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
Africa Horn
Maersk hires war ship to protect tanker
2010-01-05
Danish shipper A.P. Moller Maersk has hired out soldiers and a warship from Tanzania to protect its fleet in pirate-ridden waters off the coast of Africa, and now other shippers are expected to follow suit.

Maersk hired the warship through former special forces soldiers working for firm Guardian GBS security in December 2008. The ship was charged with protecting the Brigit Maersk tanker from pirates. It is unknown how much the shipping company paid for the service.

'The waters east of Africa are a grey zone because developing countries don't have resources to fight pirates. It's a temporary solution that a shipper has hired a warship from another country, but there's no alternative,' said Jan Fritz Hansen, vice-president of the Danish Shipowners' Association.

Steffen Jacobsen, technical director at Maersk Tankers, said the company checked first to make sure the move was legal. 'That's why we chose it as an alternative solution to a very critical situation,' he said.

It is not the first time a Danish shipper has hired out military protection for traversing shipping routes off the coast of Africa. Norden previously hired out an armed security ship to accompany its vessels in the area, and the company's senior vice-president, Lars Lundegaard, said he wouldn't rule out hiring a war ship from the Tanzanian navy in the future.

However, military expert Lars Bangert Struwe from the Danish Institute for Military Studies fears it could be a dangerous development. 'In the short term it could be a good solution for Maersk. But long-term, it's a dangerous development because it will make poor African countries reliant on private companies' money to run their militaries.'
Or it could provide a boost for the Tanzanian Navy to develop its resources.

No doubt this is a troubling escalation for some. But piracy continues in the Gulf of Aden and around the Horn. It's moved ever-seaward to involve the waters around the Seychelles. The pirates are becoming better armed, have better information and better ships and boats.

Now the US, European and Chinese navies could put down the piracy, but they'd have to be ruthless about it, and that means taking measures that contravene modern naval law. For example, we all know that a Somali fishing dhow filled with hungry men wielding RPGs and machine guns aren't just out there a thousand miles from home hunting elk squid, but current naval law says that you can't detain them, let alone kill them, just for possessing RPGs. We could declare such law null and void, but that has dangerous consequences in the long run.

We could instead whack the shore-side towns that the pirates call home. That has the same naval law problems as dealing with pirates on the open seas.

We could instead triple the number of escort ships. The US Navy, however, has a need for its ships elsewhere, and the Euros and Chinese are limited in what they can do. It's a mighty big patch of ocean.

When piracy was less of a problem it was easier for the shipping companies to pay the insurance, pay the ransoms and just keep sailing. The number and location of attacks now make it a much more expensive proposition. So we're going to see some of the larger, richer shipping lines hire guards and sometimes hire escort ships. The rules of engagement for them will be the same as for the pirates -- naval law says we can't do anything about the escorts unless we see them use their guns.

NAVY: "Say, you guys know what happened to that burning, sinking pirate ship?"
[ ESCORT just finished tossing incriminating weapons overboard ]
ESCORT: "Maybe an electrical fire." "Maybe a barbecue." "Yeah, a barbecue."
NAVY: "Okay, thanks."

This is simply going to make the situation more unstable. The pirates will use violence early and more often, the thugs funding the pirates (including perhaps al-Qaeda and its various underlings) will encourage attacks on the escorts, and the escorts will undoubtedly one day make a mistake and shoot up a vacationing British yacht that had just come to take in the water.

At the same time, being a pirate is going to be more dangerous. The escorts will have fewer qualms about whacking any pirate who gets too close -- it is, after all, what they're paid to do.

Perhaps then the world will start to pay attention. Perhaps.
Posted by:Steve White

#14  I suspect the boilers on a Fletcher would not be operable at this point in time.

You'd be better off buying a late model austal ferry (of which there are many on the market, like the ones that were in Hawaii that the environmentalists drove out of business and then ranted about how uneconomical they were) and sticking a 3" gun on there.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2010-01-05 21:57  

#13  But long-term, it's a dangerous development because it will make poor African countries reliant on private companies' money to run their militaries.

As opposed to, say, being reliant upon UN peacekeeping missions.

Blackwater/Xe should negotiate a deal with the US Government for some of the excess "Fletcher" class destroyers in mothballs.

Maybe they can get a package deal for some B-17s or DC3s as well. I understand with a little bracing, they might be able to carry cruise missiles.
Posted by: Pappy   2010-01-05 21:22  

#12  OP, Been to Mare Island lately? The ghost fleet is a ghost. The only Fletchers left, if any, belong to foreign navies or museums. Heck, there's only one Spruance class DD left. The rest were used for target practice.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-01-05 18:00  

#11  Yes, you did.

"The purpose of the Navy,” Vice Admiral John Bird, commander of the Seventh Fleet, tells me, “is not to fight.” The mere presence of the Navy should suffice, he argues, to dissuade any attack or attempt to destabilize the region.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-01-05 17:57  

#10  Did I miss the part where the American taxpayers pay for a Navy to fight their wars successfully in time of war, and to protect Amercian flagged commerce in times of peace? If the Navy isn't doing those jobs, we need to get different leaders or different ships to do it. Sort of the same idea with the Army, fight our wars successfully and protect our nationjal soverign territory (borders) in peacetime. Gee what a concept.
Posted by: NoMoreBS   2010-01-05 17:29  

#9  The more Armed guards on the ship, the less likely teh pirates will try to capture it. Heck they only need adveritse that they are arming the crews.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge    2010-01-05 15:03  

#8  um, that should have read 'issued'. A way to authorize confiscation of pirate property without declaring official war.
Posted by: lotp   2010-01-05 14:28  

#7  The US Constitution allows Letters of Marque to be issues.
Posted by: lotp   2010-01-05 14:02  

#6  Blackwater/Xe should negotiate a deal with the US Government for some of the excess "Fletcher" class destroyers in mothballs. I'm sure they could do a fine job of putting 20-30 ships in tip-top condition, replace the hand-loaded dual 4.5"ers with auto-loaded 76mm single mounts, replace the second-generation shipborne radar with a top-of-the-line set, and run convoys from Egypt to Sri Lanka or South Africa.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2010-01-05 13:50  

#5  Large multi-national firms could arm up to the detriment of world order.

Not to the detriment since the developed world has already abandoned any semblance of protecting it's citizens and property. Beating down barbarians is an expense line and a corporation will abandon that the second the threat goes away, unlike a governmental bureaucracy. Thing is, one WW2 wooden PT boat could take all the Horn of Africa pirates yet navies with a trillion dollars worth of ships and manpower won't do squat.
Posted by: ed   2010-01-05 13:12  

#4  Q-ships. A big fat container ship comes loping along, the pirates come charging in, and all of a sudden the sides drop off a couple of 40-foot boxes to reveal a dual 40mm Bofors. Fifteen or twenty rounds later, game over.
Posted by: Mike   2010-01-05 11:28  

#3  Convoys.

Or the insurance companies decide to deal with the pirates once and for all by acquiring marine infantry (say from Xe) to supplement the corporate fleet by going ashore to clean out the pirates' lair.

The threat is that the nation states have abandoned the responsibility for protecting the lives and property of their citizens giving rise to international and unaccountable vigilantism. Whether they want to recognize it or not, this is the major step in the delegitimization of the nation states' sovereignty. Large multi-national firms could arm up to the detriment of world order.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2010-01-05 11:23  

#2  the pirates have an infrastructure in Europe and elsewhere that provides information, conducts ransom negotiations, and facilitates transfer of funds. Start with the information guys and work your way up and down the food chain with "accidents"
Posted by: Frank G   2010-01-05 07:47  

#1  The Indian Ocean is a big big place. Things could happen with no tales and pirates just never come home.....
That's the way to do it.
Posted by: 3dc   2010-01-05 02:56  

00:00