Protecting Freedom of Navigation: No Longer a Naval Role

I'll be discussing the meat of this article next week, but the low hanging fruit in the last paragraphs is noteworthy for discussion today.

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the Seapower subcommittee, asked the CNO about Somali pirates, wondering whether a military security team could be placed on all American-flag vessels. Taylor urged that if a ship “has got an American cargo on it, it’s our stuff. We should put a team of trigger-pullers on there.”

Roughead noted that just hours before the hearing, a contractor security team aboard a ship in the Gulf of Aden had repulsed a pirate attack.

“I believe that that scheme is something that should be pursued as opposed to putting sailors and Marines aboard ships,” the CNO said.

Anyone seen a press report on this? I haven't seen a thing. During the Joint Warfighter conference in Virginia Beach last week, Stephen Carmel discussed how the lack of political action by governments to deal with the problems in Somalia has led the shipping industry to find a method of dealing with Somali piracy itself. That method became ransom payments, not exactly a good thing for the industry or the security situation but the lack of a comprehensive approach to piracy left the industry little choice. As piracy has continued to grow, the industry has been asking governments for help, but rather than developing a comprehensive approach to dealing with the problems coming from Somalia, the US government has instead taken a myopic approach telling the industry how to spend money on their own security. ADM Roughead's comment is exactly that, a rejection of the military role in the protection of commercial ships and a specific direction that the industry should manage that issue.

The results of government inaction is very clear. This comes from MARAD:

1. THIS MARAD ADVISORY PROVIDES UPDATED GUIDANCE FOR TRANSITING THE EAST COAST OF SOMALIA DUE TO RECENT PIRACY ATTACKS. MARAD ADVISORY 2008-6 AND 2009-3 ARE HEREBY CANCELLED.
2. PIRATE ACTIVITY OFF THE EAST COAST OF SOMALIA HAS ESCALATED. MORE PIRACY ATTACKS HAVE OCCURRED AND SOME HAVE PROLONGED FOR SEVERAL HOURS MORE THAN 400 MILES OFF THE EAST COAST OF SOMALIA. VESSEL MASTERS ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO REMAIN EAST OF 60E AND AT LEAST 600 MILES OFF THE COAST OF SOMALIA (REF. MARAD ADVISORY 2009-04).

Take out your chart, or pull a map up on the internet, and check out where 60E is. Print the map. Measure out 600 nautical miles from the eastern Somali coast line, and make a line in yellow marker. Now mark 60E with a yellow marker. Now plot a course around the southern tip of Africa from the Persian Gulf.

Now calculate how much water that policy, as issued by MARAD, has conceded to a couple hundred pirates in a couple dozen speedboats. Somalia piracy has now fully disrupted freedom of navigation on the seas in an area roughly the size of the Mediterranean Sea. Think about that. A few hundred folks in speedboats have stolen freedom of navigation in one of the busiest international shipping trade routes in the world from the international community in an area the size of the Mediterranean Sea, and still the US Navy (in front of Congress no less) is telling the US flagged ships in the industry to solve their security problem themselves. I'm not even talking about the Gulf of Aden, which when added completes the often cited 1.1 million square miles figure that piracy is occurring in.

This is an attack from earlier this week:

There has been one piracy incident in the last 24 hours. At 1215UTC yesterday (12 May), the Panama-flagged cargo vessel MV SAFMERINE BANDAMA was attacked 750nm east of Mogadishu. Two skiffs each with nine persons on board approached the MV and fired small arms and RPG rounds in an attack which lasted 45 minutes. The MV carried out evasive manoeuvres and the pirates aborted their attack. However, the MV did sustain some damage, examples of which can be seen on the slide.

With attacks now occurring 750 nautical miles off the coast of Somalia, will we continue chasing a myopic approach to solving piracy? The policy rules and proposals to date are primarily built upon a desire by governments not to solve the problem, thus the industry is being asked to assume most of the costs of security, and virtually all the risk that comes with it. Perhaps another "strong advisory" should suggest a greater distance to avoid attack, say 800 nautical miles as we continue the myopic approach? Traveling at increased distance from the coast adds in fuel costs every day, and on top of that the Navy is telling the industry to also purchase a security team for the transit, which will run somewhere around an extra $200,000 if we are going to supply them with non-lethal weapons. All of these costs, on top of what insurance companies are already charging, are simply being passed to the consumer.

What is the US Navy's role in defending freedom of navigation anyway, and can anyone wearing a Navy uniform say with a straight face it is to protect the sea lines of communication or freedom of navigation when our governments own policy suggests they are willing to give up that freedom so easily?

Sound maritime strategy during a period of peaceful globalization must be built on a fundamental necessity to insure freedom of navigation for trade, particularly in the parts of the world that are disconnected, like Africa. Piracy is compounding the global economic slide for countries like Egypt, that rely heavily on income from the use of the Suez Canal. Kenya is also suffering, as ships instead take a longer route around Africa and many smaller ships are avoiding port in Kenya where normally they would take on fuel or provisions. These carry economic consequences in a part of the world where economy is the strategy to bring peace and stabilization to a very poor region of the world.

Economics is driving global peace between major powers today, and disruptions to the economic system, particularly at sea in places where globalization does not connect is a problem that should be addressed by all countries, and not just a single country. The very idea of flags of convenience is coming full circle to bite the maritime industry, and I for one have no problem with that. However, I believe Gene Taylor (D-MISS) is asking the right question and is on the right road here, the United States should take a more proactive role in the protection of US flagged ships, sending a clear message that we will at minimum protect our own even if we won't assume the full responsibility of protecting the global system. There is an old catch phrase in consulting, if you aren't willing to be part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem. I am not suggesting the US Navy or Marines are the optimal rent-a-cop for commercial ships, but we do collect taxes on the goods shipped on US flagged ships and with a well armed US military security team and with the US government providing the coverage of risk insurance through the transit zone for ships with an armed US guard, commercial ships can cut down on massive fuel, insurance, and private security costs while still paying large sums of taxes to the US. I have seen several models of such a system, and it can be done if the US can encourage participation.

It is entirely possible that with US security well armed, pirates take a beating in the process and learn to avoid US flagged ships, after all, when pirates get shot at directly history suggests the result is not good for pirates.

Congress needs to take a sharp look at risk insurance and fees that could be associated with using US security teams on US flagged ships. There is a lot of money in this cycle of violence off Somalia, particularly in fuel costs for taking such a long trip around Africa. This money could be collected, saved, and utilized towards the implementation of a realistic long term security solution if there was political will to create a better, more secure model for protecting ships.

Although the protection of the global liberal trade order is at the foundation of the US maritime services own maritime strategy, there is little evidence of its existence today. With the Navy being unable, unwilling, or intentionally prohibited from taking on that strategic responsibility, it is fair to question whether the maritime strategy aligns well with the policies of the Obama administration, who from all indications through the downplaying of problems associated with piracy, does not make freedom of navigation on the worlds seas a priority.