Article

2008-11-19 Africa Horn

Hong Kong grain ship hijacked by Somali pirates

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-11-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Someone on the internet suggested that Obama taking out the pirates might be a nice, easy, low entanglement way for him to show he's a tough guy. Whatever it takes, these piss-ants piss me off.

PErsonally I think it would be nice if one of our allies (perhaps two) stepped up. Say the Japanese and the Germans who both have navy's more than adequate and could use a little experience and the target has so few political liabilities it seems a great place to start.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-11-19 00:16|| 2008-11-19 00:16|| Front Page Top

#2 Japanese can go after Somali pirates and Germans after Indonesian pirates to avoid any WW2 traumatic issues.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-11-19 00:17|| 2008-11-19 00:17|| Front Page Top

#3 Obama won't tackle this problem head on by targetting the pirate mother ships, bases, etc, because that would require throwing pretty much all 'international law' out the window.

In part, this is a failure of the transnational order. Specifically, its inability to deal with parties outside nation states or within non-functioning states.

On the plus side this may be the death of flags of convenience. Liberian registered ships are going to wait an awfullly long time for the Liberia Navy to come to the rescue.

Posted by phil_b 2008-11-19 00:31|| 2008-11-19 00:31|| Front Page Top

#4 Screw any country that's not supplying combat troops for Afganistan or Iraq.

They're on their own.

Posted by DoDo 2008-11-19 00:35|| 2008-11-19 00:35|| Front Page Top

#5 I would say, let these countries with their merchant fleets deal with these pirates. It would not take very long for the US to stop this stuff in its tracks. Give the pirates at Eyl 24 hours to let the hostages go or the town and everything is leveled. Then we will start on the next pirate haven town. I think that one town should be enough.

What is going to happen is that everyone will be playing footsie with the pirates and making continuous calls to Brussels for nuanced instructions. Arrrrr, my a$$.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2008-11-19 00:48|| 2008-11-19 00:48|| Front Page Top

#6 DODO, the above article has claimed that another navy has stepped up to the challenge with the Im=nfian ship destoying a pirate mothership. Not France England or germany,and you would think the big badass Iranians after all their shit talking would do something about it since theirs seem too get hijacked a good bitif they are up too the job then let them do it

Posted by chris 2008-11-19 07:55|| 2008-11-19 07:55|| Front Page Top

#7 I have no probelms with the Indian navy or any other navy attacking pirates.

I feel strongly that countries that criticize the United States and refuse to provide support to the United States not derive any benefits from the American military.

Period.

Posted by DoDo 2008-11-19 10:49|| 2008-11-19 10:49|| Front Page Top

#8 DoDo,

Which nations are you referring to?

In terms of India (whose merchant ships are getting attacked as well), I believe they were ready to send combat troops to Afghanistan, but we did not want them to, because that would not go down well with the Pakis. (John Frum would know more)

Posted by sludge 2008-11-19 11:32|| 2008-11-19 11:32|| Front Page Top

#9 "A Hong Kong ship loaded with wheat bound for Iran was hijacked by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden " so the Iran wheat crop wasn't so good this year. Importing both gasoline and wheat with oil at $60 is not good for the Iranian economy.

Posted by bman 2008-11-19 12:01|| 2008-11-19 12:01|| Front Page Top

#10 Sludge: Honestly couldn't tell you if India was prepared to send troops, although given their history, and muslim population, I'm skeptical.

A somewhat dated list of countries contributing in Iraq follows. I would specifically oppose using U.S. forces to rescue any ships from any Arab or other European country. I support all of their rights to pick and choose where they send forces, but I don't think they should be allowed to count on U.S. if they choose not to support us.

ALBANIA: 120 non-combat troops, mainly patrolling airport in Mosul; no plans to withdraw.
ARMENIA: 46 soldiers serving under Polish command through end of 2006; no plans to withdraw.
AUSTRALIA: Roughly 470 troops and support personnel in Iraq, plus several hundred in the Persian Gulf region; no dates set for any pullout.
AZERBAIJAN: 150 troops, mostly serving as sentries, on patrols and protecting a dam near the city of Hadid Ha; no plans to withdraw.
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: 36 experts identifying and destroying unexploded ordnance; experts being rotated every six months; no plans to withdraw.
BRITAIN: About 8,000 troops in southern Iraq, roughly 2,000 others in the Persian Gulf region.
BULGARIA: Deployed 120 non-combat troops to guard refugee camp north of Baghdad after pulling out 380 infantry troops in December.
CZECH REPUBLIC: 100 military police training Iraqi officers; mission extended to end of 2006.
DENMARK: 530 troops patrolling southern city of Basra; parliament on Tuesday cut force by 80 and extended mission to June 30, 2007.
EL SALVADOR: 380 soldiers doing peacekeeping and humanitarian work in Hillah; no immediate plans to withdraw.
ESTONIA: 40 troops, mostly infantry, serving under U.S. command in Baghdad, manning checkpoints, patrolling neighborhoods, searching houses for weapons, escorting convoys; extension beyond end of 2006 expected.
GEORGIA: About 900 combat forces, medics and support personnel serving under U.S. command in Baqouba; no plans to withdraw or reduce contingent.
ITALY: About 2,600 troops, most in southern city of Nasiriyah, involved in training, security and reconstruction; force to be reduced to 1,600 by mid-June and remaining troops expected to be withdrawn by year's end.
KAZAKHSTAN: 27 military engineers; defense minister has suggested a pullout by July.
LATVIA: 135 soldiers, mostly infantry, manning checkpoints, patrolling and escorting materials; mission expires at end of 2006.
LITHUANIA: 60 soldiers, mostly infantry, serving with Danish contingent near Basra in southern Iraq; mission to last at least through end of 2006.
MACEDONIA: 32 troops providing security in Taji, north of Baghdad; no plans to withdraw.
MOLDOVA: 11 bomb defusal experts; mission expires in July; extension expected.
MONGOLIA: 160 troops; no plans to withdraw.
NETHERLANDS: 15 soldiers as part of NATO mission training police, army officers; mandate expires in August.
POLAND: 900 non-combat troops; commands multinational force south of Baghdad; mission expires at end of year; government weighing whether to extend.
ROMANIA: 860 troops, including 400 infantry, 150 mine experts, 100 military police, 50 military intelligence plus medics and U.N. guards; no plans to withdraw.
SLOVAKIA: 104 troops stationed in Hillah in Polish sector, mostly engaged in de-mining; no plans to withdraw.
SOUTH KOREA: In process of reducing its 3,200-member contingent in northern Iraq by 1,000 troops by end of year.

ALBANIA: 120 non-combat troops, mainly patrolling airport in Mosul; no plans to withdraw.
ARMENIA: 46 soldiers serving under Polish command through end of 2006; no plans to withdraw.
AUSTRALIA: Roughly 470 troops and support personnel in Iraq, plus several hundred in the Persian Gulf region; no dates set for any pullout.
AZERBAIJAN: 150 troops, mostly serving as sentries, on patrols and protecting a dam near the city of Hadid Ha; no plans to withdraw.
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA: 36 experts identifying and destroying unexploded ordnance; experts being rotated every six months; no plans to withdraw.
BRITAIN: About 8,000 troops in southern Iraq, roughly 2,000 others in the Persian Gulf region.
BULGARIA: Deployed 120 non-combat troops to guard refugee camp north of Baghdad after pulling out 380 infantry troops in December.
CZECH REPUBLIC: 100 military police training Iraqi officers; mission extended to end of 2006.
DENMARK: 530 troops patrolling southern city of Basra; parliament on Tuesday cut force by 80 and extended mission to June 30, 2007.
EL SALVADOR: 380 soldiers doing peacekeeping and humanitarian work in Hillah; no immediate plans to withdraw.
ESTONIA: 40 troops, mostly infantry, serving under U.S. command in Baghdad, manning checkpoints, patrolling neighborhoods, searching houses for weapons, escorting convoys; extension beyond end of 2006 expected.
GEORGIA: About 900 combat forces, medics and support personnel serving under U.S. command in Baqouba; no plans to withdraw or reduce contingent.
ITALY: About 2,600 troops, most in southern city of Nasiriyah, involved in training, security and reconstruction; force to be reduced to 1,600 by mid-June and remaining troops expected to be withdrawn by year's end.
KAZAKHSTAN: 27 military engineers; defense minister has suggested a pullout by July.
LATVIA: 135 soldiers, mostly infantry, manning checkpoints, patrolling and escorting materials; mission expires at end of 2006.
LITHUANIA: 60 soldiers, mostly infantry, serving with Danish contingent near Basra in southern Iraq; mission to last at least through end of 2006.
MACEDONIA: 32 troops providing security in Taji, north of Baghdad; no plans to withdraw.
MOLDOVA: 11 bomb defusal experts; mission expires in July; extension expected.
MONGOLIA: 160 troops; no plans to withdraw.
NETHERLANDS: 15 soldiers as part of NATO mission training police, army officers; mandate expires in August.
POLAND: 900 non-combat troops; commands multinational force south of Baghdad; mission expires at end of year; government weighing whether to extend.
ROMANIA: 860 troops, including 400 infantry, 150 mine experts, 100 military police, 50 military intelligence plus medics and U.N. guards; no plans to withdraw.
SLOVAKIA: 104 troops stationed in Hillah in Polish sector, mostly engaged in de-mining; no plans to withdraw.
SOUTH KOREA: In process of reducing its 3,200-member contingent in northern Iraq by 1,000 troops by end of year.

Posted by DoDo 2008-11-19 13:42|| 2008-11-19 13:42|| Front Page Top

#11 DoDo,

In the specific case of Afghanistan, the Indians were interested because they have a long history with Afghanistan. In fact, I believe after the US, India has provided the most aid to Afghanistan post-Taleban (mostly in the form of infrastructure, schools, etc). The Afghan Parliament even has has the phrase "A gift from the Indian people" written on it. The Taleban were historically aligned with the Pakis, so the Indians have definite strategic interests in Afghanistan. To this end, they have even created a huge Embassy in Afghanistan on the border with Pakistan-nothing's as effective as squeezing them from both sides!

I do belive the Indians were against the Iraq war though, which brings up a point: Do we base our relationships with other countries, including emerging global powers like India, on one single issue (Iraq) or do we use a broader perspective in creating alliances for the next few decades (at the very least). Should we be only allies with nations that agree with us on EVERY issue--no room for disagreements? If that's the case, we'll continue to have less powerful "allies" that agree with us all the time solely because they need our protection (like most countries on your list).

Side point... India does have a muslim population but it is only 13% of the population. That's still a sizeable number, but it is still a minority. Their international policies aren't generally similar to that of your average muslim nation. take their close defense partnership with israel, for instance.

Posted by sludge 2008-11-19 14:08|| 2008-11-19 14:08|| Front Page Top

#12 I would find it interesting if the US responded to the pirates depending upon the ships taken. If a Panamanian flagged ship, or Liberian for that matter is grabbed, than so be it. Let Liberia and Panama secure the release.

If a US flagged ship is grabbed hell and all the fury of the US Marines and Navy fall up on Somalia leaving dust and rubble. Let that be known and you might see the rolls of Panamanian and Liberian flagged ships drop and the number flagged by the US rise.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-11-19 14:21|| 2008-11-19 14:21|| Front Page Top

#13 It has been mentioned before, but what if the pirates are targeting specific ships as a means of smuggling without raising undue attention? They are Islamists, affiliated with AQ. Mo bin Laden was a dockworker in Yemen before building his construction empire in Saudi. Osama hung around the port of Latakia in his youth.Weapons smuggling into Afghanistan and other areas is done via containers. The chemical tankers, crude, Russian weapons, fertilizer, cement, and even radioactive scrap metal have been intercepted; they could be stockpiling components for a huge event. Iranian ships have been captured twice, once with mysterious but deadly cargo. Hong Kong and the Philippines could be carriers of weapons or missiles from China or North Korea. The foreign crews could be complicit, giving forewarning of cargo contents. There have even been quite a few Russian and Bosnian hostages, well-treated and released without incident. And piracy is not limited to the Gulf of Aden, as there are other African incidents,such as off Nigeria, plus Indonesia and South America all have reported attacks. Wired.com has reported Hezbollah subs in South America. Israel has intercepted barges of cement, concealing missiles and other weapons. I think this is way more than an insurance scam and needs to be shut down as of yesteryear.

Posted by Thealing Borgia 122 2008-11-19 14:36|| 2008-11-19 14:36|| Front Page Top

#14 Do we base our relationships with other countries, including emerging global powers like India, on one single issue (Iraq) or do we use a broader perspective in creating alliances for the next few decades (at the very least).

There are issues and there are issues. For example, I have never raised the issue of Iraq in the context of our nuclear cooperation with India. Separate issues.

Also, I specifically said that I supported their right to pick and choose where they send forces. Refusal to support the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't require retaliation or need to spill into other areas.

However, I feel strongly that the use of the U.S. military should be limited to those who are prepared to use their military in support of the U.S. The "broader alliances" you refer to tend to be one way; we provide the muscle and get little in return, e.g. NATO.

And, no, schools and bridges don't count.

Posted by DoDo 2008-11-19 16:17|| 2008-11-19 16:17|| Front Page Top

23:36 SteveS
23:15 Hammerhead
23:14 Alaska Paul
23:11 Verlaine
23:08 JosephMendiola
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:52 Zhang Fei
22:49 Zhang Fei
22:26 Frank G
22:25 Ready Kilowatt
22:21 trailing wife
21:58 tipper
21:53 3dc
21:51 SteveS
21:44 Old Patriot
21:28 3dc
21:22 3dc
21:10 Rex Mundi
21:05 3dc
20:38 Zenobia Ebbomose aka Broadhead6
20:31 3dc
20:30 Besoeker
20:30 3dc
20:24 3dc