The fourth anniversary of the Faina’s capture

In September 2008, the Ukrainian MV Faina was captured by Somali pirates as it was heading from Mykolaiv, Ukraine to Mombasa, Kenya. The ship carried a cargo of Soviet-made T-72 tanks, mobile rocket launchers BM-1 GRAD, firearms, and other military equipment, allegedly destined for Kenya. The crew included 21 persons, 17 of whom were Ukrainian citizens, 3 Russian, and 1 Latvian. Only in the February of the next year did the pirates release the ship, and the crew were able to return home.

When this accident befell the Faina, it sparkled talk about how the Ukrainian government could protect their sailors, and if it can actually do it at all. However, the question still remains open.

Each year, dozens of ship owners from across the globe suffer losses as they have to pay ransom to the notorious Somali pirates for captured vessels and crews. Maritime trade routes, skirting the Somali coast, connect the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea, which through the Suez Canal joins the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The choice is either take the risk or double Africa – which is much longer and costlier. However, there is no lack in those who prefer to send their vessels round the Cape of Good Hope.

The reckoning of the One Earth Future Foundation, last year the global economy lost seven billion dollars thanks to Somali pirates. The pirates themselves got nearly 160 million. The rest is the ship owners’ cost of security, insurance, extra fuel, due to the need to increase the vessels’ cruising speed, etc. Some experts believe that the overall losses are blown-up, yet it is little solace to ship owners, who have to bear the brunt.

This rampant piracy is possible, first and foremost, due to a nearly complete anarchy in the country. After the dictator Siad Barre (who had been in office since 1969) was overthrown in 1991, Somalia immersed in a feud of clans and groupings, and was paralyzed by anarchy. The Transitional Federal Government, recognized by the international community, only exercises control over Mogadishu and its outskirts. This gives pirates a free hand and allows them to herd captured vessels in the bays and coves along the Somali coast with impunity, which they have been doing since 2004.

In this poor country, piracy is actually one of the few ways to earn a living. According to Chatham House, a British think tank, piracy provides employment to a lot of people, who either directly seize and rob vessels, guard hostages, or service pirates, or find work in the places where the earnings are pumped. The final destinations of the pirates’ earnings also guarantee higher wages.

Of course, today the maritime routes in the region are being patrolled by warships of the world’s leading naval powers, which aspire to oppose rovers. The International Naval Bureau noted that in the first half of this year, criminals captured or attempted at capturing three times fewer vessels than over the same period last year, i.e. nearly 70. But it is insufficient to uproot piracy in Somalia: as far back as in 2008, the US Department of Defense admitted that even the joint naval forces of all countries would not accomplish such a task, and the international community should try solving some of Somalia’s economic and political problems, which are conducive to piracy.

A hope for some kind of stability is promised by the presidential election in Somalia, which is to be the first such event in half a century. It was to have taken place on August 20 but was indefinitely postponed: the head of state must be elected by a new corps of 275 MPs, but at the moment they are only 215. The rest of candidates were rejected due to differences among the clans by the technical committee, which approves parliamentary candidates, handpicked by the elders. Rampant corruption and frequent violations of law also contributed to the delay.

Somalia is perhaps equally divided into the opponents and proponents of change. The same can be said of foreigners. Stability is much desired by several million starving locals, yet it is not welcomed by those who profiteer by pilfering the humanitarian aid. It is desired by ship owners, and abhorred by pirates as well as insurers, who have considerably raised insurance costs for the vessels bound to pass the Somali coast. It would be a boon for Somali fishermen but a bane for the poachers plowing the local waters, and the merchants in the huge weapons black market.

After all, on governmental level it is necessary for Somalia, but hardly for its neighbors like Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya, all of which have numerous Somali communities: the control of all territories with Somali population was a goal, which Somalia proclaimed back in 1960. It waged a war against Ethiopia in 1977-78, and later Ethiopia became a shelter for the insurgents fighting against Siad Barre’s regime. In 2006, Ethiopia used the US support to invade Somalia under the pretext of fighting Islamic fundamentalist movement Ash-Shabaab (Islam is a deeply-rooted religion in the country). Since last year, Ethiopian troops have again been engaged in a war with Ash-Shabaab, siding with the Transitional Government, acknowledged by the UN. As for the UN military forces, they left Somalia in 1995.

Even the major global players, who try to put the region to rights, the existence of a hot spot here gains additional leverage for pressurizing other countries. Our readers will remember the capture of the Iranian bulk carrier Iran Deyanat by Somali pirates. Later, media reported that it had been carrying chemical weapons for Eritrea’s Islamic insurgents. The US immediately imposed sanctions against Iran’s major national maritime carrier, IRISL, and its 18 branches, accusing them of illegal arms trafficking for Iran’s Ministry of Defense.

The motley camp of Somalia’s opponents of law and order suggests a wide range of methods of influence and control, from political procedures to terror attacks. Should the president be elected in future, however, it does not mean that illegal groups will soon vanish. The country has been divided for years, splitting into several states, and recovery will not be speedy.

So it is most likely that in the near future everyone, from ship companies to entire nations, which fight pirates, will continue to suffer additional loss. For Ukraine it means that its citizens will continue incurring risk: in 2008-11, pirates attacked 42 vessels with 196 Ukrainian crew members on board; of these, 31 foreign vessels with 155 Ukrainians on board have been captured. Ukraine is second only to the Philippines by the number of pirate attacks on vessels carrying its citizens. And if at first the crews had only had to suffer certain inconvenience, like bad food, while pirates treated them without excessive cruelty, now risks have considerably grown, including a risk to life. This is the consequence of the military having often relentlessly killed pirates, which has only made things worse. So pirates become crueler, and casualties are inevitable.

Back in November 2010, Ukraine joined the EU’s Atalanta anti-piracy naval operation. This year, a Ukrainian aircraft is to be sent to the operation theater on a sea surveillance mission.

Next year the Ukrainian Navy’s frigate Hetman Sahaidachny is scheduled to take part in the international Operation Sea Shield, which is expected to last throughout 2014. The big landing craft Kostiantyn Olshansky, with a Marine unite on board, may also participate in the operation.

Meanwhile, today the most efficient means of anti-pirate security is putting guards on vessels. The owners have long been hiring armed troops for this. Even the convoys accompanied by warships cannot be risk-proof: the pirates resort to clever ruses and manage to capture vessels even from such convoys. Moreover, many ship owners find convoy schedules inconvenient.

At a certain point, Ukraine was ready to send troops to the Somali coast. However, such a step would require amendments to Ukrainian legislation and international maritime law: according to effective legislation, special SBU and Ministry of Defense units can only be deployed on other countries’ warships.

COMMENTARY

“ALL HYDRONAVIGATION FACILITIES, WHICH FORMALLY BELONG TO UKRAINE, ARE ACTUALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION’S BLACK SEA FLEET”

Volodymyr PRYTULA, expert, project “Crimean Political Dialog” (awarded the Decoration of the Commander of Ukraine’s Navy for assistance in the reconstruction of Ukraine’s navy):

“Over the recent years, Ukraine has taken certain steps to improve institutional possibility to rescue its citizens in extreme situations at sea. These include not only pirate attacks, but also natural disasters. However, today a number of key obstacles remain. All of them are confined to exclusively political planes. In particular, this concerns the relations between Ukraine, the US, and the Russian Federation.

“The crackdown on democratic processes in the country has resulted in a rapid chilling of Ukraine-US relations. Consequently, the process of employing Ukraine’s warships in the system of anti-pirate security is procrastinated. A Ukrainian warship is known to be preparing for an international anti-piracy operation. It is scheduled to start its mission next year. However, according to the previous deadline, it was supposed to be ready back in 2011. The absence of political will in the upper echelons of power stalled the preparation project.

“Therefore, today the year 2013 is nothing but a formal deadline, by which the Ukrainian warship should have started for the anti-piracy mission. Yet chances are high that even in 2013 the ship will still be not ready, or it will not be accepted – for political, rather than technical, reasons.

“The question of safe navigation in Ukraine’s territorial waters is still open today. All hydronavigation facilities, which formally belong to Ukraine, are actually under the control of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet. In other words, they are under occupation. Since these facilities (lighthouses and suchlike property) had never been leased to the Russian Federation, the Black Sea Fleet effectively captured them, and is still keeping them by force. The Russian Federation refuses to comply with all court rulings on the Ukrainian navigation facilities. On the other hand, Ukraine does not seem too intent on standing its ground.

“Today, Ukraine is unable to fully guarantee navigation safety in its territorial waters. In my view, all responsibility for the captured vessels and procrastination with rescue measures lies with the government, which is incapable of controlling navigation in its own waters.”

By Alla DUBROVYK, The Day