From The FT:
Sir, The Allies almost lost both world wars before belatedly discovering the convoy system. Substitute pirates for U-boats and the same solution will save the day off the Horn of Africa.
Jon Sands, Indianapolis, USA
Labour news: Sue Gray and budget update
6 hours ago
11 comments:
Great point! Any chance it will get implemented? Very slim I'd say, if left to the usual govt suspects. Lloyds of London should pull rank and organise it themselves.
I think we should just send some ninjas:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_versus_Ninjas
(geeks have a very odd obsession with pirates)...
And if you can't get enough Ninjas, just use Arab women in black burkas, they look much the same from a distance.
I think he is wrong because a convey system is a purely defencive measure. These pirates have no real military capability compared to even India's navy & can be & should be actively suppressed. Piracy is a business & so long as it is profitable will grow & not just in Somalia. It must be bankrupted by sinking boats.
Nope it should be bankrupted by mining the harbours used by Pirates.
Not quite. The Allies knew the benefit of the convoy system, but did not have the escort ships. Once they had the escort ships they had to develop techniques and weapons to take the fight to the u-boats.
The writer is correct though, there are parallels. One, we do not have enough escort ships. You need frigates and carriers and other fast patrol craft wioth the usual compliment of Marines. The RN has been stripped of all of these. Recommission and replace these and rebuild the RN and deploy it properly. Two, tactics. Use these resources not just to defend the ships but to attack the pirates before they strike.
The RN was established to defend our trade routes (and help keep the opium trade going, of course!) and our island. Defending our trade routes is its traditional role, enforcing the rule of international law on the high seas.
The price mechanism of free markets will work as the pirates will work out that the rewards have become small in proportion to the risk.
As the previous commenter points out, we lack escort ships for convoys. In any case, it would surely be easier to pursue the pirates to their known bases and destroy their vessels ("with extreme prejudice"). If we only had the will...
Unlike the previous commenter, I think that the RN was established some time before the opium trade and, indeed, was already in decline by that time.
Isn't there some nonsense about not infringing territorial waters which is preventing hot pursuit?
Not in this case - there is a UN vote that they have the right to enter territorial waters. The doctrine of hot pursuit does anyway allow one to enter another's territory - pretty much the only case other than war where it does.
I would assume that entering waters would allow mining harbours but not shelling bases ashore, unless they fired first.
It is important to kep to international law but then nations have been dealing with piracy for so long that all the precedents have been established.
For sure, there is a rule about territorial waters. Like all international laws, it is always honoured, of course. Unless the country concerned has neither a Navy nor international clout and is not a refuge for pirates.
Mining harbours sounds tasty. I'll set up an online poll and we can decide our favourite form of action.
Don't agree with mining harbours, it hurts the innocent and the guilty, and we are not trying to interdict a whole nation, as would be the case if we were ar war.
As well as deploying the right type and right number of warships to make the trade much more risky for pirates someone will have to start on sorting out the rule of law in the country's along the East African littoral. There has to be a large diplomatic effort as well.
As regards 'hot pursuit' and 'extreme prejudice' both courses of action can be entire;ly justified under international law in this case.
Post a Comment