Showing posts with label Nigeria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nigeria. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Opuscula

How long
Will pirates
Rule the sea?

 

DURING WORLD WAR II, merchant ships sailing from North America to Europe sailed in conveys that were, more or less, protected from nazi submarines by warships from the allied countries, mostly the U.S., and Canada.

The same held true for convoys heading westward across the Pacific, dodging Japanese submarines and planes.

The convoys often lost one or two merchantmen, but most made it to their destinations. The nazis and Japanese paid a price in lost U-boats and their crews.

NOW PIRATES ARE THE SCOURGE of the seas off Africa, despite promises by many nations to patrol the waters and sink the pirates.

Having a warship trolling for pirates is similar to the local police patrolling a neighborhood with flashing lights and noisy siren; a four-letter word comes to mind: "DUMB" Also useless.

The remedy to the pirate problem has been recommended here before, but like some other suggestions (often about airplane security), the recommendations were ignored by people who failed to study history.

Not one cent for tribute

What was suggested here in the past was to have merchantmen rendezvous at a safe site prior to transiting pirate infested waters.

When several ships have been assembled, they would be escorted by participating nations' warships. The participating countries only have to agree on who will captain the convoy; alternatively, one country (e.g., China) can provide several ships to escort the merchantmen while another country (e.g., U.S.) can protect the next group of merchantmen.

All participating navies must have the same rules of engagement, otherwise the pirates will wait for warships that only fire over the bow of the pirates' vessels but don't do any damage to the attackers. If, say, Chinese ships sink pirate ships and U.S. ships only fire warning shots, the pirates will let Chinese convoys pass unmolested and wait for easy picking under U.S. escort. (The days of Theo. Roosevelt's Great White Fleet and Speak softly and carry a big stick ended for the U.S. a few years ago. America is, as China once pointed out, a paper tiger.)

Currently, the pirates seem to be attacking from Nigeria. That country's navy cannot seem to keep the pirates on shore, but then its army can seem to control Muslim extremists (e.g., Boko Haram) either.

Somalia is another African nation that seems to offer safe haven for pirates.

From the shores of Tripoli

As with Nigeria, merchant ships should be convoyed around pirate-infested waters.

Having worked for an international shipping company, I know scheduling can accommodate BRIEF delays to assemble several merchant ships into a convoy

If a merchantman insisted on traversing dangerous waters sans escort, any losses would be the merchant ship's owners problem. Since most merchant ships are devoid of weapons, save for perhaps handguns that offer no protection from pirates armed with RPGs and similar weaponry, "going it alone" seems foolish.

Several nations loudly signed up to clear the waters of pirates, but, based on continuing reports of pirate attacks, nothing of consequence has occurred. It won't until merchant ships are escorted past pirate hideouts. Sailing up and down Nigeria's or Somalia's coast shouting "Come out, come out, wherever you are" is an exercise in futility.

Since - apparently - no nation is willing to take the battle to the pirates, the least navies can do is provide convoy protection until piracy on the high seas no longer is economical.

The problem with that is that the pirates simply will relocate and eventually ships sailing near Africa will need escorts from the Suez, around the horn, to the Nile.

Meanwhile, pirates also plague shipping off Asia.

The bottom line for companies carrying freight is higher insurance costs. The bottom line for companies shipping freight is higher costs, costs eventually passed on to the consumer.

Of course if the world's navies would aggressively take the battle to the pirates, the need for convoys might become a history lesson, as did the need for convoys across the oceans during WW II.


Friday, May 9, 2014

Opuscula

Why are the Moslems
Silent on kidnappings?

 

Where is the AU to battle Islamists?

 

Headlines around the civilized world scream in outrage over the Boko Haram's kidnapping and murder of young people in Nigeria.

People, mostly - but hardly exclusively - blacks, are marching with signs reading #BringBackOurGirls .

Has anyone heard that

 *  ANY of the 57 Moslem nations in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has condemned Boko Haram?

 *  ANY of the 25 nations of the African Unity (AU) offer to aid Nigeria in its effort to eliminate the Islamist Boko Haram? (The AU is the successor to the Organisation for African Unity {AU}).

Anyone?

Now the U.S. - not a member of either the OIC or AU - is sending "personnel" to Nigeria to help its government.

Do we have "personnel" in the Sudan where Islamists enslave and murder non-Islamists?

Do we have "personnel" in Syria to side with the insurgents or government?

Do we have "personnel" any more in Lebanon to protect that country from the spillover of Syria's civil war?

As much as I wish for people such as those who make up the Boko Haram and similar organizations to be sent to an early death - and their bodies burned to deprive them of the promised 70 virgins - I don't want U.S. "personnel" on the ground.

If the Muslims want to prove to the world that they are truly a peaceful people, let the OIC organize a military to attack the Islamists who sully the good name of Islam.

If the Africans want to root out the Islamists from their midst, while perhaps recalling that it was Arab Muslim invaders who sold black Africans into slavery, let the AU states form a joint military to eliminate the Islamist scourge.

The problem with U.S. "personnel" on the ground in Nigeria - or Sudan or anyplace else for that matter - is that we will once again be sucked into a Korea or Vietnam situation. In both cases, the U.S. sent only a few "personnel" to advise the local governments. Korea cost the U.S. 33,686 killed and 128,650 wounded; Vietnam's body county was 47,424 with 211,650 injured. (Source: United States military casualties of war)

Apparently the U.S. has had an interest in Boko Haram going back at least to the time presidential want-to-be Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

According to a Daily Beast article dated May 7, 2014 and heded Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists, Clinton "fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls."

A May 8, 2014 article on the ThinkProgress site titled Here’s Why Hillary Clinton Resisted Designating Boko Haram As A Terrorist Organization apologizes for Clinton, reporting " there were multiple valid reasons for the State Department to disagree with the Justice Department and other agencies dealing with counterterrorism — such as the FBI and CIA — who urged State to place Boko Haram on the Foreign Terrorists Organization (FTO) list. “Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” a former State Department official told the Beast. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.” This includes boosting development aid to undercut the causes of unrest and deploying the FBI to assist in tracking down Boko Haram, both of which the U.S. actually did.

The article continued: In addition, Clinton didn’t act in a vacuum to determine not to designate Boko Haram back in 2011. Scholars on Twitter who focus on the region, terrorism broadly, and Islamist groups in particular were quick to point out that not only were there few benefits and many possible costs to designation, many of them had argued against listing Boko Haram several years ago. In a letter to the State Department dated May 2012, twenty prominent African studies scholars wrote Clinton to implore her to hold off on placing Boko Haram on the FTO list. Acknowledging the violence Boko Haram had perpetrated, the academics argued that “an FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram, legitimize abuses by Nigeria’s security services, limit the State Department’s latitude in shaping a long term strategy, and undermine the U.S. Government’s ability to receive effective independent analysis from the region.”

I'm hearing echoes of Neville Chamberlain's Peace in our time speech, this time coming from the mouths of "prominent African studies scholars ."

Back to the main questions:

Has anyone heard any OIC member state condemning the Boko Haram?

Has anyone heard any AU member state offer military support to Nigeria to eliminate the Boko Haram?

Silence reigned.