It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pirates hijack British-owned cargo ship in Gulf of Aden

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Pirates hijack British-owned cargo ship in Gulf of Aden


www.timesonline.co.uk

Somali pirates have hijacked a British-owned cargo ship, after 48 hours of plunder at sea.

The 32,000-tonne Malaspina Castle, which flies a Panamanian flag, was taken on Monday morning in the Gulf of Aden. She was the fifth ship snatched in two days off the Somali coast despite naval patrols along main shipping lanes.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Somali pirates managed to take a staggering 50 boats last year and took around £30,000,000 in ransom money. Whilst that kind of money may have been relatively small fry in previous years, I'm wondering whether the state of the economy in the Western world will mean that governments are going to be more 'forceful' with dealing with not only pirates but perhaps Somali itself. Or perhaps the Western world can no longer afford to deal with this by sending a fleet out there to fight either Somalia or its pirates?

Will it be a case of better arming or escorting cargo vessels in the future?

On the other hand though, part of the problem is that one of Somalia's previous big industries, fishing, has been practically ruined by foreign fishermen depleting the fish stock along the coast. People will assuredly steal before they starve.

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Will it be a case of better arming or escorting cargo vessels in the future?


There is the problem, I think it's international law... or maritime law or something but they are limited in the ways they can arm them selves. One of the ships that was able to fight off the pirates relied on some good manuvering, water cannons and molotov cocktails.... They couldn't drink the beer fast enough for the amount of glass bottles they required so they had to empty them out on the deck!!


They can use those sound guns, water cannons, I think they can have a very small number of small arms like a hand guns... otherwise they get classed as a war ship or something - basically if the pirates rock up with 5 AK's they have already out guned the crew.

And having navel escourt is not a real option either, simple logistics, too many cargo ships going too many places, which country would take the responsibility (and cost) this report for example, British ship flying Panamaian flags. Also the pirates will simple adjust their attacks to less well defended ships.

Really is a catch 22 situation... Best thing to do IMO would be to change the laws regarding the amount of firepower the cargo ships can weild, the big stick keeps the dogs away.



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then

There is the problem, I think it's international law... or maritime law or something but they are limited in the ways they can arm them selves.


Well, when it came to the 'war on terror', there wasn't much problem changing laws and agreements as and when.


Really is a catch 22 situation... Best thing to do IMO would be to change the laws regarding the amount of firepower the cargo ships can weild, the big stick keeps the dogs away.


I agree. I don't know what the state of play is regarding fishing rights in that area, but perhaps if foreign fishing was cut back or even stopped, there'd be less inclination to carry on pirating. Maybe it's too late for that though. Some of those pirates are now seriously wealthy in a relatively piss-poor country, it's unlikely all of them will want to go back to fishing &c.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I have a somali friend who has told me the pirates continue being a pirate for the following reasons:

1) Anti-West attitudes
2) Western ships dumping their waste into somali waters
3) Money



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I did an academic graduate conference paper on this (shame I can not upload it) and to be short and frank: the problem of piracy in the Gulf of Aden will continue for quite some time into the future. Additonally, elements within some of those operating pirate gangs in the Gulf of Aden are sponsored, and at times done by, known militant/insurgent/terrorist groups. What this suggests it that there is a growing nexus (i.e.: a connection) between piracy and terrorism. Therefore, despite claims of foreign over-fishing and waste dumping, etc., the variables that create or breed regional piracy and acts thereof are numerous, as well as dubious. Most acts of pircay are simply organized criminalistic enterprises/business. As indicated, the growing concern and problem is that piracy and terrorism are interacting.

At any rate, solving the problem of piracy in the region is a 'must' but in as such, the issue of Somalia must be taken into consideration. Somalia has become a breeding ground and haven for extremist militant and terrorist groups, to include al-qaeda. This is most definately not a good thing, especially when one considers that the Gulf of Aden is connected by and close to 2 maritime transit chokepoints (i.e.: the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb).



[edit on 6-4-2009 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 6 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by influx.destruction
I have a somali friend who has told me the pirates continue being a pirate for the following reasons:

1) Anti-West attitudes
2) Western ships dumping their waste into somali waters
3) Money


I'd probably reverse those, if you want them in order of importance!



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join