Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The complex roots of the piracy epidemic
More piracy thoughts as the Somali piracy events continue to reverberate.
Piracy is not the only illegal activity rampant off the coast of Somalia according to the UN Special envoy on Somalia. Toxic waste dumping and illegal fishing in Somali waters is also happening. These are not matters covered for example in the BBC Q&A on Somali piracy.
This issue is discussed by Christopher Jasparro, an associate professor – lecturer in UK terms – at the US Naval War College in an online article “Somali’s piracy offers lessons in global governance”.
Weakly governed and failed states are themselves often exploited by foreigners, and a resolution of this situation has to go far beyond armed responses and convoys for shipping.
Authorised extracts from another lengthy book dealing with piracy off Somalia and elsewhere are at this point available online on Google Books. Violence at Sea; Piracy in the Age of Global Terrorism edited by Peter Lehr is published by Lloyds Maritime Intelligence Unit.
While discussing the toxic dumping and illegal fishing aspects, the Lehr book also suggests why Somali piracy escalated so hugely in 2005 and after. The Somali coast was devastated by the ‘Boxing Day 2004’ Tsunami. Fifty thousand Somalis are believed to have died and no Somali government our outside aid was available. Poverty stricken fishermen resorted to whatever they could do to snatch at a livelihood. At the same time the unstable clan politics in Mogadishu led to huge increase in the costs of arms needed for the internal wars and the coastal peoples are part of one of those clans and so need to generate income for the clan.
The Lehr book suggest that attention to piracy will increase if it can be presented as a kind of training ground for maritime terrorism within the ‘conceptual framework’ of a global terrorist epidemic rather than as a problem in its own right.
And it is not just off Somalia that problems persist.
There is a problem zone running from the coast of China, past Vietnam and the Philippines, through Malaysian and Indonesian waters, across the Indian Ocean and so to the current news bulletin hotspot off Arabia and east Africa. The complexities include the need for the Indian and Pakistani navies to co-operate if civil maritime security is to be maintained in both their waters, while at the same time both states are in a semi-standoff militarily.
Shooting three pirates is not going to end all this.
Piracy is not the only illegal activity rampant off the coast of Somalia according to the UN Special envoy on Somalia. Toxic waste dumping and illegal fishing in Somali waters is also happening. These are not matters covered for example in the BBC Q&A on Somali piracy.
This issue is discussed by Christopher Jasparro, an associate professor – lecturer in UK terms – at the US Naval War College in an online article “Somali’s piracy offers lessons in global governance”.
The wave of piracy off Somalia began in 1991 following the collapse of the Barre regime. Dumping of toxic and hazardous wastes by international companies (possibly with organized crime involvement) increased. Unlicensed foreign fishing vessels eagerly targeted Somalia’s fish-rich waters. Local fishermen claimed that foreign boats use intimidation tactics such as ramming and hiring local militants to harass them.
In response disaffected fishermen then began attacking foreign vessels in the early 1990s, ultimately leading to full-scale piracy and hostage-taking. In 2005 a UN agency estimated that 700 foreign fishing vessels were operating in Somali waters, many employing illegal and destructive fishing methods.
Weakly governed and failed states are themselves often exploited by foreigners, and a resolution of this situation has to go far beyond armed responses and convoys for shipping.
Authorised extracts from another lengthy book dealing with piracy off Somalia and elsewhere are at this point available online on Google Books. Violence at Sea; Piracy in the Age of Global Terrorism edited by Peter Lehr is published by Lloyds Maritime Intelligence Unit.
While discussing the toxic dumping and illegal fishing aspects, the Lehr book also suggests why Somali piracy escalated so hugely in 2005 and after. The Somali coast was devastated by the ‘Boxing Day 2004’ Tsunami. Fifty thousand Somalis are believed to have died and no Somali government our outside aid was available. Poverty stricken fishermen resorted to whatever they could do to snatch at a livelihood. At the same time the unstable clan politics in Mogadishu led to huge increase in the costs of arms needed for the internal wars and the coastal peoples are part of one of those clans and so need to generate income for the clan.
The Lehr book suggest that attention to piracy will increase if it can be presented as a kind of training ground for maritime terrorism within the ‘conceptual framework’ of a global terrorist epidemic rather than as a problem in its own right.
And it is not just off Somalia that problems persist.
There is a problem zone running from the coast of China, past Vietnam and the Philippines, through Malaysian and Indonesian waters, across the Indian Ocean and so to the current news bulletin hotspot off Arabia and east Africa. The complexities include the need for the Indian and Pakistani navies to co-operate if civil maritime security is to be maintained in both their waters, while at the same time both states are in a semi-standoff militarily.
Shooting three pirates is not going to end all this.
Labels: piracy, Somalia, terrorism
Comments:
To, add to this a posting on the Huffington Post expands on teh toxic waste and tsunami connection:
" In 2004, after a tsunami washed ashore several leaking containers, thousand of locals in the Puntland region of Somalia started to complain of severe and previously unreported ailments, such as abdominal bleeding, skin melting off and a lot of immediate cancer-like symptoms. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environmental Program, says that the containers had many different kinds of waste,including "Uranium, radioactive waste, lead, Cadmium, Mercury and chemical waste." But this wasn't just a passing evil from one or two groups taking advantage of our unprotected waters. The UN envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, says that the practice still continues to this day.
It was months after those initial reports that local fishermen mobilized themselves, along with street militias, to go into the waters and deter the Westerners from having a free pass at completely destroying Somalia's aquatic life. Now years later, the deterring has become less noble, and the ex-fishermen with their militias have begun to develop a taste for ransom at sea. This form of piracy is now a major contributor to the Somali economy, especially in the very region that private toxic waste companies first began to burry our nation's death trap. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-vazquez/on-pirates_b_186015.html
Post a Comment
" In 2004, after a tsunami washed ashore several leaking containers, thousand of locals in the Puntland region of Somalia started to complain of severe and previously unreported ailments, such as abdominal bleeding, skin melting off and a lot of immediate cancer-like symptoms. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environmental Program, says that the containers had many different kinds of waste,including "Uranium, radioactive waste, lead, Cadmium, Mercury and chemical waste." But this wasn't just a passing evil from one or two groups taking advantage of our unprotected waters. The UN envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, says that the practice still continues to this day.
It was months after those initial reports that local fishermen mobilized themselves, along with street militias, to go into the waters and deter the Westerners from having a free pass at completely destroying Somalia's aquatic life. Now years later, the deterring has become less noble, and the ex-fishermen with their militias have begun to develop a taste for ransom at sea. This form of piracy is now a major contributor to the Somali economy, especially in the very region that private toxic waste companies first began to burry our nation's death trap. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-vazquez/on-pirates_b_186015.html
Thursday, June 12, 2008
42 days Pig Hoooo-eeey!
Its Pork time on the banks of the Thames!
Over in the USA getting ‘pork’ (spending of taxpayers funds on local projects) for your district is an essential, even respectable, part of a Congresscritters job. They boast about how many millions they claw back in their re-election literature and if they didn’t bring in the money they would be out.
Members of our blessed Parliament don’t have the same tools as their US counterparts. Here, only a minister of the Crown can introduce a motion instructing how to allocate public funds. And in any case amendments to Westminster legislation have to fall within the scope of the broad purposes of the bill being considered as set out in the preamble. So MPs cannot add ‘riders’ to bills totally irrelevant to the main legislation but bringing localised benefits. In the USA Congersspeople do backstage deals with each other supporting someone else’s pet bit of local influence buying in exchange for support for their own. A million or so in support of a local roads programme inserted into a bill dealing with (say) the teaching or foreign languages to army personnel in exchange for support for the building of a technical school elsewhere would be the sort of thing routinely done in the USA.
But when a Westminster Parliamentary vote is close MPs have an opportunity to get a bit of backroom earmarking. And so it seems to have been with the 42-day detention vote.
P.G.Wodehouse lovers will recall the short story about Lord Emsworth’s pig the Empress of Blandings going off her feed just before the Shropshire Agricultural show. She is induced to eat when a young man with experience raising hogs out in the USA introduces his Lordship to the universal hog-callers cry to bring pigs to the trough.
Pig Hoooo-eeey!
His Lordship is appropriately grateful and backs the romantic liaison between the youth in question and one of his nieces (as I recall…) to the great consternation of the starchy aunts back in the castle.
So for a number of Labour MPs (and the DUP) the appropriate greetings as they wander through Westminster today might be a concerted cry of
Pig Hoooo-eeey!!!!!
Over in the USA getting ‘pork’ (spending of taxpayers funds on local projects) for your district is an essential, even respectable, part of a Congresscritters job. They boast about how many millions they claw back in their re-election literature and if they didn’t bring in the money they would be out.
Members of our blessed Parliament don’t have the same tools as their US counterparts. Here, only a minister of the Crown can introduce a motion instructing how to allocate public funds. And in any case amendments to Westminster legislation have to fall within the scope of the broad purposes of the bill being considered as set out in the preamble. So MPs cannot add ‘riders’ to bills totally irrelevant to the main legislation but bringing localised benefits. In the USA Congersspeople do backstage deals with each other supporting someone else’s pet bit of local influence buying in exchange for support for their own. A million or so in support of a local roads programme inserted into a bill dealing with (say) the teaching or foreign languages to army personnel in exchange for support for the building of a technical school elsewhere would be the sort of thing routinely done in the USA.
But when a Westminster Parliamentary vote is close MPs have an opportunity to get a bit of backroom earmarking. And so it seems to have been with the 42-day detention vote.
P.G.Wodehouse lovers will recall the short story about Lord Emsworth’s pig the Empress of Blandings going off her feed just before the Shropshire Agricultural show. She is induced to eat when a young man with experience raising hogs out in the USA introduces his Lordship to the universal hog-callers cry to bring pigs to the trough.
Pig Hoooo-eeey!
His Lordship is appropriately grateful and backs the romantic liaison between the youth in question and one of his nieces (as I recall…) to the great consternation of the starchy aunts back in the castle.
So for a number of Labour MPs (and the DUP) the appropriate greetings as they wander through Westminster today might be a concerted cry of
Pig Hoooo-eeey!!!!!
Labels: Labour, pork, terrorism
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, February 29, 2008
Shining a light on the secret armies?
Hugely welcome news (gleaned from the recent blogger-chat with Ed Davey) that the party is looking at the problem of the private security companies – the proliferation of private armed forces which are almost entirely outside anyone’s control. I have been muttering about this for some time so look forwards to the debates and campaigns…
It is not only what these unregulated armed forces get up to in other parts of the world – what happens when some of the the ‘veterans’ of these operations come back to the UK and live with their experiences in our political and social life? Some will have combat stresses, for example, and wont be covered even by the skimpy 'military covenant' support we give to our official soldiery. And some may have a taste for unorthodox political activities.
Definitely some thinking to do.
It is not only what these unregulated armed forces get up to in other parts of the world – what happens when some of the the ‘veterans’ of these operations come back to the UK and live with their experiences in our political and social life? Some will have combat stresses, for example, and wont be covered even by the skimpy 'military covenant' support we give to our official soldiery. And some may have a taste for unorthodox political activities.
Definitely some thinking to do.
Labels: armed forces, Covenant, defence policy, terrorism, war
Comments:
All true, but with governments reluctant to put troops in harms way, the public showing little tolerance for even limited casualties, and the costs of really first-rate troops escalating, it is likely that the future will see a greater use of private military companies.
I think the solution is regulation rather than elimination.
Post a Comment
I think the solution is regulation rather than elimination.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Controlled explosions
For those of us wondering what a 'controlled explosion' could possibly be (in bomb disposal terms) this article from a few years ago gives an outline of procedures without giving away any current secrets. (Discussed in terms of the IRA as a threat - amazing how long ago that seems...)
I suspect though that the Haymarket attempted Bomb mechanism will have been dealt with by something like the 'candle' technique using a remote insert. This would have flashed burning aluminium powder through the device, and burnt out the firing mechanism without triggering the main payload. Alternatively the method could be to fire a slug of water very fast into the bomb firing mechanism - the mechanism disintegrates before it can engage and fire. In either case the car (and the forensic evidence) stays largely intact.
Hats off to FELIX - the code word for 321 Explosives Ordnace Disposal!
Incidentally all this anti IED expertise is eagerly sought by the United States for obvious Iraq-related reasons, and at least one commentator suggests that the supply of this expertise to the US forces is a quid pro quo for the US exempting the UK from controlls under the International Trade in Arms Regulations (as agreed in an as yet unratified UK-US treaty).
I suspect though that the Haymarket attempted Bomb mechanism will have been dealt with by something like the 'candle' technique using a remote insert. This would have flashed burning aluminium powder through the device, and burnt out the firing mechanism without triggering the main payload. Alternatively the method could be to fire a slug of water very fast into the bomb firing mechanism - the mechanism disintegrates before it can engage and fire. In either case the car (and the forensic evidence) stays largely intact.
Hats off to FELIX - the code word for 321 Explosives Ordnace Disposal!
Incidentally all this anti IED expertise is eagerly sought by the United States for obvious Iraq-related reasons, and at least one commentator suggests that the supply of this expertise to the US forces is a quid pro quo for the US exempting the UK from controlls under the International Trade in Arms Regulations (as agreed in an as yet unratified UK-US treaty).
Labels: bomb disposal, terrorism
Comments:
Post a Comment
Sunday, February 26, 2006
The Ports are wide open actually...
The immense row in the USA over the sale of several major ports to a Dubai management company raises several issues. Opponents of the President see it as a free gift in a continuing political fight. In Libdem Blogger links Colin Ross see it as a somewhat racist reaction as this report (subscription required for full text) from Rupert Cornwell in the Independent on Sunday also suggests.
Actually Ports Ownership is the least of the security worries. And it extends to European ports as well. Cornwell’s re-assuring note says that (for example) the US Coastguards have the right to intercept ships way out at sea to check them over. But this is a real needle in a haystack facility.
This was one of the themes discussed in the book on marine piracy I mentioned in an earlier post. By William Langewiesche "The Outlaw Sea: Chaos and Crime on the World's Oceans”.
The actual practice of the law of the sea means that ships get renamed, change identity, get new crews, turn up unexpectedly in port with unknown cargos. Literally ships pop up over the horizon many times a day making for major ports and nobody can be quite sure they are who they say they are. It is impossible to screen them all out at sea. If a terrorist group wanted to set of a ship-borne bomb it could very easily deliver this virtually anywhere, the ports ownership being what it may. London, Liverpool, Rotterdam… all vulnerable at this minute. Maybe we in Europe should look at this US uproar and make some better decisions on our own security…
Actually Ports Ownership is the least of the security worries. And it extends to European ports as well. Cornwell’s re-assuring note says that (for example) the US Coastguards have the right to intercept ships way out at sea to check them over. But this is a real needle in a haystack facility.
This was one of the themes discussed in the book on marine piracy I mentioned in an earlier post. By William Langewiesche "The Outlaw Sea: Chaos and Crime on the World's Oceans”.
The actual practice of the law of the sea means that ships get renamed, change identity, get new crews, turn up unexpectedly in port with unknown cargos. Literally ships pop up over the horizon many times a day making for major ports and nobody can be quite sure they are who they say they are. It is impossible to screen them all out at sea. If a terrorist group wanted to set of a ship-borne bomb it could very easily deliver this virtually anywhere, the ports ownership being what it may. London, Liverpool, Rotterdam… all vulnerable at this minute. Maybe we in Europe should look at this US uproar and make some better decisions on our own security…
Comments:
Post a Comment
