IAMSP-ASIS-ICOC

As Reported HERE , The IAMSP has significantly assisted in the standards with the lead voice from the Maritime Security sector.

"IAMSP congratulates ASIS International on the acceptance of the PSC.1 Standard for the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers into the ANSI system of standards. This achievement was a truly remarkable effort under the coordination of Dr Marc Siegel of ASIS International's standards development body that brought together representatives of foreign governments, the private sector, and non-government organizations. IAMSP, through the efforts of Allan McDougall, participated as the clearest voice representing issues and challenges within the maritime security domain, the largest group of signatories to the ICoC. This participation is representative of IAMSP's concrete efforts and volunteerism on behalf of the maritime security industry, something that continues to be vital as these efforts (and others) move forward.

IAMSP recently put forward comments regarding the ICoC Charter, expressing significant concerns over its structure and a number of specific measures. As an Association, we continue to be committed to the intent of the ICoC and will continue to support the ASIS International efforts in the development of those standards supporting the Code. Our primary focus will continue to be ensuring that the intent of the ICoC to weave respect for human rights and similar considerations into the business practices within the private security domain remains in the forefront of the Code and its integration into the maritime security domain.

We will continue our efforts in representing the industry through all phases of these efforts, working collaboratively with the various groups and interests involved to ensure that our members, and the maritime security industry in general, is given appropriate voice in these important efforts. While we continue to represent various trades and crafts within the maritime security domain, this effort, and others like it, demonstrate our commitment to operate in a leadership role with other credible associations to the betterment of the industry as a whole.

Again, our congratulations to all the representatives that participated in the development of this standard and who have been active in subsequent efforts and particularly ASIS International for providing the leadership and technical means of moving this important effort forward."

Congratulations and a job well done.

Piracy-MSB Group Ltd issues career openings

As we have been watching closely and promised to provide an update, the MSB Group Ltd seems to be moving along pretty quickly. Again, this is explained as a multi-state effort of logistical support and standardization of the movement of arms. Obviously this is a state controlled program and would be fantastic in the maritime security industry.

In having a look at their web site this morning, we now find a Careers page looking for some pretty interesting experience as below:

Logistical Support Staff:

"MSB Group is calling for curriculum vitae (cv) for the position of Logistical Support Staff. At this time, this is a general call for expressions of interest. Those with a background in the Navy or Coast Guard as small boat coxswain, armourer or in logistics / supply are welcome to submit their cv.
In addition to the experience listed above (minimum 2 years experience), individuals should be able to work to tight deadlines in reasonably austere conditions and interact tactfully and respectfully with other cultures and nationalities.
In addition to having a general understanding of the maritime environment and international arms regulations, the submitter must be fluent in both written and spoken English and have a strong (advanced) knowledge of Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, Outlook and PowerPoint.
If submitting your cv, please be clear with respect to the level skills associated with basic radio communications (maritime), small boat operations, the ability to operate computers, your knowledge of inventory control, weapon safety and handling, and basic inspection and audit techniques.
During the call for applications, those selected to submit applications are advised that there is a requirement for a state-coordinated background screening and reference checks. These will also include (but are not necessarily limited to) international background checks. Particular attention will be paid to the following attributes: reliability, trustworthiness, discretion, tact, and judgment.
We thank all those that will submit cv’s but wish to advise people that MSB Group is a logistical support group operating in a non-hostile environment. While we respectfully appreciate your former service, we are not seeking personnel who are looking to apply for on-board or on-shore security positions."

This seems to open up some land based opportunities for people with particular skills. Again, we will be keeping an eye on this for further developments.

Piracy - Somalia - Movement of Arms

We have been keeping an eye on a new group: MSB Group Ltd., and have found a bit of new interesting information. Should this come to fruition, this could really take off and solve a lot of the issues in the maritime security industry.
http://msbgroupltd.com/

We are pleased to announce that the MSB Group Ltd project has completed its pilot project and passed its oversight markers. The MSB Group is a coalition of like-minded states and private entities who have come together to offer a clearly legal and supported logistical structure.

Under the third-party oversight of IAMSP, MSB has formed the framework of a public-private partnership that will address industry major needs. First, shipping companies will be able to verify that the security company that they are considering have met certain vetting criteria. This vetting criteria is based on a range of authoritative requirements, including those of the Coastal States, reducing the risk of disruptions while adherence to unique requirements are met.

Finally, it affords the private security company with a clear and concise point with which to communicate and coordinate its activities and logistics. Working within this framework will demonstrate to all those involved and external to the process, that each of the major parties in this activity are working together to counter the proliferation of grey and black market arms, reduce the potential for disruptions in supply chains and operate in a way that is respectful of the needs of the overall maritime shipping community.

The "ABOUT" page has added even more bits to it as you can see here: http://msbgroupltd.com/about/ 

MSB Group Ltd has been created as a catalyst to provide an umbrella to bring together like-minded coastal states to standardize a logistical support mechanism for the use and movement of small arms and equipment used in the protection of merchant vessels sailing high risk waters.

In the near future, maritime security companies will be invited to undergo the vetting process in order to participate in this group. These applications will be vetted by the member states through their national security elements. 

This is getting even more interesting and we will keep an ear out for more information as it comes in.

As Reported HERE

Marine Insurers Backing Armed Guards as Piracy Threat Grows

 

More ship insurers are backing the use of private armed guards on merchant vessels at sea to combat Somali piracy as attacks and the resulting costs are set to rise in coming weeks, industry officials said on Tuesday.

Pirate attacks on oil tankers and other ships are costing the world economy billions of dollars a year and navies have struggled to combat the menace, especially in the vast Indian Ocean. Seaborne gangs are set to ramp up attacks in the area after the monsoon season ends.

www.issg-seamarshals.com

Ships with Indian crew can have armed guards

As Reported HERE

The ministry of shipping on Monday issued guidelines allowing ships with Indian crew to deploy armed guards in a bid to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden. The move comes on the back of recommendations from the inter-ministerial group (IMG) of officers constituted to handle the hostage situation on hijacked ships and also suggest preventive measures.
It has been found that about 35 per cent of the ship transiting in these waters deploy armed security guards and that the pirates generally don’t attack ships with armed guards on board, an official release said on Monday. So far, 120 Somalian pirates have been apprehended by India as on date.
As per the new guidelines, ship owners are allowed to engage private maritime security companies (PMSC) through a proper selection procedure. In line with these, all Indian ships visiting Indian ports are to furnish details of security personnel on board, the firearms carried by them and the details of licence issued, etc, to the port authority, customs, Coast Guard and the Navy. Foreign merchant vessels visiting Indian ports with security guards are also required to follow similar procedure, as per the guidelines. 

www.issg-seamarshals.com 

India to Issue Armed Guard Notification

As Reported HERE
Govt to issue notification on armed anti-pirate guards


Mumbai: Indian merchant ships may soon be allowed to have armed guards to counter pirate attacks, two senior government officials said.
The Directorate General of Shipping plans to issue a draft notification allowing merchant ships to deploy armed guards on board, said Satish B. Agnihotri, who heads the regulatory agency.
Agnihotri did not give any details. H. Khatri, nautical surveyor-cum-deputy director general of shipping, who is preparing the draft, could not be immediately contacted.
Also See | Rising Risk (PDF)
Mint reported on 5 June that the government was considering allowing merchant ships to have armed guards to deal with the growing menace of piracy.
The International Maritime Organisation, a global overseer of operational and safety rules, in May approved employing privately contracted armed security personnel onboard ships transiting through the high-risk piracy area off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Aden and the wider Indian Ocean.
There were 266 pirate attacks worldwide in the first six months of this year, compared with 196 in the same period last year, according to a July report of the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), a non-profit organization that deals with maritime crime and malpractice.
At least 60% of the attacks were by Somali pirates, mostly in the Arabian Sea. On 30 June, these pirates were holding 20 vessels and 420 crew members as hostage, demanding millions of dollars as ransom.
“In the last six months, Somali pirates attacked more vessels than ever before and they’re taking higher risks,” said Pottengal Mukundan, director of IMB. “This June, for the first time, pirates fired on ships in rough seas in the Indian Ocean during the monsoon. In the past, they would have stayed away in such difficult (weather) conditions.”
Nine Indian ships have been captured since January and 86 crew members are currently held hostage, shipping minister G.K. Vasan said. Talks for their release are on.
The government will allow shipping companies to hire private guards and former defence personnel for securing ships, said a person aware of the draft legislation being prepared.
The number of guards allowed on a ship will depend on its size, ranging from two for a small ship to four for a large crude carrier, said this person, who asked not to be identified.
India’s shipping industry has been lobbying for some time to be allowed to have armed guards on board. Hiring these guards will raise expenses, but the industry expects the insurance premium to come down in turn.
National security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon​ met executives of shipping companies last month to discuss ways to deal with piracy.
A senior executive with a shipping company said no progress has been made after the meeting, but welcomed the Directorate General of Shipping’s plan to issue guidelines on hiring armed guards.
The nation, he said, is paying Rs6 crore as additional war risk surcharge imposed by reinsurers.
The minimum additional premium on account of such attacks for a very large crude carrier valued at $64 million and carrying a cargo of 260,000 million tonnes (mt), is around $200,000 per month. A bulk carrier, valued at $50 million and carrying 50 mt, pays an additional premium of $50,000 a month.
“It is high time India pushed the United Nations for common and integrated efforts by deploying a force in the pirates infested area,” the shipping executive said.
India took over as president of the United Nations Security Council this month.
But armed guards alone may not be enough to end piracy, said a security expert, asking not to be named.
“The Somalian pirates don’t go by the size of the ships or cargo. They target crew for ransom. Now they may shift (attacks) from big vessels with guards to small vessels and yachts,” the expert said. International bodies, he said, should look for a sustainable resolution.

www.issg-seamarshals.com

Norway's Anti-Piracy Stance

As Reported HERE

Norway’s Anti-Piracy Stance Grabs Industry Attention

 

The dog days of summer are upon us, which may explain why Norway’s release of new anti-piracy regulations crept by without much attention. But the force and practicality of Norway’s effort to lay out practical terms for using armed guards on Norway-flagged vessels is now dawning on shipowners and maritime lawyers.
“The Norwegians have helped ships flagged in Norway take the bull by the horns,” said Chris Greiveson, a Singapore-based partner at Norwegian law firm Wikborg Rein.
Norway had tried to make the guidelines for using weaponry on ships during an attack as simple and straightforward as it could, he added. “[The rules] are essentially exemptions to local firearms law,” Mr Greiveson said.
The rules go so far as to specify the type of weapons that owners are allowed to deploy via security guards on their vessels, including rifles with as high a calibre as AK-47s, and large semi-automatic weapons.
Norway issued the rules on July 1, at a time when more shipowners are turning to armed guards for protection, particularly in crossing the Indian Ocean.
Lloyd’s List has reported that protection and indemnity clubs are being swamped by requests from owners in all flags to review contracts with security companies offering piracy protection.
Guidelines for selection of security companies and for rules of engagement have been issued by the International Maritime Organization and by P&I clubs.
However, owners that opt to deploy armed guards are still entering a grey area in the law that has not been tested with a great degree of legal precedent. For example, they are held to the laws of their flag state on such matters as which weapons are allowed and the use of weapons.
Only Norway, so far, has been specific about the actual weapons the owners may use. The rules require owners to get a general framework permission from a Norwegian police authority and the country’s maritime directorate, and then to document the actual use of a properly trained and vetted armed personnel with the authorities.
“A granted permit will not be linked to each individual firearm,” the regulations state said. “However, companies must apply for an exemption in order to be permitted to hold prohibited firearms.” Moreover, exemptions are granted for fully automatic firearms with bullets that do not exceed 7.62 mm in calibre or that use rounds with a size of 9 x 19 mm.
The exemptions also allow for single-shot, repeating semi-automatic firearms with bullets with diameters that do not exceed 12.7mm — in other words, “quite a big beast of a weapon”, according to Mr Greiveson.
The regulations include guidelines for storage of weapons and many other practical issues. The detailed level of advice came in the wake of criticism of the Norwegian government by Norwegian shipowners, who were calling for a more useful code to work with. “Norway has done a great service to its shipowners,” said Mr Greiveson.
BW Group chairman Helmut Sohmen said that the regulations were helpful, and would help stop “incidental attacks”.
However, he raised the caveat that deploying armed guards was no solution to the problem. The escalation of violence could put seafarers into the middle of a melee, or pirates could simply be clever enough to stay away from Norwegian ships and attack those less likely to be so well armed.

Regulating Private Maritime Security?

As Reported by Inner City Press

On Somalia Piracy, US Questions Regulating Mercenaries, Egypt Says Crime is Crime 

 

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- Amid controversy about the use of mercenaries to face off against pirates off the coast of Somalia, the US State Department's Donna Hopkins on July 14 told Inner City Press “there's a robust international effort [about] the use of armed security, private or not, and how it should be regulated, if at all.” Video here, from Minute 13:30.

Earlier in the month, the chairman of the UN's Working Group on mercenaries told Inner City Press that a draft convention to regulate private military contractors is being opposed by large states.

Apparently, even with Blackwater having renamed itself Xe Services and moved to the Middle East, the US is still opposed to regulating mercenaries, including on the high seas.

Hopkins is formally the Coordinator of the Counter Piracy and Maritime Security Bureau of Political Military Affairs at the US State Department, and chairs “Working Group Three” of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia. Denmark's Legal Adviser Thomas Winkler declined to say if the use of armed security is good or bad, but added that no ship with armed guards has been hijacked.

Another Contact Group member, Egypt's Deputy Assistant Foreign Minister and Counter Terrorism Coordinator Ashraf Mohsen, adopted an even harder line. Inner City Press asked if the Contact Group has done anything about illegal fishing or the dumping of toxic waste.

“Some will try to justify criminal behavior,” Mohsen said, citing poverty as an excuse for stealing, injustice as a rationale for killing. “Crime is crime... Piracy is a form of criminal behavior. Any justification is unacceptable.”

As if to counteract this position, Mary Seet-Cheng of Singapore said that piracy cannot be solved at sea. The UK's Chris Holtby chimed in about efforts on the rule of law in Somalia, the development of its Exclusive Economic Zone. He did not mention outside involvement in what purported to be Somalia's own Law of the Sea filing. And so it goes at the UN.

Ministers Approve On Board Arms

As Reported HERE

Ministers approve onboard arms

The Norwegian government has approved ships to carry weapons in efforts to resist piracy.

 

Trade and Industry Minister Trond Giske and Minister of Justice Knut Storberget presented new rules and regulations, Wednesday, following ongoing discussions since March.
The Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean are witness to increasingly common and violent piracy. Approximately half of the Norwegian-owned 1,000 vessels sail under the Norwegian flag off the Somali coast, and several sailors in the Indian Ocean have been killed.
Up to 300 Norwegian citizens are in the Indian Ocean region at any one time, NTB reports.
“We see that other countries are also introducingsimilar legislation. The pirates have goodintelligence. They know the contents of the cargo, who the creware, and whether there are armed guards aboard. We want our sailorsto feel safe,” said Minister Giske.
Shipping companies can already apply on behalf of contracted security firms from tomorrow, but according to the minister have to prove “that allother measures have been tried first.”
Conducting their own risk assessments of the need for armed guards, as well as presenting security company documentation about training, qualifications, recruitment, proper weapons storage and deployment procedures also for part of the requirements.
Seafarers unions have been split on the issue of carrying arms, with pirate researchers fearing this could lead to revenge.
However, today’s move by the government makes previous practises and statements by different shipping companies history, and was greeted positively by the Norwegian Shipowners’ Association.
“Nobody is served by cowboy conditions at sea. It’s good, therefore, that the rules of armament are now clear,” says Haakon Svane, Director of the Contingency Planning Secretariat.
Underlining the Association only advocates having armed guards aboard when the shipping company feels they are necessary, however, he concludes, “Pirates threaten ships and crewsaggressively, and unfortunately, passive safety measures are not always sufficient. Wemust realise that armed guards make the difference between being hijacked and not.”

www.issg-seamarshals.com

UN warns of new peak in Somali pirate attacks

As Reported HERE
UNITED NATIONS — Somali pirates are attacking growing numbers of ships in the Indian Ocean, the UN Security Council was warned Tuesday amidst calls for even tougher international action.
Since January 1, there have been at least 171 attacks off the coast of Somalia and at the end of May the pirates held 26 vessels and more than 600 hostages, France's UN envoy Gerard Araud said.
The violence the sea bandits is using is also becoming more extreme, the ambassador added in a Security Council debate on possible new international legal measures against piracy.
"The international community is facing an unprecedented and growing threat from piracy," commented India's UN envoy Hardeep Singh Puri, whose country has also been affected by the attacks.
Russia's ambassador Vitaly Churkin stepped up calls for an international court to handle the pirates as well as special courts and jails in the Somali autonomous regions of Puntland and Somaliland.
A plan for the courts has been drawn up by Jack Lang, a former French government minister named as a special advisor on the legal implications of the piracy.

www.issg-seamarshals.com

Maritime Security Personnel Freed in Eritrea

As Reported HERE

British men held in Eritrea freed

Four men who were being held on charges of spying and terrorism have been released after five months in captivity

Four British men held on spying and terrorism charges in the Horn of Africa state of Eritrea have been freed after five months in captivity.
The two ex-Marine guards and two civilian crew members, working for an anti-piracy security firm, were expected to land at Heathrow airport late tonight.
But questions remained over the security contractors' activities in the isolationist country, including official allegations that they set up a "military base" on a remote island and stashed sniper rifles, silencers, pistols and "poison-tipped" bullets "intended for perpetrating acts of terrorism and sabotage".
The men worked for British maritime security company Protection Vessels International, which said they made an unscheduled stop in Eritrea last December owing to rough weather while en route to provide security for ships in an area where piracy is rife. PVI claimed they were arrested because of "confusion over fuel payments".
But Eritrea's government insisted that the men were detained as they tried to leave Eritrean waters without permission, and said its searches then uncovered a weapons cache on the island of Romia. The government alleged that a total of 21 PVI employees were involved in crimes "against Eritrean sovereignty", and that four were caught while trying to escape.
"On 19 December, 21 members of the PVI (including those four detained) infiltrated and deployed different types of weapons, poison-tipped bullets, bulletproof vests, specialised communication equipment and infrared night-vision binoculars in the sovereign Eritrean island of Romia," a government press release said last week.
"There is high possibility that such military hardware is intended for perpetrating acts of terrorism and sabotage. Hence, the members are accountable for infiltrating into the sovereign Eritrean island of Romia and stashing weaponry, for orchestrating acts of espionage and terrorism."
The statement also claimed that 11 seamen stayed in hiding on Romia for four days, along with military hardware, equipment and communication facilities. "These seamen were given directives to keep guard in twos and to pose as 'tourists keen to observe sharks'," it said, proving that the PVI had been using Romia "as its military base and arms depot".
PVI employs former British marines to provide armed on-board security and escort vessels for shipping operating in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. It has denied Eritrea's claims.
Paul Gibbins, a company spokesman, said this was the worst event in the company's two-year history and a full investigation would be conducted into what had gone wrong.
"We need to find out what the pinch point was. Was there a confusion over the fuel? Was there an issue over the vessel's departure? We just don't know at this stage," he said. "The whole episode has been a series of unfortunate events."
Gibbins denied that the company was involved "any espionage or acts of assassination". He said that the ship had been forced to stop in Massawa for a crucial fuel resupply and equipment repair.
But, he insisted, the company had worked hard before it docked to ensure that the ship's presence was not regarded "as a threat or hostile action".
"Christopher Collison was dispatched to Massawa to liaise with the local shipping agent and the port authority," he said. "He was there for four days, explaining and negotiating. We had only intermittent contact with him during that time, because mobile phones don't work in that area. We worked very hard to ascertain if it was safe to enter the port."
Gibbins said that, despite the lack of contact, the company was eventually forced to make the decision to give the ship permission to enter the port. However, he said, it had tried to "desensitise" and "detune" the presence of both the ship and its crew by unloading the weapons they carried as part of their regular duties on Romia, an outlying and uninhabitated island, before landing.
"We did everything we could to make it clear our presence was not misconstrued as a hostile act," he said.
The ship spent five days at Massawa, but was eventually forced to leave before it had fully refuelled. "We needed 15 tonnes of fuel but could only get 1,500 litres before we were forced to leave to meet an engagement to provide security for clients," said Gibbins. "In hindsight, it's true we could have done things better but, given the time constraints and the immediacy of the decisions that needed to be made, we worked hard to facilitate safe entry to the port. We do regret those unfortunate events and apologise to everyone concerned."

Asian Ship Owners Angry

As Reported HERE

Angry Asian shipowners call for action against rising ship piracy

 

MANILA, Philippines — Asian shipowners have expressed impatience, anger and frustration at the ever-increasing number of attacks on ships and seafarers by Somali pirates.

“Somali piracy and ship hijackings have become rampant since the collapse of Somalia’s central government more than 20 years ago. It is now time to take effective action and eradicate piracy,” said Johnson Sutjipto, Chairman of the 20th Asian Shippers Forum (ASF).

The ASF has expressed grave concern that the waters off the coast of Somalia have grown increasingly treacherous as hijackings, kidnappings, and extortion have proliferated over the past several years, forcing some shipowners to employ armed guards to ensure the safety of their ships and crews.

Robert Ho, the acting chairman of the Ship Insurance and Liability committee stressed that the various liabilities, potentially incurred through the carriage of private armed guards on a ship in an attempt to protect its seafarers, are defined.

Ho said these liabilities should not fall on the master of the ship or the owner, who may have no other option but to consider the employment of armed guards because Governments are unable or unwilling to provide the appropriate security.

“Pirates were once confined to the waters of the Gulf of Aden and off the Horn of Africa, but with each success, they have grown ever more daring and extended their area of operation. It is high time for all governments, the United Nations and the International Maritime Organization to come together and put an end to these criminal activities! We cannot tolerate nor allow this to continue any longer,” said S. S. Teo, chairman of the Safe Navigation and Environment committee.

Yasumi Kudo, chairman of the Shipping Economics Review committee emphasized that, “pirates have apparently concluded that the rewards of hijackings far outweigh the risk of capture and punishment. The cost of organized piracy to global trade, estimated to be $7 to $12 billion per annum, is simply unsustainable.”

It was reported that 26 ships and 522 seafarers were being held hostage off the coast of Somalia, some for extremely lengthy periods.

Mercenary firm or Security Firm?

As Reported HERE

I don't know about you but I have some reservations about taking the media seriously at times. In the following article one firm is termed as a "Mercenary Firm" and the other as a "Security Firm" and I am curious how they differentiate between the two. I have no bad remarks that I could ever make about Erik Prince as he is one of the most intelligent persons in the security industry today and I am not in any way saying that the media is accurate about Blackwater. My confusion is how can they call Saracen a Mercenary Firm in the same paragraph?

Somalia: Puntland Drops Deal With Mercenary Firm

The northern region of Puntland has suspended a deal with the South African mercenary firm Saracen International to train an antipiracy force, two government officials said Thursday. Saracen International was hired to train 1,050 men in Puntland to battle the pirates that menace Somalia’s coast. The project was linked to Erik Prince, founder of the private security firm Blackwater. Lafras Luitingh, the chief operating officer of Saracen, said in a statement that the program had been suspended since Feb. 12, and that the decision was made “after close consultation with the U.N.” The Somali government canceled a similar contract with Saracen in January.

Yemen Coast Guard for Hire?

As Reported HERE

By MARGARET COKER

ADEN, Yemen—The Yemeni Coast Guard, working through private companies, is renting out servicemen and patrol boats—including vessels given to Yemen by the U.S.—for commercial ships seeking armed escorts against piracy. The arrangements are raising fresh questions about whether the San'a government is effectively using American military aid.
The U.S. has donated boats for use in protecting Yemen's coastline against terrorists and other security threats. Discussions are under way in Washington about significantly ramping up assistance to help fight the al Qaeda network based in Yemen.
Congressman Pete King (R., N.Y.), the incoming chairman for the House Committee on Homeland Security, said reports of diverted U.S. military aid to Yemen raise "serious questions, which will be addressed by the Homeland Security Committee," in Congress's next session.
Four Yemeni officials familiar with the private security details said they are done for profit and involve high-ranking officials in the Ministry of Interior and the nation's Coast Guard Authority, which falls under the ministry.

The agreements to provide the ships to the Yemeni Coast Guard included provisions stipulating that vessels donated by Washington wouldn't be used in private commercial operations, according to U.S. defense officials. "U.S.-provided vessels to the Yemeni Coast Guard aren't intended to perform escort operations," a defense official said, referring to commercial, for-profit escort operations for private companies.
The two companies with the most business arranging the escort service are Lotus Maritime Security Services. a San'a-based concern, and the Channel Islands-based Gulf of Aden Group Transits Ltd., or GoAGT, according to the officials and clients.
A Yemeni government official familiar with private ship-escort services in Yemen defended the arrangement, saying it was his understanding that the commercial use of Yemeni Coast-Guard ships and military personnel didn't enrich anyone personally, and that all fees for the services go "back to the government."
Lotus Chief Executive Abdullah al-Huraibi didn't respond to requests to comment. Nick Davis, founder and chief executive of GoAGT, declined to comment.
A Yemeni Coast Guard official who has participated in the privately arranged escorts said Coast Guard vessels given by the U.S. are employed in about 30% of the contracted operations run by both companies. Yemen also provides U.S.-trained sailors on a routine basis for the escorts, said the official. Coast Guard officers routinely refer private shippers afraid of pirate attacks to Lotus, said the official.
The Yemeni Ministry of Interior didn't reply to requests for comment. Brig. Gen. Ali Rasa'a, chairman of Yemen's Coast Guard Authority, didn't return calls and text messages seeking comment.
U.S. military aid to Yemen in 2010 was $155 million. Congressional approval is needed for a proposed increase to $250 million in aid for 2011. Washington reduced aid to Yemen to almost zero earlier in the decade due to the country's widespread corruption.
Since 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard has delivered two dozen vessels to its Yemeni counterpart. Two larger "coastal protection boats" are scheduled for delivery this year. The U.S. U.S. Coast Guard has given extensive training to the Yemen Coast Guard's estimated 1,800 Yemeni servicemen and 200 officers.
U.S. officials have long had concerns about accounting for military aid to Yemeni armed forces, citing the Yemeni government's belief that two internal rebellions it is facing pose a more dire security threat than al Qaeda.
The U.S. counts on San'a to help choke off supply routes between Africa and Yemen used to smuggle arms and other contraband. The Gulf of Aden is considered a major route for al Qaeda to re-arm and exchange expertise, according to intelligence officials. The Gulf of Aden and the Bab al Mandeb, leading to the Red Sea, are among the world's most pirate-infested waters.
Lotus and GoAGT have advertised security packages that typically include a team of up to nine armed, uniformed personnel and heavily armored patrol vessels, for fees of up to $55,000 for a detail of about three days.
Both companies' websites previously showed images of uniformed servicemen and naval vessels, and Lotus said it was "operating with the full cooperation and support" of the government.
By mid-December, the two companies had advertised on their websites that each had completed roughly 300 operations since 2008. Since that time, Lotus Maritime's website appears to have been taken offline. GoAGT'S website appears to have been amended, with information about pricing and a formerly advertised partnership with Lotus taken down.
A coast guard official said he received $200—almost double an average monthly salary—for participating in an operation arranged by Lotus. He didn't say who paid him for his services.
Washington helped develop the Yemeni Coast Guard after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole while it was harbored in Aden in 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Piracy and Ship Security

As companies and people look back over 2010 and take stock of the year, those involved in the piracy issue in the Indian Ocean realize that we are approaching a halfway point in what is turning out to be a pivotal year. This pivot point involves the arming of merchant vessels and how it is perceived. Up to this season (about September 2010), the concept of arming ships was considered to be, at the very least, controversial. As we begin to close out December, however, we see that this approach has gained significant popularity on one hand and, on the other hand, the detractors of it have grown increasingly silent.

On the pirate side of the equation, we have not seen an evolution-- we have seen a shift. The tactics being used by the pirates are essentially the same tactics that have been used for a while now. The weapons that the pirates have been using recently are the same weapons that have been used against the shipping industry for a while now. This is based on a check of the attacks reported to the IMB, EUNAVFOR, ReCAAP, NATO Counter Piracy Operation Ocean Shield, and other reporting centers. The only thing that has changed is that the pirates have decided that they can use captured vessels as mother ships when they are trying to extend their range. In fact, one might even argue that the only significant change is that the pirates are putting more effort into spreading themselves across the whole area so that the military forces are spread thinner. Again, this does not constitute an evolution in tactics or strategy...it is simply an adjustment of their already existing approaches.

On the other side of the equation, we have seen significant change in the industry. Not all these changes have been positive in nature.

The first major change involves the arming of vessels. At this time last year, the debate was in full swing as to whether or not ships should be armed. Amongst the most common arguments were that (1) it would escalate the situation if ships were armed, (2) sailors are not trained for this kind of thing and (3) it’s the navy’s job to handle protecting shipping.  Most of those arguments have been resolved to a situation where private security companies are being asked to be able to provide armed security on board the vessel.

What was notable about this was that it appears, at least on the surface, to be a reversal of who is driving the show. Normally, the IMO provides guidance with flag state administrations coming closely behind. Then the shipping companies and others work in a compliance-focused mindset to ensure that they do not come into conflict with any major requirements. This time, the IMO was reasonably silent, shuffling the issue to the various flag states. While some flag states provided very clear and concise guidance, others have been remarkably silent on the issue. The end result, requests for security have evolved from just having security personnel on board to having armed security personnel on board—to meet corporate or insurer requirements.

At the same time, a crucial vulnerability has been appearing in the way that many organizations are thinking about security. Many require adherence to the Best Management Practices (BMP) as a minimum condition of contract...requiring ships to put in place the measures as part of the overall protective posture. There have been more than a few instances where these measures were not put in place, and the reasons given were the source of the concern.

The problem lies in the fact that there has been a trend to report a single measure as being why a ship defeated a pirate attack. In some cases, it was the speed of the vessel combined with its evasive actions. It has also included the presence of the safe room (misnamed as the citadel approach) and other measures. In and of themselves, these statements may well be supportable. They do not, however, answer why the ship could be reasonably secure. Nor do they address how a ship can be declared secure in the future.

What has failed is a basic understanding of one of the core principles of security—that it functions as a system. Consider this, there is no guarantee that an attack will only follow a certain course of action, there is only a reasonable expectation that it will. Similarly, there is no guarantee that one pirate will behave the same as the next pirate. This is one of the main reasons why different measures have been seen as the core or critical reason why certain ships were not taken.

This is one of the basic reasons why risk assessments are performed. They are intended to identify the scope of threats and vulnerabilities and then prioritize those, taking into account the impacts against our assets and operations. In most cases, the risk assessment will identify a number of different risks. It may even identify a number of different threats beyond those of the apparent topic at hand or the obvious.  When security professionals assist in the design of security controls, they are doing so with an eye to using the most effective and efficient set of measures that address all risks that management finds intolerable.

By reducing the overall security system to a single security measure, the Company is essentially rolling the dice. Let`s move away from the fact that there may be multiple threats (and hence risks) and move back to the single issue of piracy. The gamble that it is making is that the measure that it selects will be the measure that a particular attacking pirate will be defeated by. One might argue that there is a history of success, but trusting past history to cover all potential future outcomes can be dicey at best. This is one of the main reasons why security professionals tend to rely upon a range of measures organized in an approach referred to as a layer of defence approach—where one fails, a backup or following measure takes over to stop the attacker.

This problem is compounded when you look at the use of firearms on board the vessel. Not only do you need to have the various layers of defence present in order to meet sound security practices. You also need them in place in order to prevent circumstances that could lead to significant legal issues.

The main issue in this case involves the escalation of force when applying the use of force continuum. Even as some ships have relied solely upon the safe rooms or the evasive actions of the ship, some companies have relied simply on the presence of armed (lethally) security on board the vessel with few (if any) other measures in place.

This leaves the ship vulnerable on two fronts. First, if the pirate can somehow overwhelm or bypass the security force, then there is little else to stop the attack from being successful. At the same time, the ship is vulnerable on another front. Instead of being able to escalate force, it can only give warnings that lethal force will be applied. This means that the warnings must be credible and, if not heeded, acted upon. In brief, a bolder (or even driven) attacker would only really be stopped when lethal force was applied...something that the ship is supposed to be avoided.

So the vital point will revolve around three factors. We are at a point where the pirates will have to evolve in their tactics or face failure at a regional level as we gradually strip away their capacity. We are vulnerable, however, to some unsound practices that leave single points or minimal points of failure in the overall system. Finally, by relying on a system that escalates quickly to the use of lethal force, we run the risks of unnecessary legal and ethical risks. To respond to this, we need to ensure that the various protective works are aligned correctly so that attacks are too complex to succeed, applied in a cost effective manner so as to provide some return on the investment and then applied appropriately so that we do not simply exchange one risk for another...only when that happens can we argue that there is a reasonable degree of security for the vessel and company.

www.evolutionarysecurity.com 

www.issg-seamarshals.com 

Tanker Hijacked in Red Sea

As reported HERE



NAIROBI, Kenya — The EU's anti-piracy task force says Somali pirates have hijacked a chemical tanker carrying lubricating oil in the Red Sea.
The force says pirates attacked the Marshall Islands-flagged MT Motivator on Sunday in the northern Strait of Bab al Mandeb. The seizure was only confirmed early Monday after communication with ship was lost, the force says in a statement.
The EU Naval Force says the 13,065 ton-ship has a crew of 18 Filipinos on board.
The Horn of Africa nation's 19 years of lawlessness have allowed piracy to flourish. The waters surrounding Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden that connects the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, are known to be among the world's most dangerous.

Pirate Attack Near Maldives

Two More Vessels Hijacked

As Reported HERE


NAIROBI, Kenya – Somali pirates armed with rocket-propelled grenades and automatic guns hijacked a chemical tanker off East Africa with 22 crew members on board, the European Union Naval force said Saturday.
Spokesman Cmdr. John Harbour said there is little chance that military forces can storm the ship because officials don't believe the crew all made it to a safe room before the pirates boarded. The crew consists of 19 Indians, 2 Bangladeshis and 1 Ukrainian, he said. The ship — the Marida Marguerite — was heading from India to Belgium.
Also Saturday, Taiwan's Foreign Ministry said a Taiwanese fishing boat was hijacked off the Somali coast by pirates who demanded a ransom for the crew.
The ship's Taiwanese owner lost contact with Tai Yuan 227 two days ago as it headed for the Maldives. When the owner resumed contact with the vessel a day later, he was told by hijackers to pay a ransom for the crew, the ministry said.
"The boat has since changed direction to sail toward Somalia, so this may very well have been done by the Somali pirates," the ministry said in a statement. "We hope that the many other boats sailing in the area can stay alert and avoid the pirates from launching an attack at other boats from the Tai Yuan 227."
It wasn't immediately clear how many crew were aboard the trawler.
Foreign Ministry officials refused to provide contact information for the boat's owner, saying he wanted to remain anonymous until the crew was released.
Pirate attacks have continued to climb despite the presence of about 35 international warships patrolling the waters off the lawless Somalia coast.
Pirates currently hold more than 300 hostages taken from ships attacked off East Africa in the last several months. Eleven suspected Somali pirates were indicted in U.S. federal court late last month, but the international community has had problems formulating an accepted policy to try and jail pirate suspects.
Pirates boarded the Russian tanker Moscow University off the coast of Somalia on Wednesday. They were arrested Thursday after special forces from a Russian warship stormed the tanker. A gunbattle ensued in which one pirate was killed, and 10 others were detained.
The pirates seized were released because of "imperfections" in international law, Russia's Defense Ministry said Friday, a claim that sparked skepticism — and even suspicion the pirates might have been killed.
Anarchy has reigned in Somalia since 1991, when warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other. The weak Somali government controls only a small bit of the capital, Mogadishu, and is battling Islamic insurgents. The lawlessness has allowed the piracy trade to flourish off Somalia's coastline.

Sniper Rifles For Anti Piracy?

We have dealt with the requests of many different shipping companies, and have always tried to cater to the desires of the shipping company. It is frequent that companies request firearms for their transits through the Gulf of Aden and the east Coast of Africa. Firearms are not impossible to supply, however it can be difficult and our company will not supply firearms illegally obtained.

That being said, we are getting requests now to provide "SNIPER" rifles on board merchant vessels for their transits.

I do believe in trying to accommodate the client as much as possible, but I also believe that providing a proper service is of the utmost importance. Part of that service is to give expert advice to the shipping company and alternative solutions for them to consider. However, advice and solutions need to be based on experience and a sound security doctrine that is proven in the domain.

The request of the "sniper" rifle really had me baffled. The client not only requested the sniper rifle, but insisted that they want a sniper rifle on all future transits.

So the question is, what is a sniper rifle?
Is it the caliber?
Is it the configuration of the weapon?
Is it automatic, bolt action or semi automatic?

Actually the answer to that is that none of the above are relevant. What the client does not understand, is a "SNIPER RIFLE" is a "SNIPER RIFLE" only if you have a "SNIPER" operating the rifle. without the 'qualified sniper' you have nothing more than a rifle.

When request such as this come across, we attempt to provide the client with factual information that is based on experience. As a qualified Urban Sniper, I may have some knowledge and experience to base the advice. There has been endless debate in the maritime security realm when it comes to armed vs unarmed security, lethal vs less lethal and non lethal approaches. However, the 'sniper rifle' concept has to take the Darwin Award.

We all know the success of the Navy Seal Sniper's in regards to the Maersk Alabama incident. However, not only are these guys trained specifically for that incident, but the shooting took place at about 30 to 40 meters away, in absolute flat seas, without either vessel underway.

If you are to consider being under attack by pirates, the vessel is to go to full speed and take evasive maneuvering. With the movement of the vessel, pitch, roll, yaw and of course its speed, added to the fact that the pirate skiff is also at speed and maneuvering, the sniper rifle option is about the worst option out there. You would not be able to have any effectiveness whatsoever. I don't know how any educated, experienced security contractor would advise a ship company to have sniper rifles as their defense.

Obviously this is a case where either the security contractor knows nothing about maritime security, or the shipping company management is watching too many movies. Or maybe a combination of both.

Firearms Debate Rages On

The debate whether to arm merchant vessels rages on. There are advantages and disadvantages to having firearms. Certainly anyone possessing a firearms should be well trained, not only in the use of the firearm itself, but in appropriate Rules of Engagement. When speaking of rules of engagement, I am not referring to just reading the rules of engagement, I am speaking of understanding them, and the liability that goes along with the firearm. I am not against firearms but care needs to be exercised here due to the inherent risks involved. Some say that the use of firearms would escalate the violence of an attack. This could be very true if the methodology of it's use was incorrect. Firearms are always to be a last resort. You can follow the legalities of the rules of engagement and definitely escalate the fight, or you can have a proper methodology with the use of firearms and not escalate the fight. Keep in mind this is my own opinion, and I certainly welcome other opinions. I will give a small scenario and explain my view. A merchant vessel is very large, averaging about 200 meters in length, while a pirate skiff is very small comparatively, about 10 meters in length. On the ocean it is a much different picture than land warfare would paint. The merchant vessel has no cover or concealment and is usually limited in it's maneuverability. The pirate skiff of course is in the same situation regarding cover and concealment, but is highly maneuverable. Now imagine looking at a merchant vessel that is 200 meters away from you, and how large it appears, and imagine a 10 meter skiff 200 meters away, and how small it looks. The pirate obviously has a much larger target to shoot at, and his accuracy does not need to be near as good to hit the target. The pirates have displayed a consistent method of firing a few rounds with the AK-47 and maybe a round from the RPG-7. this has stayed consistent as it is a means of intimidation to get the vessel to stop. However, with the normal resistance a ship can offer, speed, maneuverability and standard anti piracy methods such as fire fighting equipment used to repel or hinder the boarder, the violence usually does not tend to escalate beyond the intimidation. Now imagine the 200 meter distance between the two vessels, and now the first few rounds fired from the skiff (along with an RPG round), and imagine someone on the vessel firing back. This may be justified by the rules of engagement, but now you are at a severe disadvantage, as the pirate can start firing much more than he would have. With the maneuverability of the skiff, you are not likely to hit the skiff, however, they have a much better chance of hitting your vessel. This is the type of conduct with a firearm that could place the vessel and it's crew in much greater danger, but is the common practice with firearms. On land, with cover and concealment, this use of the firearm would be acceptable and reasonable, but at sea, it just does not work. Most that want the firearm on boar, are of the mentality that if I shoot back, the pirate will just run away. What if he doesn't? My whole point is that proper preparations of the vessel and crew, with the correct defensive posture and layers of defense, firearms just are not necessary. No one is out there to kill pirates, they are supposed to be out there preventing the vessel from being boarded.