Libyan coast. Our goal is to document the doings of the NGOs, expose their collaboration with the human smugglers, and intervene if they do something illegal.

We will reach out to the Libyan Coast Guard and offer them our help as a recon ship. Our goal is to step in where our politicians are failing and to do what is necessary to stop the deadly illegal migration into Europe.

If we get an SOS signal, we will of course save the people in distress — and hand them over to the Libyan Coast Guard to make sure that they are brought to the closest harbour, according to international law. We will not enter territorial waters without their permission!

Defend Europe will make the Mediterrenean Sea more safe. An additional ship is able to answer SOS calls and our “No Way” policy for illegal immigration will discourage human traffickers and NGOs to lure people into the sea.

The closing of the Mediterranean route is the only way to Defend Europe and save lives.

Stay tuned.

Roundup of Piracy, Sea Robbers, Kidnappers and Hostage Takers- 22 May 14

Be careful out there

From the good folks at the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)and their World Wide Threats to Shipping report for 22 May 14, a reminder that there is a threat to yachts, no matter where they are:

1. (U) DOMINICA: On 3 May, two men boarded a 43 foot sailing yacht moored south of Roseau and assaulted the owner and passenger onboard. One of the robbers attacked the boat owner while the other attempted to assault the passenger, who used mace on her attacker. At that point, the robbers fled the boat. The crew of the yacht untied from the mooring point in the harbor and departed the area after attempting to contact local authorities, who did not respond. (www.noonsite.com)
****
2. (U) PHILIPPINES: Two German citizens living in the Philippines were reportedly kidnapped in late April from their sailing yacht CATHERINE near Palawan Island while on an island-hopping trip, according to police and press reports. They are reportedly being held by members of the Abu Sayyaf Group, along with two other Europeans taken by the group in 2012. (www.noonsite.com, and www.abs-cbnnews.com)

More trouble in and off Nigeria:

1. (U) NIGERIA: On 13 May, two robbers boarded an anchored tanker near position 04:45N – 006:59E, Port Harcourt Anchorage. The robbers took two crewmembers hostage and threatened them with knives. The robbers released the crewmembers after stealing mooring ropes. Upon release, the crew raised the alarm and mustered on the bridge. While mustered on the bridge the crew smelled cargo gas and noticed a small craft alongside the vessel near the bow stealing cargo. Nigerian Navy contacted and ships in the vicinity warned on VHF Channel 16. The Navy responded by sending a small speed boat, which circled the vessel and then left. Robbers escaped and all crew safe. (IMB)
2. (U) SIERRA LEONE: On 5 May, two robbers armed with knives boarded

a berthed bulk carrier at position 08:29N - 013:13W, Berth No.2, Freetown Port. The robbers took hostage the duty cadet on rounds. They then stole the aft mooring ropes before releasing the cadet and escaping. On being released the cadet informed the duty officer who raised the alarm. (IMB)
3. (U) NIGERIA: On 4 May, three Dutch citizens and two Nigerian citizens were kidnapped near the settlement of Letugbene, a river community in Bayelsa State. The group was reportedly touring the area to promote work on a local hospital. They reportedly had local guides, but not an armed escort. Up to ten heavily armed bandits were involved in the kidnapping, utilizing several speedboats. The Nigerian citizens were later released, but the Dutch citizens are still being held. (Premium Times of Nigeria)

On the good news front, the NATO Shipping Center's Daily Piracy Update has this map of activity in the area where Somali pirates were once very active:

What with Chinese, U.S., NATO, EU, Japanese and other naval forces out there in the area around Somalia and the number of armed security teams riding merchant ships, the pirates finally may be outnumbered and certainly have been tamped down. Of course, it might be they are afraid of the mighty Iranian counter-piracy force which, according to the perhaps biased FARS News, has dominated the area:

“In the last three years, around 3,000 cargo ships and oil tankers have been escorted by the Navy’s commandos and vessels,” Commander of the Iranian Navy’s Missile Program Admiral Ali Vafadar told FNA.
He also said that pirates' attempts to hijack 147 cargo ships and oil tankers in international waters have been aborted due to the timely action of the Iranian warships deployed in the region.
Vafadar said that the Iranian naval forces have also managed to seize control of a number of pirate boats and vessels, arrest their crews and transferred them to Iran to stand trial for their crimes.
The Iranian Navy has been conducting anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden since November 2008, when Somali raiders hijacked the Iranian-chartered cargo ship, MV Delight, off the coast of Yemen.
The Iranian navy has been developing its presence in international waters since 2010, regularly launching vessels in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden to protect Iranian ships from Somali pirates operating in the area.

Those remarks were made in December 2013. It is interesting to take a look at Somali pirate activity in recent years. Here is a table from the ONI Piracy Analysis and Warning Weekly for 22 May 2013:

The Iranians seem to be finding a lot more trouble out there than the rest of the world's naval vessels and commercial shipping.

Somali Pirates: Stranger than fiction

Noted with only the comment in the header: Somali ex-pirate kingpin now leads anti-piracy fight:

According to the United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia's 2012 report, Afweyne and his son Abdiqaadir were implicated in the hijackings of seven vessels between April 2009 and October 2012.

But after announcing in January that he was quitting his life of "gang activity" on the high seas, Afweyne has been engaged in efforts in the Mudug and Galgadud regions to reform more than 1,000 youths who have followed his lead and renounced piracy.

In an exclusive interview with Sabahi, Afweyne, now 60, denies having ever taken hostages or collected ransom money, but he says he regrets his past career and has put it behind him.

And a report about the EU, EU May Help Somalia Establish Coast Guard To Combat Piracy:

The European Union wants to help Somalia establish a coast guard service to combat piracy in the Horn of Africa.

Hmmm. Follow the money.


UPDATE: Tales of the heroic Iranian Navy and its pirate stopping power here:

In relevant remarks late September, a senior Iranian Commander said that the Iranian fleets of warships deployed in the Gulf of Aden have escorted a total number of 1,538 cargo ships and oil tankers during their mission in the waterway.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran's Navy has escorted 1,538 cargo ships in the Gulf of Aden so far," Commander of the Iranian Army's 4th Naval Zone Admiral Khordad Hakimi told FNA in the Northern port city of Anzali.

He also said that pirates' attempts to hijack 112 cargo ships and oil tankers in international waters have been aborted due to the timely action of the Iranian warships deployed in the region.

Hakimi referred to the presence of the Iranian Navy's 27th flotilla of warships in the high seas to protect the country's cargo ships and oil tankers against pirates, and said the flotilla which is comprised of the Khark helicopter carrier and Sabalan destroyer has berthed in Sudan.

He called the Iranian Navy as an influential force, and said, "The Navy enjoys effective power in safeguarding domestic and international interests."

Wait - based in Sudan?

Somali Pirates: A German Look at Inshore/Ashore Counter-Piracy

Well, if the Somali pirates read der Speigel, they will know how far to nest off the beach, as set out in here, that distance is 2 klicks/km or 1.2 miles:

Last Friday, EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels agreed to expand the operation to include the coastal region. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, the ministers agreed that Atalanta units should be able to target pirates and their infrastructure up to a limit of two kilometers (1.2 miles) inland. If the expansion is approved, it will be the first time that Western forces are allowed to target pirates on the Somali mainland.

The last sentence is not entirely accurate. It is clear that France took forces ashore to whack some pirate thugs 4 years back (see here and here), the U.S. has, on occasion, gone inland to rescue hostages (see here, and there are - rumors - that other countries have had forces doing stuff off the water.

Still, 2 km is progress of sorts in taking the counter-piracy op ashore. In an earlier report in which the Germans revealed "consideration" of taking the fight ashore (see here), there was this whining noise:

Omid Nouripour, the defense spokesman for the Green Party's parliamentary group, was even more outspoken. He called the idea of targeting the pirates' onshore facilities "sheer madness." He spoke of the danger of mission creep should the pirates retreat further onshore in response to attacks.

And my suggestion of a suitable strike distance - somewhat deeper than 2 km:

Someone ought to explain to Omid Nouripour the difficulties imposed on the pirates by making them perform logistics 100 miles from the beach.

Somali Pirates: Counter-Pirate Forces Short of EU Ships - Budget Issues

Too expensive to use for the designed purpose

Reported here:

The European Union(EU)’s anti-piracy mission off the coast of Somalia is plagued by a shortage of warships due to budget cuts, the bloc’s top military officer said on Tuesday.

"I can imagine that there are many different reasons for this, but one is of course economy and also the budget cuts," said General Hakan Syren, chairman of the EU Military Committee.

EU’s Atalanta operation requires a minimum of four to six ships, but the number would fall "below the red line" in December, the general said after a meeting of military chiefs from the bloc’s 27 member countries.

"We are all aware of that. We are near the end of Novermber now. I think it is no repairable in this short time. But in March, we will above the red line again," he said.

"When it comes to this kind of assets, I can imagine that member states have felt a bit insecure about the situation in the Mediterranean Sea connected to the Arab Spring and the Libyan crisis, but primarily it is a question of resources," he said.

EU nations contributed about 10 warships to the Atalanta operation when it was launched in 2008 to fight against pirates off the coast of Somalia.

However, there are only six or seven EU warships that are taking part in the operation, which has been extended until the end of next year.

Given all the stirring resolutions about fighting the pirate menace, I guess it just a matter of priorities and "All hat, no cattle," as the Texas saying goes.

I suspect private security companies will fill in part of the security gaps caused by this issue.

Photo of the ship? Old U.S. Navy battleship.

Somali Pirates: Taking them out early

New anti-piracy strategy against Somali pirates? Maybe, as hinted at here:

"I am also heartened to hear from EUNAVFOR that both pirate dhows which have put to sea so far this season have been put out of service, one of them at the bottom of the sea. And also that a pirate whaler acting as a supply ship was also sunk last week through a joint EU/NATO operation Rules of Engagement are already strong, and the naval operations will be given the legal authority they need to deliver effective action. This Government is 100 percent behind a more robust response to piracy, and we are glad to see the Royal Navy, EUNAVFOR and NATO leading the way."

Well, if they can't get to where the ships are, it just might tend to slow them down.

Somali Pirates Harassed by EU Forces

Nisvose VBS team investigating suspected pirates (ENNAVFOR photo)

Press release of EUNAVFOR, here:

On 5th March, an EU NAVFOR aircraft and the EU NAVFOR French warship FS NIVOSE disrupted a suspected pirate whaler off the Somali coast. The whaler was suspected of leading a Pirate Action Group (PAG) at the time of the incident.

On the morning of 4th March, a merchant vessel reported being chased by one skiff about 350 Nautical Miles south of Mogadishu. In response, the EU NAVFOR warship FS NIVOSE was immediately ordered to locate and disrupt the suspected PAG responsible for the incident. In addition, the EU NAVFOR Maritime Patrol Reconnaissance Aircraft (MPRA) which is supplied by Luxembourg and based in The Seychelles was also dispatched to join the hunt. The aircraft located the suspected PAG, consisting of a whaler-type open boat, soon after and guided the FS NIVOSE to intercept. There were no attack skiffs found in the vicinity of the whaler.

Upon finding the whaler, the FS NIVOSE launched its helicopter which was forced to fire warning shots ahead of the vessel to force the suspected pirates to stop. The crew of the whaler had already been filmed by the MPRA throwing equipment overboard. The French warship launched its boarding team to intercept the whaler and 3 suspected pirates were found on board. Apart from a large number of fuel barrels, no pirate related equipment was discovered.

As there was insufficient evidence to pursue a prosecution, the three suspected pirates were returned to the whaler. Most of the fuel was confiscated but they were left with enough fuel, food and water to reach the Somali coast.

I wonder why they just didn't make sure the pirates had some paddles and confiscate their engine while they were at it.

Oh, and Luxembourg? As noted here:

Some might be confused with the mention of Luxembourg providing MPA - they are apparently using modified, leased CAE Aviation Swearingen Merlin III aircraft based in the Seychelles. These aircraft appear to be equipped with the WESCAM™ MX-20 Sensor System

UPDATE: More information on the Merlin III from Bruxelle2, a French language blog devoted to EU foreign policy and European defense. The planes and crews of these patrol are "leased" by the Duchy of Luxembourg (no small expense for a tiny county) to conduct anti-piracy patrols out of the Seychelles.

Somalia Pirates: Getting too big to avoid land action by anti-pirate forces?

Call for action against the pirates reported by Strategy Page in Somalia: Calls For Sending Commandoes Ashore:

So far it's all talk, but specific talk about going after the ability of the pirate gangs to function. The continued payment of large (average now about $5 million per ship) ransoms for insured ships, is attracting more warlords, who are forming more pirate gangs and sending more mother ships out than the anti-piracy patrol can handle. Thus the increased talk of commando raids.

How big is the problem? well, USA Today's Jim Michaels reports:

Two years after international forces dispatched a flotilla of warships to counter piracy around the Horn of Africa, attacks on merchant ships are rising again.

Last year, pirates captured 53 ships in the region, up from 51 in 2009, according to the Combined Maritime Forces, which oversees the operations. There were 160 attempted attacks in 2010, up from 145 the year before.

Pirates have shifted tactics so they can prey on merchant ships farther out at sea and evade an international flotilla that was dispatched to the Horn of Africa region to protect heavily used shipping lanes, according to the Combined Maritime Forces based in Bahrain.
***
Aldred said the naval force, with the help of merchant shipping companies, has been successful in reducing piracy from 2008 levels when a spike in attacks led to the creation of the international force.

He also said naval forces are disrupting more attacks. Last year 169 attempts were disrupted, up from 62 the year prior.

The shift in tactics has showed the resiliency of pirates, who have made millions of dollars from ransoms.

Pirates are now using "mother ships," which are able to travel thousands of miles before finding a target and then launching smaller skiffs that pirates use to board merchant ships, said Eric Thompson, an analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses. "That magnifies the challenge of covering that territory," he said.

Yep, when you put the squeeze on one part of a bag of goo, the goo in the bag oozes to another part of the bag. In this case, the pirates, squeezed in the Gulf of Aden, move to the northern Arabian Sea, Madagascar Strait or off the west coast of India.

The shift causes them to need larger, more sea-worthy ships, which they procure by pirating them, giving them a low-overhead system of ship acquisition. When such a ship is used up (out of fuel and food), it is anchored off Somalia to await ransoming by its owners. Another ship is taken to replace it. The pirates have low maintenance costs, too. It's a clever business model.

Anti-piracy forces are reluctant to force their way onto these captive pirate vessels for fear of causing injury to the captive crews of innocent merchant sailors.

So far the problem is tiny in comparison to the volume of shipping involved but, as we have seen, it is expanding and the current methods of squeezing the pirate "bag" is just moving the pirate area of operations away from the convoys and other military efforts.

Some of the better options to fight the pirate expansion are coming off the board as the pirates aggressively use hostages to protect themselves from the counter-piracy forces.

The treatment of this as a purely "law enforcement" problem has proven to be something of a problem - and not very effective. "Catch and release" of captured pirates doesn't deter very much and the costly trials result in more of a hassle for the countries holding them then the deterrent value of facing criminal charges.

Someone is going to have to break some eggs to solve this problem and those eggs that matter are all land-based.

Then there is this problem:

LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. “You will all agree,” said he, “that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood.”

This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: “That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?” The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke.

The moral?  "It is one thing to propose, another to execute."
Attributed to Aesop.

Somali Pirates: More Ships Taken; "Mother Ships" on the Move

Reported by EU MSC(HOA) as MV BLIDA pirated in the Indian Ocean:

In the afternoon of 1 January, the MV BLIDA was pirated approximately 150 nautical miles South East of the port of Salalah, Oman.

The 20,586 tonne Bulk Carrier is Algerian flagged and owned. The vessel was on her way to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania from Salalah in Oman at the time of the attack. No further details of the attack are known at this stage. MV Blida has a crew of 27 (Algerian, Ukrainian and Philippino) and is carrying a cargo of Clinker. MV BLIDA was registered with MSC(HOA) but had not reported to UKMTO.

MAC(HOA) also confirms the capture of a fishing vessel off Mozambique:

The Mozambican flagged Fishing Vessel VEGA 5, which was previously reported missing by her owner, is now confirmed as being pirated in the waters between Mozambique and Madagascar.

On 31 December, the vessel was spotted near the Mozambique coast, approximately 200 nautical miles South West of the Comoros Islands, heading north. The vessel was towing what looked to be a pirate attack skiff and did not respond to any calls. There has been no further communication with the vessel.

The FV VEGA 5 has a displacement of 140 tonnes and a length of 24 meters. The nationalities of the 14 crew members are unknown.

NATO reports locations of suspected pirate "mother ships" (four of which appear to be active*) as of 3 Jan here:

Alert update 030900ZJAN11

Motivator

Motivator is reported in the area of 10°54N 052°39E 310200ZDEC11

York

York - 03°15N 057°07E as of 030541ZJAN11 is assessed as being used by pirates for piracy operations.

Golden Wave is alongside the Somali coast. 021030ZJAN11

Hannibal II

Hannibal II - 12°14N 054°54E, course 225, speed 12kts 020804ZJAN11 is assessed as being used by pirates for piracy operations.

Thor Nexus is alongside the Somali coast 022018ZJAN11

EMS River is alongside the Somali coast 030133ZJAN11

Polar is alongside the Somali coast 030720ZJAN11

Shiuh Fu No. 1

Shiuh Fu No.1 (13°05S 056°33E) 301045ZDEC10 possibly heading back to the anchorage off Somalia. No current update

NATO assessment as of 31 December 10:

The number of pirated merchant and fishing vessels underway conducting piracy operations jumped dramatically this week, with as many as seven mother ship pirate attack groups (or PAGs) underway in the Arabian Sea and greater Somalia Basin during the period. Specifically, a large number of hijacked merchant and fishing vessels are currently underway to conduct piracy operations. This list includes MT MOTIVATOR, which is probably returning to the northeast coast of Somalia after pirating MV EMS RIVER, and MV HANNIBAL II which probably remains underway conducting piracy in the northern Somali Basin/Arabian Sea. MV YUAN XIANG may also be underway en route piracy operations in the Arabian Sea. MV IZUMI has returned to the east coast of Somalia following a piracy mission in the Arabian Sea, while MV YORK is underway in the central Somali Basin, probably en route piracy ops east of 60 degrees east longitude in the far east, central basin. MV POLAR is most likely returning to the Somali east coast after pirating Taiwan FV SHIUH FU 1 off Madagascar on 25 December. MV POLAR is now probably located northwest of the Seychelles, while FV SHIUH FU 1 may be continuing piracy operations east of Madagascar. In addition to pirated merchant ship/fishing vessel PAGs, there are probably at least 2-3 Dhow PAGs also active in the Arabian Sea and northern Somali Basin.

FV SHIUH FU 1 was pirated by MV POLAR. Additionally, MV EMS RIVER was pirated by MT MOTIVATOR when pirates embarked in the Arabian Sea just off the south-central coast of Oman on 27 December. MV THOR NEXUS was pirated by a probable Dhow-based PAG on 25 December in the Arabian Sea, vicinity 15 North latitude, 60 degrees East longitude. MV SIGLOO STAR was also approached by a pirate group embarked aboard pirated MV HANNIBAL II in the Arabian Sea southeast of Salalah, Oman, but was disrupted by Turkey Naval Ship GAZIANTEP.
***
This overall high level of piracy activity in the Arabian Sea and greater Somali Basin is expected to continue through next week. Pirates are obviously taking advantage of the more seaworthy ships to extend their range of operations out into regions less impacted by the NE Monsoon. We expect this trend to continue over the coming weeks, particularly during the holiday period through the New Year.

In short, the pirates are effectively evading NATO/EU/CTF 15/Other naval vessels and operating in new areas by evolving their operations. They are inside the OODA loop of the anti-pirate forces.

Pictures are of alleged "active" mother ships. Click on maps to enlarge.


*Highlighted in orange

Somali Pirates Take Another Ship Off Oman on 27 Dec 10

EMS River

EU MSC(HOA) reports: MV EMS RIVER pirated in the Indian Ocean:

In the early hours of 27 December, the MV EMS RIVER was pirated approximately 175 nautical miles North East of the port of Salalah, Oman.

The 5,200 tonne general cargo ship, which is Antigua/Barbuda flagged and German owned, was on her way to San Nicolas, Greece from Jebel Ali in the UAE at the time of the attack. She has a crew of 8 (1 Romanian, 7 Philipinos) and is carrying a cargo of Petroleum Coke. The pirated vessel MT MOTIVATOR was in the vicinity of EMS RIVER throughout the attack which further enforces the current pirate modus operandi of the use of motherships.

There are now 26 vessels and 609 hostages being held by pirates off the coast of Somalia.

A warning from NATO, which reports 4 or more captured vessels are being deployed by the pirates as "mother ships" - greatly extending the range and operation environment of the pirates:

Thor Nexus

Hannibal II

Motivator

York

Polar

Shiuh

Golden

Presently the pirated merchant vessels Hannibal II, York, Polar, Motivator and Golden Wave is not anchored off Somalia, it is assessed that all of them are used by pirates as motherships, and they are a threat to other merchant shipping in the area. Newly pirated vessels Thor Nexus, Ems River and Shiuh Fu No.1 and maybe one other vessel, is heading towards the Somali coast and may pose a threat to shipping.

1. Hannibal II reports indicate is in the vicinity of Socotra
2. Motivator is reported in the area of 15°21N 057°52E
3. York and Golden Wave are assessed to be heading out to the deep Somali Basin.
4. Polar, Thor Nexus, Ems River and Shiuh Fu No.1 maybe heading back to the anchorage off Somalia.
5. Additionally one unknown Dhow is unlocated.

Gee, it's almost like the pirates are operating like a navy or something.

More from NATO:

December 28 2010

---ALERT UPDATE--- Indian ocean

Latitude: 17°57N Longitude: 057°43E

Alert number 577 / 2010.

Reference previous Alert number 573 / 2010.

At 1303 UTC a merchant vessel was reported under attack in position 17 57N 057 43E.

***This vessel has been hijacked***

and now is in pos 15°21N 057°52E crs 211° spd 11

--------------------------------

December 28 2010

WARNING Indian ocean

Latitude: 12°27N Longitude: 055°07E

Alert number 576 / 2010

Reference: previous alert number 575 / 2010.

At 0600 UTC 28 Dec a Pirate Action Group consisting of pirated vessel Hannbal II acting as mothership was reported in position 12°27N 055°07E Course 226°, speed 11 kts.
---------------------------------

December 27 2010

WARNING Indian Ocean

Latitude: 13°30N Longitude: 055°48E

Alert number 575 / 2010
Reference: previous alert number 574 / 2010.

At 2320 UTC 27 Dec a Pirate Action Group consisting of pirated vessel Hannbal II acting as mothership was reported in position 13°30N 055°48E Course 212°, speed 11 kts.
---------------------------------

December 27 2010

WARNING Indian Ocean

Latitude: 15°10N Longitude: 056°22E

Alert number 574 / 2010

Reference: previous alert number 570 / 2010.

At 1337 UTC 27 Dec a Pirate Action Group consisting of pirated vessel Hannbal II acting as mothership was reported in position 15 10N 056 22E Course 165, speed 14 kts.

----------------------------------------
December 27 2010
WARNING Indian Ocean
Latitude: 17°57N Longitude: 057°43E

Alert number 573 / 2010.

Reference previous Alert number 572 / 2010.

At 1303 UTC 27 DATE / a merchant vessel is currently under attack by Pirate Action Group operating from hijacked vsl Motivator acting as mothership position 17 57.7N 057 43.8E Course 175, spd 5 kts.


----------------------------------------

December 27 2010
WARNING Indian Ocean

Latitude: 18°10N Longitude: 057°50E

Alert number 572 / 2010.

At 0623 UTC 27 DEC a merchant vessel is currently under attack by Pirate Action Group incl hijacked vessel acting as pirate motherhip and a skiff in position 18°10N 057°50E.

----------------------------------------

December 27 2010

WARNING Somali basin

Latitude: 07°20 N Longitude: 049°50 E

Alert number 571 / 2010.

At 1330 UTC 26 Dec a Pirate Action Group consisting of pirated vessel acting as mothership was reported in position 07°20 N 049°50 E Course 050°, speed 5 kts.
----------------------------------------
December 26 2010
WARNING Indian Ocean
Latitude: 11 16N Longitude: 054 45E
Alert Number 570 / 2010
At 0325 UTC 26 Dec a Pirate Action Group consisting of pirated vessel acting as a mothership was reported in position 11 16N 054 45E Course 050, speed 10kts.
------------------------------------------
December 26 2010
WARNING Indian Ocean
Latitude: 14 28S Longitude: 055 15E
Alert number 569 / 2010
At 0802 UTC 26 Dec / a Pirate Action Group consisting of a pirated vessel acting as a mothership was reported in position 14 28S 055 51E, crs 115 spd 13kts.

It's easy to know where the pirates have been, since they leave a trail of attacks and captured ships. I suppose detaching a few ships or aircraft to keep tabs on the mother ships to know exactly where the mother ships are at any given moment is just too hard or is being doing and is being kept very quiet for some reason.

Right now, however, it seems all the proactive measures are being taken by the pirates.

And that should be taken very seriously, indeed.

Assessing the Containment of Somali Pirates

As the year 2010 draws to a close, it is a good time to review various efforts to see if focus needs to be shifted in the coming year. This is an effort to look at the success level of the various forces (NATO, EU, CTF-151, and independent but cooperating naval units) in containing the spread of Somali piracy.

A week or so ago, I posted the following video:

You might note a couple of things from the video:

1. Before 2009, the "Somali pirate problem" was generally limited to the proximate off-shore waters off Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden;
2. After 2009, the "Piracy Problem" has spread itself across the Indian Ocean, into the Red Sea and down the East African coast.

Since 2007, the number of warships assigned to perform convoy duties and escort shipping through the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean has increased to the point that there might be 25 or more warships in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean during peak piracy (non-monsoon) seasons.

While it is certain that the presence of these warships has prevented some pirate attacks, it is also clear that the pirates have responded to their presence by expanding their own pirate patrol areas through extensive use of long-range "mother ships" into areas less frequented by warships.  This includes moving into the much traveled sea lanes in and out of the Arabian Sea, including along India's western islands.

NATO's Shipping Center prepares warning area maps highlighting areas of known "pirate action group" (PAG) activity, with the red warning area correlating to incident reported on their warning messages (alert numbers are shown in related warning circles):

NATO SC 6 Dec 10 Warning Map (click to enlarge)

December 05 2010

WARNING Somali Basin

Latitude: 04°07'24"N Longitude: 049°23'04"E

Alert number 529/ 2010.

At 1507 UTC / 05Dec / a Pirate Action Group possible mother ship operations was reported in position 04°07'24"N 049°23'04"E.

---------------------------

December 05 2010

---ALERT UPDATE--- Indian Ocean

Latitude: 08°12N Longitude: 071°55E

Alert number 528 / 2010.

Reference previous Alert number 527 / 2010.

At 0942 UTC 05DEC a merchant vessel was reported under attack by pirates/1 skiffs in position 08°11N 071°43E.

***This vessel has been hijacked***

--------------------------

December 05 2010

WARNING Indian Ocean

Latitude: 08°10N Longitude: 071°43E

Alert number 527 / 2010.

At 0942 UTC / 05 NOV/ a merchant vessel was under attack by pirates/1 skiffs in position 08°10N 071°43E.

-------------------------

December 04 2010

WARNING Somali Basin

Latitude: 09°00 N Longitude: 067°10 E

Alert number 526 / 2010.

At 0230 UTC / 04 NOV 10 / a Pirate Action Group consisting of A Pirated Fishing Vessel was reported in position 09°00N 067°10E course 250° speed 10 knots.

---------------------------

December 01 2010

WARNING SOMALI BASIN

Latitude: 09°19N    Longitude: 069°30E

Alert number 525/ 2010.

Reference previous Alert number 524/ 2010.

At 1341 UTC / 30 NOV 10 / a merchant vessel was reported under attack by pirates in position 09 19 N 069 30 E.

ONE SKIFF, WEAPONS WERE USED, 5POB.

***This vessel managed to evade hijack***

The Pirate action group is still in the area.

-------------------------------

 

November 30 2010

WARNING SOMALI BASIN

Latitude: 09°19N    Longitude: 069°30E

Alert number 524/ 2010.

At 1341 UTC / 30 NOV 10/ a merchant vessel is currently under attack by pirates in position 09 19 N 069 30 E.

One skiff, weapons used.

-------------------------------

 

November 29 2010

WARNING RED SEA

Latitude: 13°35N    Longitude: 042°56E

Alert number 523/ 2010.

At 1749UTC / 29NOV / a merchant vessel was possibly under attack by pirates/3 skiffs in position 13°35N 042°56E.

-------------------------------

 

November 29 2010 

WARNING Somali Basin

Latitude: 16°57N Longitude: 067°15E

Alert number 522/ 2010

At 0254 UTC 29 NOV 10 a merchant vessel was reported under attack by pirates in position 16°57N  067°15E.

A Pirate Action Group consiting of one mother ship and one skiff 4-5 POB, weapons and ladders were used.

***This vessel managed to evade hijack***

The Pirate action group is still in the area.

-------------------------------

November 28 2010 

WARNING Somali Basin

Latitude: 14°51N Longitude: 068°13E

Alert number 521/ 2010.

At 0700 UTC / 28 NOV 10 / a merchant vessel was reported under attack by pirates in position 14°51N 068°13E.

A Pirate Action Group consiting of one mother ship and one skiff 4POB, weapons and ladders.

***This vessel managed to evade hijack***

The Pirate action group is still in the area.

 -------------------------------

November 28 2010 

WARNING Somali Basin
Latitude: 13°34N Longitude: 057°06E

Alert number 520/ 2010.

Reference previous Alert number 517 / 2010.

At 0901 UTC / 27 NOV 10 / a merchant vessel was reported under attack by pirates in position 13°34N 057°06E.

One Dhow acted as mother ship and two skiffs, weapons were used, approx 10POB.

***This vessel managed to evade hijack***

The Pirate action group is still in the area.

It should be clear that, as has been stated many times, there is too much ocean being "patrolled" by too few ships to prevent all piracy attacks. Merchant shipping that regularly transits the Gulf of Aden and the western Indian Ocean have been encouraged to adopt "best management practices" (available here) as "self-help" in thwarting pirate attacks.

However, it is also clear that, despite these measures, the range of Somali piracy has expanded.

There has been some discussion as to whether the level of actual interference with international shipping by this piracy is of great or little moment. See Steven M. Carmel's "The Big Myth of Somali Pirates" in the U.S. Naval Insitute's December issue of Proceedings Magazine (December 2010 Vol. 136/12/1,294):

But the overall system of international commerce has not been impaired. It is the overall stability and efficiency of the system that matters—not individual companies—and the system is what should be protected. The international military community cannot be in the business of protecting the financial health of individual businesses. That is the responsibility of the businesses. Nor does the international community need to be concerned with overall system stability; Somali pirates have not been able to upset that.

You can also listen to a discussion with Mr. Carmel on Midrats here- Episode 44.

Perhaps Mr. Carmel is right. The current level of "leakage" in the containment of Somali pirates may be low enough that is not worth expending more naval and other assets to tighten the noose, particularly in light of the conventional wisdom that the only real fix for Somali piracy is to fix the chaotic situation in Somalia.

On the other hand, just looking at the maps makes it clear that the current effort has not halted Somali piracy, just shifted to new, previously unguarded areas. Perhaps it is time for a new "business model" in the fight against Somali pirates. The old one seems to have reached its limits.

Not that there haven't been other efforts to contain the pirates - see Somali Pirates: The Netherlands Trying New Tactic Against Pirates, Somali Pirates: Hmmm . . . is a pirate port blockade coming?, Somali Pirates: The UN offers Seven Options, ;Somali Pirates: EU naval force blockades pirate group, Somali Pirates: EU Spanish LPD Takes Out Some Pirate Boats, Somali Pirates: Action by the Royal Navy and Marines