Friday, January 11, 2024
Airpower vs. Jointness
In the interest of equal time, I link here to a piece by an Air Power advocate who argues for the supremacy of the Air Force at the expense of Jointness. As I am familiar with a cousin of this argument (insert "Seapower" and "U.S. Navy"), it was interesting to read this work I can't even begin to catalog my disagreements with the logic here, but we could do no better than to start with his assertion that "...wars are always won in the air, never on the ground." I take a lot of potshots at the Army and land forces, but I am careful never to forget that it is the taking and occupying of the other guy's land and stuff that wins wars, and that is the job of land power.
The Coming Russian Naval Modernization
The modernization of Russia's ballistic missile submarine force and the introduction of the first of this new ballistic missile submarine is obviously not a trivial event, but there is nothing about this modernization of an existing historical capability that impacts strategic balance, so it isn't exactly a big deal either.
What I thought was the big deal today were the comments delivered by President Vladimir Putin during a conference call with the crew while celebrating this milestone. I actually had to spend time searching through the original Russian reports to verify what is reported here by the AP is legit.
President Vladimir Putin congratulated the Yuri Dolgoruky’s crew during a conference call Thursday, hailing the ship as a “powerful weapon that will guarantee our security.”This is the latest affirmation and yet another specifically detailed budget point related to the frequently promised and yet to be delivered Russian Navy buildup expected to take place this decade. Think about the math of this.
“Submarines of that class will become an important element of sea-based strategic forces, a guarantor of global balance and security of Russia and its allies,” Putin said.
Commissioning of the new submarines is part of an ambitious arms modernization program that envisages spending more than 20 trillion rubles ($657 billion) on new weapons through 2020.
Putin said Thursday that 4 trillion rubles ($132 billion) of that money will be spent on commissioning the new submarines and other navy ships. “Modernization of the navy is one of the most important priorities in our work to strengthen the armed forces,” he said.
Putin said the navy will commission the total of eight Borei-class ICBM nuclear submarines and eight nuclear submarines of a different Yasen class intended to hunt for enemy ships.
If we count fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 we can take those eight years and divide them by $132 billion US.
That means Russia will supposedly spend $16.5 billion US on shipbuilding for the rest of the decade through 2020. They plan on building lots of smaller warships, submarines, and all types of auxiliary vessels - and sometimes they suggest they will build capital ships, but I'll believe that when I see it.
But the key point is that Russia continues to publicly state they will spend $16.5 billion US annual average through 2020 for naval shipbuilding. According to Eric Labs at CBO, the US Navy plans to spend an average of $11.8 billion on naval shipbuilding from 2013-2017 and an average of $18.5 billion on naval shipbuilding from 2018-2022, resulting in a 10 year average for naval shipbuilding of $16.8 billion from 2013-2022.
While I don't have the specific numbers that Eric Labs does, by my estimates it looks to me like that if Russia really is spending $16.5 billion US from 2013-2020 on shipbuilding, they will spend more money on average through 2020 on naval shipbuilding this decade than the US Navy will.
I note this is a Russian naval modernization, not a buildup, as the new ships will be replacing the current fleet of old warships that are presently in very poor condition, and many of which are barely functional relics from the cold war. With that said, this looks to me to be very similar to the rapid modernization China's Navy underwent from 2003 to 2010, a modernization that allowed China to replace many of their old vessels with new warships fielding modern technology. Worth noting, China's shipbuilding sector is much more efficient than Russia's shipbuilding sector is, so it may not be until 2025 before Russia finishes building the ships they claim they will fund through 2020.
The 21st century is being called the maritime century by several people, not because of what the US Navy is doing, but because of what the rest of the world is doing with their naval power.
Thursday, January 10, 2024
An Open Letter to America Regarding Chuck Hagel
 |
| AP Photo |
As a result, since May of 1989 the United States has been at war for about the same number of months the United States has been at peace, and we can only find peaceful months by not counting military operations in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Philippines, and other military enforced foreign policies like the sustained No-Fly Zone over Iraq in the 1990s.
For almost a quarter of a century, military forces have been engaged in indefinitely sustained global military operations requiring an unprecedented deployment and operational tempo straining every level of the Department of Defense. As the nation added two wars in the Middle East and Southwest Asia over the last decade while sustaining our military garrisons across Europe, Korea, and Japan, the cost of sustaining the National Security Policy and National Defense Strategy that has barely changed since the end of the cold war has become untenable as the nations economic problems have finally caught up to us.
With the withdrawal of military forces from the theaters of war in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and with the economic challenges having slowly piled up to the point that politicians are left with no good options in fixing the nations financial situation, the time has come for the nation to adopt a new more sustainable National Security Policy and National Defense Strategy better suited to the demands of changing global economic and geopolitical conditions and affordable under the new financial realities of a nation straining to fund a government that spends far more money than tax revenues can support.
It is against this backdrop - in this critical strategic moment in our nations history - as a nation still fighting a war in Afghanistan with no definitive political victory conditions, and at a time when our nations most important economic partner China is engaged in a relentless cyber espionage campaign against us in the pursuit of stealing our most advanced technologies, the Democratic President of the United States Barack Obama has appointed former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense to usher in the most important strategic realignment of the United States Department of Defense since the end of the cold war.
This is the most important moment of legitimate strategic defense realignment for America heading into the 21st century, but no one is treating it that way, yet. The New York Times has a passionate defense of Chuck Hagel's credentials regarding the issues of Iran and defending Israel - issues that are decided by the entire National Security cabinet btw, and for good measure The Washington Post, CNN, Foreign Policy, ABC News, TIME, and every celebrity in defense willing to speak up is also passionately defending Chuck Hagel on these important but in context peripheral issues. We even have plenty of commentary regarding Chuck Hagel's incredibly strategic irrelevant political position on homosexuality in the military.
But we have yet to see a single serious word spoken by Chuck Hagel reported by the media as it relates to the magnitude of the job the man has been nominated for.
Commentary
We are in for a whole lot of stupid with the Chuck Hagel nomination process ramping up unless something changes in Washington DC and people suddenly decide to become serious. This is normally about the time where James Joyner at the Atlantic Council would write a very smart article and throw the bullshit flag at the media with a compelling editorial that would get everyone to screw their head back on tight enough to think about the magnitude of the job Chuck Hagel has been nominated for. Unfortunately for America, Chuck Hagel is coming from the Atlantic Council, so we are going to go without the wisdom of James Joyner on this particular nomination.
The partisan think tanks have to date demonstrated the inability to be serious about the Chuck Hagel nomination. AEI is currently featuring an article by Jonah Goldberg on their website with remarkably sophomoric personal attack rhetoric that describes Hagel as "never overburdened with too heavy a reputation for insight, knowledge, or humility." The Heritage Foundation fails to inspire a single intelligent thought among their readers with the headline "Iran Endorses Obama Pick Hagel for U.S. Secretary of Defense." For slightly more informative commentary, which is unfortunately little more than a partisan endorsement rather than an original opinion or serious commentary equal to the magnitude of the nomination, see Hayes Brown over at Think Progress.
It is hard for me to imagine that anyone who is serious or expects to ever be taken seriously regarding issues related to the National Defense of the United States wouldn't have legitimate questions for any nominee for Secretary of Defense at this point in time in American history. Every single person in military service or employee of the Department of Defense is going to be directly impacted professionally to a greater degree by this nomination than any other leadership or policy change within the Department of Defense for the rest of their career.
It is a close competition between Michele Flournoy and Ashton Carter if the evaluation for Secretary of Defense is specific to the most qualified person to assume the Secretary of Defense position at this point in time in American history, so the appointment of Chuck Hagel by President Obama is unquestionably in part due to partisan politics and not singularly about merit. The problem with the appointment by President Obama heavily emphasizing politics is that it raises legitimate questions whether the President himself understands the incredible importance of the nomination as the nation begins a transition towards a new National Defense Strategy that will guide our nation well into the 21st century. We are talking about the realignment of national defense priorities for the worlds only superpower, and when appointing Hagel it doesn't help when the President himself leads by making the issue political partisanship.
The President chose the Republican Chuck Hagel in belief it will be politically easier for a Republican nominee to execute and manage the budgetary and force structure contractions that are coming to the Department of Defense while the Department of Defense realigns towards a sustainable National Defense Strategy executed with a smaller military. Keep in mind, it doesn't matter who the nominee is, whether it is Chuck Hagel, Michele Flournoy, or Ashton Carter - the contraction of the Department of Defense Budget is going to happen this year, and that will result in major changes to the force structure of the United States military. The next Secretary of Defense will be the most important decision maker in the room determining what strategic choices are made and those choices will drive decision making for the future force structure of the United States military heading into the next quarter of the 21st century.
What are Chuck Hagel's priorities when making difficult strategic choices as they relate to the Department of Defense's role in protecting American interests globally? How does Chuck Hagel envision the United States sustaining global assurance to allies and presence in regions of national interest with a contracted Department of Defense budget? What is the role of American military power heading into the next quarter of the 21st century? What is Chuck Hagel's vision for the National Defense Strategy of the United States in the 21st century? How will Chuck Hagel prioritize his strategic choices related to force structure? Given the questions already related to America's interests as they relate to our alliance with Israel, what exactly are the greater ends of US National Defense Strategy including outside the Middle East? Which means should be prioritized to execute towards those ends? How will the DoD execute policy with a smaller budget and different force structure? Contraction will be managed under what guiding principles?
These are only a few of the dozens of important questions that need to be asked by serious people who demand a serious response from any nominee for Secretary of Defense at this moment in time, and yet all we are reading about in the media is Chuck Hagel's position on Israel and Iran, and whether Chuck Hagels views on homosexuality in the military are different today than they were ten years ago.
If Chuck Hagel wants to be Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel needs to step up and start talking like he is the serious person the nation needs right now to take on the serious challenges facing the Department of Defense, or he can continue to dodge uninformed and completely irrelevant questions by the political bitch class of Washington DC and insure his status in American history as the wrong man at the wrong moment. This nomination is Chuck Hagel's to lose, and he is playing right into the political games of his critics. If he keeps talking about the interests of Israel or entertains the focus of his record related to homosexuality, he is going to get an enema from the FOGO crowd who will spade him sideways through his critics the second he tries to be credible in the Pentagon on the very serious issues facing the Department of Defense. By entertaining the irrelevant issues he is being blasted for by his critics, he is slowly becoming the self-fulfilling prophecy of failure his critics are predicting he will be.
Chuck Hagel either needs to get serious by talking to the media about the serious issues facing the DoD to prove himself to be the right man for job at this moment in time, or move over so serious people like Michele Flournoy or Ashton Carter can step up and wear the big boy pants.
As for his Republican critics, it makes no sense that he would even care what they are saying. I haven't read a single article written by someone described as an Expert working at Heritage or AEI that has prioritized a strategic choice facing the Department of Defense related to force structure to date in the 21st century, so it isn't like Hagel would be going without some important unique insight or advice on upcoming difficult strategic choices by ignoring them completely, unless we describe the calls for "more government spending" for defense in the name of Reagan conservatism as somehow insightful advice.
Chuck Hagel, either step up or step aside. These are serious times, are you the serious leader needed in the Department of Defense in this time of strategic realignment?
If you are, you have my full support.
Wednesday, January 9, 2024
The Sense of Congress on Amphibious Ships
 |
| Proposed MLP and AFSB option for LSD(X) |
There is one section in the bill that I do want to highlight though. This reads like something inserted by a lobbyist, and it doesn't belong in my opinion.
SEC. 131. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON MARINE CORPS AMPHIBIOUS LIFT AND PRESENCE REQUIREMENTS.
a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
- The Marine Corps is a combat force that leverages maneuver from the sea as a force multiplier allowing for a variety of operational tasks ranging from major combat operations to humanitarian assistance.
- The Marine Corps is unique in that, while embarked upon naval vessels, they bring all the logistic support necessary for the full range of military operations and, operating ‘‘from the sea’’, they require no third-party host nation permission to conduct military operations.
- The Navy has a requirement for 38 amphibious assault ships to meet this full range of military operations.
- Due only to fiscal constraints, that requirement of 38 vessels was reduced to 33 vessels, which adds military risk to future operations.
- The Navy has been unable to meet even the minimal requirement of 30 operationally available vessels and has submitted a shipbuilding and ship retirement plan to Congress that will reduce the force to 28 vessels.
- Experience has shown that early engineering and design of naval vessels has significantly reduced the acquisition costs and life-cycle costs of those vessels.
- the Department of Defense should carefully evaluate the maritime force structure necessary to execute demand for forces by the commanders of the combatant commands;
- the Navy should carefully evaluate amphibious lift capabilities to meet current and projected requirements;
- the Navy should consider prioritization of investment in and procurement of the next generation of amphibious assault ships as a component of the balanced battle force;
- the next generation amphibious assault ships should maintain survivability protection;
- operation and maintenance requirements analysis, as well as the potential to leverage a common hull form design, should be considered to reduce total ownership cost and acquisition cost; and
- maintaining a robust amphibious ship building industrial base is vital for the future of the national security of the United States.
To me this looks a lot like some Marine Corps General and his industry buddies throwing their weight around via Congress to try an influence the Analysis of Alternatives taking place regarding the LSD(X). Congress should not be trying to influence the decision unless they are ready to pony up the big bucks for what they are basically calling for - which to me sounds like more LPD-17s.
From what I understand, LSD(X) will be a design to cost ship. The recurring cost (ship 3 and beyond) is pegged to be about $1.2 billion in the shipbuilding budget. That makes the LPD-17 hull a nonstarter without a significant increase in cash from Congress.
The Marines face several challenges in dealing with amphibious requirements, but two stand out as important challenges that must be addressed. The first challenge is that the lift footprint of the amphibious MEB is growing, and the second challenge is that the MPS squadron only carries about 70% of the MEB's equipment. With limited funding and only one platform in the shipbuilding plan able to address these issues - the LSD(X) - folks are either going to have to get creative to solve these challenges, or accept that the challenges will not be solved.
The LSD(X) is a choice between 4 alternatives.
The first choice is a new build, best possible lift vessel for $1.2 billion recurring. I have no idea what design that would be, but if we are being honest it almost certainly wouldn't be anything similar to a current LSD if it is going to meet the stated requirements.
The second choice is for a LPD-17 mod, best possible for $1.2 billion recurring. I do not believe that is possible, but I'm sure there is a shipbuilding guru who other Marines call "General" willing and ready to convince a gullible politician it is possible. Experts I have spoken to in NAVSEA say it's not possible, and I'll trust their expertise and opinion over any Marine General when it comes to shipbuilding.
The third choice is to use a foreign design brought up to NVR standard at a cost of no more than $1.2 billion recurring with the third ship. The design that is specifically highlighted with this option is the French Mistral class. The ships would be built at a US shipyard. There is not a consensus whether these ships can be built in a US shipyard for $1.2 billion recurring.
The fourth option is to build two ships - a MLP and an AFSB - and use the combination of both ships to replace the single LSD. The idea is for the AFSB vessel to cover both the lift for amphibious groups and carry residual lift for the MPS MEB while MLP serves as a well deck surrogate. What is important to understand here is that the AFSB design would actually be a non-mil spec LPH with a limited hanger capacity, but it gives the option for that vessel to carry forward the helicopters in an ARG while the LHA/LHD operates 20 JSFs. Neither the MLP or AFSB would be a gray hull though, which is a major reason why old school Marine Generals who have been doing amphibious assaults for 30 years (cough!) hate the idea.
When I read Section 131 of the 2013 National Defense Act, what I read as "Sense of Congress" actually represents the traditionalists mindset on amphibious capability and their Gulf coast lobby buddies.
But the bottom line is this. The fourth option is the only option that will actually meet the capacity requirements for amphibious lift and the MPS, but I fully expect the United States Marine Corps to outright reject the very suggestion of any option away from the traditional 3 ship ARG. The third option for a foreign design will be rejected solely because it is a foreign design, even though the logic of that escapes me completely when the ships are being built in US shipyards. A new design is possible but unlikely, and until we see more in-house design expertise in NAVSEA I can't say that is necessarily a bad thing.
So ultimately I fully expect the final choice for the LSD(X) to be a LPD-17 mod that the Navy budget cannot afford, and in the end I suspect the Marine Corps will end up with about 8 LSD(X) because that is all they can afford.
But if it was me, I would go for the MLP + AFSB concept. I believe it carries with it the highest risk, but I also believe it would give the Marine Corps the most flexibility when it comes to operations at sea. In my opinion it is much easier for the USMC to remain a relevant national defense asset when they are operating from more ships than when they are operating from fewer ships, and the MLP + AFSB option puts Marines on well over 40 vessels that deploy frequently, vs less than 30 possible vessels that deploy less frequently when one picks the quality LPD-17 mod option.
Lawfare and NGO Maritime Actors
 |
| In this undated photo released by Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, its new Antarctic patrol ship SSS Sam Simon steams on the sea. (AP Photo/Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Carolina A. Castro) |
While it wasn't the first time I had been exposed to that concept, his presentation of what a potential future role of the maritime NGO might look like inspired several ideas in my mind, and I admit I have thought about the topic in the way he presented it many times since. Due almost entirely to the his answer that night, I began paying closer attention to the activities of the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society, perhaps the most renowned of the modern legitimate NGOs currently filling the maritime shadow zone in the Southern Ocean.
Did that word bother you? The word I refer to is legitimate, which does require some definition and I am open to adopting a different word for the lexicon if you have any suggestions. Maritime piracy, maritime banditry, smuggling and trafficking, oil theft, and a host of other criminal activities at sea are conducted by non-legitimate non-governmental actors in various places in the world. While causes may be increased population density of coastlines, poor regional governance and failed states, or the absence of an effective regional maritime security enforcement agency, criminal activity on the seas - particularly in the littorals - is not going away anytime soon. As more commercial interests emerge offshore and as the commercial population on the seas increase in the maritime domain, it should be expected that criminal activity on the seas will increase, and as the recent history of Somalia shows us; well financed enterprises will emerge as well.
But it is the trend of legitimate NGOs that interests me most, and regardless of what you think about the organization or their politics, the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society is a legitimate non-profit non-governmental organization. Legitimacy means a lot of things, but first and foremost being a legitimate NGO means the organization can be held to the rule of law, when applicable.
To celebrate the upcoming sixth season of Whale Wars, the political struggle between the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society and Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research has moved beyond clashes at sea that somewhat resemble non-lethal irregular maritime warfare activities towards another type of political combat often found in war zones: Lawfare.
A U.S. appeals court ordered American anti-whaling activists to keep 500 yards away from Japanese whaling ships off Antarctica.In response to this injunction, and just days into the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society's latest anti-whaling campaign Operation Zero Tolerance, Paul Watson has relieved himself from duty.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction against the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which sends vessels every December to disrupt whale killings by Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research.
The whalers sued Sea Shepherd last year to prevent the protesters from interfering, but the judge refused to grant the request.
The 9th Circuit ordered Sea Shepherd not to approach any of the Japanese vessels until it can rule on the merits of the whalers' appeal.
Japan's whaling fleet kills up to 1,000 whales a year for research. Whale meat not used for study is sold as food in Japan, which critics say is the real reason for the hunts.
For the 35 years since I founded the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society I have strived to act non-violently and within the boundaries of the law.
Sea Shepherd has never been a protest organization nor have we engaged in civil disobedience. We are an anti-poaching organization established to uphold international conservation law. We operate within the guidelines of the United Nations World Charter for Nature that allows for intervention by non-profit non-governmental organizations and individuals to uphold international conservation law.
During Sea Shepherd’s long history we have never caused a single injury to any person. Although we have broken some bureaucratic regulations like Canada’s so called Seal Protection Act, we did so to challenge the validity of these regulations, which were in contradiction to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In all other respects we have always operated within the boundaries of the law, both international and national.
In 1998 Sea Shepherd USA complied with the order by the United States Coast Guard to not approach within a thousand yards of the Makah whaling operation in Washington State.
I myself have never been convicted of a felony crime.
And for this reason, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the United States and myself as a U.S. citizen must comply with the order by the 9th Circuit court of the United States.
Because I have been personally named in the injunction I have resigned as the President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in the United States and as President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Australia. I have also resigned my position of Executive Director of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society USA and I will hold no paid position with Sea Shepherd anywhere Sea Shepherd is registered and operates as a non-profit organization in any nation.
I have also stepped down as campaign leader for Operation Zero Tolerance. Former Greens Party leader and former Australian Senator, Bob Brown of Tasmania will now hold this position.
I have also stepped down as Captain of the Steve Irwin. Captain Siddharth Chakravarty of India is now in command of the Steve Irwin. The other three Captains are citizens of Sweden, France and Australia.
As a United States citizen, I will respect and comply with the ruling of the United States 9th District Court and will not violate the temporary injunction granted to the Institute for Cetacean Research. I will participate as an observer within the boundaries established by the 9th Circuit Court of the United States.
Some people pick sides in the struggle between Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research and the Sea Sheperd Conservation Society. Don't be that guy, because the actual politics of either side of their issues have absolutely nothing to do with our interest in their disputes here at ID.
I have no idea how much money Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research is spending on their legal battle against the Sea Sheperd organization in the 9th Circuit court, but it is probably a lot. What have they accomplished? They basically turned Paul Watson into a living martyr, able to freely roam around the planet fundraising for more activities against Japanese whalers, but they haven't accomplished anything else.
And that is the key point here - Lawfare is going to be a fact of life for legitimate maritime NGOs that conduct any engaging activity at sea. However, I also expect that legitimate non-governmental organizations are going to be able shuffle resources around multiple countries under any number of Flags until they find a legal system supportive of their organizational goals - and by doing so avoid legal consequences solely by avoiding legal jurisdictions.
Until now Sea Sheperd has been the largest legitimate maritime NGO operating in the maritime shadow zones, but an even larger organization is about to step up and unlike the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, these guys will be packing heat!
A private navy founded by businessmen, former marines, retired captains and soldiers will protect its first group of oil tankers and bulk carriers from pirates in the Indian Ocean in late March or April, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.Also worth noting this particular NGO is bringing it's own brand of political celebrity.
Typhon, a venture formed by a group of U.K. businessmen led by Glencore International’s Chairman Simon Murray, will recruit 240 former marines and sailors for its navy...
Typhon, the company behind the venture, is chaired by Simon Murray, a millionaire businessman who joined the French Foreign Legion as a teenager and walked unsupported to the South Pole aged 63.
Typhon has been set up because the Royal Navy, NATO and the European Union Naval Force lack the vessels to patrol an area of ocean that is as large as North America, said Anthony Sharp, chief executive. "They can't do the job because they haven't got the budget and deploying a billion-pound warship against six guys (pirates) with $500 of kit is not a very good use of the asset," he said.
Typhon said its aim is to deter pirates from attacking its convoys, rather than engaging in firefights.
The pirates will face former marines in armoured patrol boats capable of 40 knots and able to withstand incoming Kalashnikov fire. They will be armed with close-quarter battle weapons, such as the M4 carbine, and sniper rifles with a range of 2km.
Other Typhon directors include Admiral Henry Ulrich, former commander of US Naval Forces Europe, General Sir Jack Deverell, former commander in chief Allied Forces Northern Europe, and Lord Dannatt, former chief of the general staff.The last major commercial vessel hijacked off Somalia was MT Royal Grace, a Panama-flagged oil tanker owned by a UAE-based company that was hijacked on March 2, 2012.... 10 months ago! The last pirate attack on a commercial vessel came Saturday when a merchant vessel was able to repel an attack when USS Halyburton (FFG 40) responded and all pirates were rounded up by the French Frigate FS Surcouf (F 711).
Some are calling this a private Navy, but there is very little difference in modern international law between Typhon's private Navy and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. One organization is arming themselves with weapons like rancid butter and the other is using bullet proof fast boats armed with ex-Marines fielding M4s and sniper rifles.
But there is a big difference between Somali pirates and Japanese whalers, right? A more legitimate question is how different are Somali pirates and Somali fisherman?
There are a lot of people making a lot of money on the Japanese whaling industry. There are also a lot of people making a lot of money on the Somali piracy industry.
The Typhon private Navy is not something radical, although it also doesn't really have a lot in common with the 19th century articles of marque either, despite the appearance of similarities. Typhon represents the next evolution of a maritime NGO setting up shop in the worlds most popular ungoverned maritime shadow zone. Over the next few years and in response to increased resource competitions offshore in greater frequency and intensity, organizations like the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society that are engaged in political activism and organizations like Typhon that are engaged in armed maritime security are going to become more common as global naval power trends towards more expensive, less numerous high end capability combat platforms that will almost certainly leave huge gaps in global maritime naval coverage necessary for good governance at sea.
With no unified ruleset governing the laws of the maritime domain, we should only expect these early examples to be carried forward as precedents. What does an armed fishery protection NGO in the South China Sea look like five years from now, and could such an entity be the catalyst for a proxy war in the South China Sea? If I am the Japanese government and I'm looking for a way of disrupting Chinese fishing vessels operating in my EEZ, I'm not sure why I wouldn't be looking at exactly this type of low cost, unofficial solution. When naval power lacks the strength, authority, or interest to enforce maritime security, alternatives will and are emerging, and I do wonder if the ruleset we are allowing to be set forth by others is actually in our long term national interest. The maritime NGO was an issue easy to ignore when it was the Sea Sheperd hippies, but now we are seeing a well funded, armed maritime NGO with significant political ties to major maritime nations.
I have no idea how maritime NGOs will continue to evolve, but one thing I am sure of... I won't be surprised the day Henry Ulrich is specifically named in some lawsuit in a US court in the future related to the murder of an AK-47 wielding Somali fisherman off the coast of Somalia, because when it comes to legitimate maritime NGOs, Lawfare is one of many expected consequences.
Additional Notes:
Midrats will be having a three year anniversary special this Sunday. I look forward to it.
The legal troubles for Paul Watson are bigger than simply the 9th circuit ruling. If that topic interests you, this link probably will too (PDF).
More on the Sea Sheperd here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)