You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa Horn
Pirates fail to seize Japanese ship off Somalia- maritime watchdog
2008-08-31
(SomaliNet) An international maritime watchdog report said pirates failed to seize a Japanese ship off Somalia after four successful attempts. The attempted hijack comes just days after pirates seized four other vessels - Malaysian, Iranian, Japanese and German - in the Gulf of Aden off the Somali coast.

Noel Choong, head of the International Maritime Bureau's piracy reporting center in Kuala Lumpur said the Japanese-operated vessel with 20 crew started its journey from Singapore and was heading to the Middle East when the attack took place in the Gulf of Aden.

The Associated Press quoted Choong as saying two speed boats chased and opened fire on the Japanese-operated cargo ship on Saturday, attempted to board the vessel but failed to seize it. The reason the Japanese ship managed to escape was that the captain increased speed and took evasive maneuvers.

Choong also said that the ship's crew was safe and no one was injured in the hour-long chase. He added that a suspected mother ship was in the vicinity.

On Tuesday, pirates seized a Malaysian palm oil tanker with 39 crew. Two days later, they hijacked an Iranian bulk carrier with 29 crew, a Japanese-operated chemical tanker with 19 crew and a German-operated cargo ship with nine crew, all in the Gulf of Aden, a busy waterway connecting the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. "It appears pirates are still trying to hijack ships in the location," Choong said and added that it's high time the United Nations and the international community take action to secure the area.

Heavily-armed pirates from Somalia have hijacked at least 30 ships this year. Spreading lawlessness, a rampant insurgency and a worsening aid crisis onshore look set to drive that number higher.
Posted by:Fred

#9  or issue letters of mark to privateers from a sovereign country who'll be paid sponsored by a consortium of insurers and shippers.

Perhaps. However, the legal wrangling involved before letters of marque were issued would likely take long. Years, in my cynical experience.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-08-31 23:36  

#8  The options are:

or issue letters of mark to privateers from a sovereign country who'll be paid sponsored by a consortium of insurers and shippers. Hell, we could get the next Deadliest Catch deal going as well with video options. Sign up Mike Rowe to do the talk over.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-08-31 21:30  

#7  I like that last one best, Pappy.

Since Somalia actually is a non-nation....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-08-31 16:12  

#6  It is 99% maritime law. The rest is a combination of ship-owner concern about seizure of the vessel on legal grounds by a foreign authority upon entering port as an 'armed vessel', insurance liability, the costs involved as opposed to the risks, the weapons training requirements for the crew, or the hiring and maintenance of trained security personnel aboard the ship, or hiring of an escort vessel.

The options are: increase the international naval presence, greatly increase insurance rates for that area, place a total embargo on both Yemen and Somalia, or an international declaration that Somalia is a 'non-nation' and that its territorial waters fall under international purview.
Posted by: Pappy   2008-08-31 16:10  

#5  I really am at a loss for determining why the commercial vessels cannot arm themselves with at least small caliber automatic weapons and small arms. Can someone identify if there is a reason behind their defenseless posture? I can only imagine it is some form of international maritime law?
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2008-08-31 15:25  

#4  Of course, to REALLY stop the nonsense, the rest of the world would have to come together and assault the Somalis behind the hijacking where they live.

In the old days, I think this meant looting their ill-gotten gains, hanging the pirates* and burning down the village. These days, you might seize some weaponry, but have to accept surrenders. What do you do with the prisoners? If you imprison them at home, you incur the cost of their upkeep. If you set them free, you're setting yourself up for the next series of pirate attacks.

* This probably wasn't just deterrence - more like a simple question of economy.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2008-08-31 14:02  

#3  The hijackers are all in small boats - difficult to hit with any type of precision arms. What's needed is something like an AC-130, or arming the ships with 50-cal machine guns.

Of course, to REALLY stop the nonsense, the rest of the world would have to come together and assault the Somalis behind the hijacking where they live. I'm not sure you could bring together a group of military personnel from 50-60 countries, and have them operate effectively under a single commander, although that's exactly what it will take to put an end to this mess.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-08-31 13:54  

#2  I'm wondering why ships that sail in that area are NOT armed, a small deck gun would make a huge difference.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-08-31 13:20  

#1  . . . said pirates failed to seize a Japanese ship off Somalia after four successful attempts.

I'm not really up on my piracy but why would you need to seize a ship after you have already seized it (four times)? :)

Just a guess but I'll betcha that hanging a dead pirate from both the starboard and port bow anchor chains would cut down on unauth boarding attempts.
Posted by: GORT    2008-08-31 10:55  

00:00