The United Nations Just Told Reuters What?

Richard Lough of Reuters has just opened the ugly can of worms no one in the maritime shipping industry ever wanted to see opened. Make no mistake, the Obama administration didn't want to see this report either.

Ransoms paid to Somali pirates to free merchant vessels are ending up in the hands of Islamist militants, laying shipping groups open to accusations of breaching international sanctions, U.N. officials told Reuters.

John Steed, the principal military adviser to the U.N. special envoy to Somalia and head of the envoy's counter-piracy unit, said links between armed pirate gangs and Somalia's al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were gradually firming.

"The payment of ransoms just like any other funding activity, illegal or otherwise, is technically in breach of the Somalia sanctions regime if it makes the security situation in Somalia worse," said Steed.

"Especially if it is ending up in the hands of terrorists or militia leaders -- and we believe it is, some directly, some more indirectly," said Steed, a retired military officer.

Remember, this is the United Nations, which is not so small a thing.

The U.N.'s Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says pirates are increasingly launching their cross-ocean raids from the al Shabaab-controlled southern coastal city of Kismayu. Recruitment for pirates from the region was also on the rise, it said.

"Detained pirates tell us that some level of cooperation with al Shabaab is necessary to run a criminal enterprise," said Alan Cole, piracy programme coordinator at UNODC.

Al Shabaab sources agree.

"If there was no relationship between us, there is no way the pirates would be able to operate, or carry their weapons within zones we control," said an al Shabaab militant based in the pirate haven of Haradhere, north of Mogadishu.

How about some excellent investigative reporting.

A Reuters investigation found the following payments had been made to al Shabaab's "marine office":

On Feb. 25: $200,000 from the release of the Japanese-owned MV Izumi after pirates received a $4.5 million ransom.

On March 8: $80,000 from the $2 million release of the St Vincent & Grenadines-flagged MV Rak Africana.

On March 9: $100,000 after the Singapore-flagged MV York was freed for $4.5 million.

On April 13: $600,000 from the release of the German ship Beluga Nomination after a $5.5 million ransom was paid.

On April 15: A $66,000 share of the $3.6 million ransom handed over for the Panama-flagged MV Asphalt Venture.

On May 14: $100,000 from the release of two Spanish crew of the Spanish-owned FV VEGA 5.

The amounts were corroborated by pirates, al Shabaab militants and residents of Haradhere.

There is more - read the entire article.

Piracy just took a strange turn, and it would be nice to hear from someone whose title begins with "Admiral" or whose name is Ray Mabus.

Do people realize that it is a big damn deal that the United Nations would casually discuss the connections between Somali pirates and Al Shabaab? No government has ever officially claimed such a link exists. This would mean piracy is a direct funding mechanism for Al Qaeda, and every ransom payment is illegal.

We appear to now be at a point in time with piracy where if a company tries to free captured mariners with ransom money, the company would be subject to prosecution for illegally financially supporting global terrorism. That's a pretty big deal, and really bad news if you are a hostage.

Europe's Offshore Dog and Pony Show For Libya

I love the American people. For a wealthy nation we really are one of the most compassionate peoples that have ever existed on the planet. I think of this when I see all kinds of different ideas being promoted on how to help the Libyan rebels fight their dictator.

While I am sympathetic to the struggle by Libyan rebels, I am firmly against the United States taking any sort of military action against Libya in support of the rebels. I am not against the United States helping the Europeans take military actions, but for context, the US role should look and feel like the German contribution to Afghanistan - and I have to tell ya, that isn't saying much. As I watch events unfold I keep thinking to myself that if the US gets involved, we will eventually get stuck doing everything. Why? Because when you see what the Europeans want to do, it is all style and no substance - for example.

European Union and NATO ships should patrol the international waters off the coast of Libya to prevent arms smuggling and check on migrants trying to enter into the EU, Italy proposed Thursday.

In an informal 'non-paper' seen by the German Press Agency dpa, Italian officials called for 'a joint EU-NATO maritime surveillance operation off the Libyan coast to implement the arms embargo,' declared by the United Nations Security Council.

This call by the Italians is nothing more than a naval dog and pony show for domestic political consumption, because why would NATO or the EU need to blockade Libya when in fact there is no known threat at all of arms shipments being sent to Libya by sea - unless there is some intelligence that is being withheld by governments. Even if there is a ship with arms heading to Libya, does that really mean the U.S. Navy needs more presence?

Having at least 1 amphibious ship ready to respond to American civilians makes sense, but sending in a fleet to 'watch' Libya and enforce an arms embargo against a phantom fleet of arms smugglers does not. Right now we have 2 amphibious ships, a few other surface ships, and at least two submarines in the Med. I'd say that's about the right level of naval presence, and any more quickly becomes overkill and politics.

I also got a bit of a laugh out of this paper from CSBA (PDF) that examines options for a "no-fly zone" in Libya. I am don't know what is in the water at CSBA that made this sound like a good idea to publish, but I do question the seriousness of this proposal.

A third option would be to establish a partial no-fly zone using standoff systems that would take advantage of the fact that the vast majority of Libya’s population centers and air bases are located near its coastline. A combination of sea and air assets operating off the coast could enforce a no-fly zone covering most of Libya’s contested cities, including those hit by recent airstrikes. Ship-based Aegis radars and land-based AWACS aircraft could identify and track hostile aircraft at long range. Aircraft violating the no-fly zone could be intercepted using ship-based SM-2 surface-to-air missiles or land-based fighter aircraft armed with beyond-visual-range AIM-120 air-to-air missiles. This approach differs substantially from those employed in the Balkans and Iraq, and thus there is no historical cost basis upon which it can be compared. A notional plan would use three Aegis destroyers positioned off the coast in combination with persistent day and night coverage from AWACS aircraft and an associated combat air patrol. Given the operating cost of these systems and related munitions, this approach could cost in the range of $15 million to $25 million per week. Importantly, since the aircraft involved would remain off the coast of Libya and US forces would use standoff missiles to intercept aircraft violating the no-fly zone, strikes on Libyan air defenses may not be necessary.

Let me get this straight. The U.S. Navy cited before Congress in testimony that the anti-ship missile threat from Hezbollah was so credible that greater AAW capability in the U.S. Navy was needed, and the result at the time was the U.S. Navy truncating the DDG-1000. The same ASM threat by Hezbollah has been cited to suggest the U.S. Navy cannot get closer than 25 miles of shore to offload Marines.

But now we have defense professionals who believe the U.S. Navy can sit off the coastline of a nation, Libya, and shoot down aircraft like they are skeet, and not expect Libya to counter with every ASM in their inventory? I thought CSBA was being paid to dedicate time and resources to the anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) threat? Is the anti-ship missile threat by the political organization Hezbollah really a greater legitimate threat than the anti-ship missile threat by the nation of Libya?

If anyone wants to establish a "no-fly zone" in Libya, it starts with a declaration of war by Congress, because anything short of that is a boondoggle. There is no way any nation is going to run around and shoot down aircraft inside Libya without taking out the defense infrastructure including SAM and ASM sites, virtually the entire Libyan Navy, every airfield being used, every aircraft that is in the open on the ground, and every radar and electronic emission site. That means thousands of strike sorties just to set the conditions for a no-fly zone, because establishing air superiority is the prerequisite of any no-fly zone.

If the Europeans want to do that, we should support them, but we should not bail them out if it gets hard. In my opinion, Libya represents an opportunity for the US to make a serious mistake. The U.S. Navy is already stretched very thin given the maintenance situation and the recent increase in presence requirements of aircraft carriers in the 5th fleet. The very last thing the U.S. Navy needs right now is presence requirement creep from 6th fleet that will contribute towards stretching the U.S. Navy to a serious breaking point.

Robert Gates needs to be honest with the American people and admit the U.S. Navy is too small to address the requirement creep of non-strategic interests like Libya. If you think events like Libya are important to the United States, you need to start telling President Obama and Congress that the United States needs a bigger Navy.

Hopefully the President will not get caught up in feeling the need to participate in Europe's offshore dog and pony show. If they want to take action, I fully support the US helping our European allies, but we can legitimately support our European friends without adding Libya to the list of US military commitments.

Photo: MEDITERRANEAN SEA (March 3, 2024) The guided-missile destroyer USS Stout (DDG 55) transits the Mediterranean Sea. Stout is currently underway supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Gary A Prill/Released)

Somali, Piracy, and the UN

I suggest again my colleague Charli Carpenter on Somalia and the United Nations:

The diavlog also includes clips on Western support for the Somali government and the economics of Somali piracy.