Somalis Vow To Take Ship Back From Pirates

Port Official Says Force Will Be Used If Necessary Should Supertanker Anchor Near Port

(CBS/AP)  A Somali official has vowed to rescue a hijacked Saudi oil supertanker "by using force if necessary."

Abdullkadir Musa is the deputy sea port minister in northern Somalia's Puntland region, which is a hotspot for piracy. He says that if the ship anchors anywhere near Eyl - where the U.S. says it's heading - then his forces will rescue it.

The supertanker was carrying a crew of 25 and was laden with 2 million barrels of crude oil. It was hijacked over the weekend.

The ship's owners grappled with how to respond Tuesday, as naval forces patrolling the region said they would not intervene to stop or free the captured vessel.

With few other options, shipowners in past piracy cases have ended up paying ransoms for their ships, cargos and crew.

NATO said it would not divert any of its three warships from the Gulf of Aden and the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet also said it did not expect to send ships to try to intercept the MV Sirius Star. The tanker was seized over the weekend about 450 nautical miles off the Kenyan coast, the latest in a surge of pirate attacks this year.

Never before have Somali pirates seized such a giant ship so far out to sea.

Somalis on shore were stunned by the gigantic vessel - as long as an aircraft carrier at 1,080 feet - as it passed just off the coast on route to Eyl.

"As usual, I woke up at 3 a.m. and headed for the sea to fish, but I saw a very, very large ship anchored less than three miles off the shore," said Abdinur Haji, a fisherman near Harardhere, a pirate stronghold where the ship apparently anchored overnight, some 265 miles by land from Eyl.

"I have been fishing here for three decades, but I have never seen a ship as big as this one," he he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "There are dozens of spectators on shore trying to catch a glimpse of the large ship, which they can see with their naked eyes."

He said two small boats floated out to the ship and 18 men - presumably other pirates - climbed aboard with ropes woven into a ladder.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on Tuesday called the hijacking "an outrageous act" and said, "piracy, like terrorism, is a disease which is against everybody, and everybody must address it together." Speaking during a visit to Athens, he did not elaborate on what steps, if any, the kingdom would take to better protect its vital oil tankers.

It is not known if the Sirius Star had a security team on board.

Executives from Dubai-based company that owns and operates the vessel, Vela International Marine Ltd., a subsidiary of Saudi oil company Aramco, released a statement Tuesday saying they had been in contact with the hijackers and were "awaiting further contact from the pirates in control of the vessel".

"Our first and foremost priority is ensuring the safety of the crew," Salah B. Ka’aki, President & CEO of Vela International Marine Ltd. Said in the statement. "We are in communication with their families and are working toward their safe and speedy return."

It made no mention of a ransom or contacts with the bandits, but such companies have little choice but to pay out huge ransoms, usually totaling around $1 million, to ensure the safety of the crew and the vessel's return.

The Sirius Star's cargo is worth about $100 million at current prices, but the pirates have no way to unload it from the tanker.

In Vienna, Ehsan Ul-Haq, chief analyst at JBC Energy, said the seizure was not affecting oil prices, since traders are focused instead on "the overall economy."

The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet said Tuesday it was monitoring the situation but didn't expect to send warships to surround the vessel as it has done with a Ukrainian ship loaded with tanks and other weaponry the was seized off the Somali coast on Sept. 25 and remains in pirate hands.

"I don't anticipate any U.S. ships on station," said Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the 5th Fleet, speaking from its headquarters in Bahrain.

He would not elaborate on how the Navy was watching the hijacked tanker.

The U.S. Navy said the hijacking took place Saturday. The statement posted on Vela's Web site said the ship was hijacked Sunday. The discrepancy could not immediately be explained.

Attacks by Somali pirates have surged this year as bandits have become bolder, better armed and capable of operating hundreds of miles from shore.

A coalition of warships from eight nations, as well as from NATO and the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, is patrolling a critical zone in the Gulf of Aden leading to and from the Suez Canal. That's where most of the more than 80 attacks this year have occurred.

The Saudi tanker, however, was seized far to the south of the patrolled zone, according the U.S. Navy.

"NATO's mandate is not related to interception of hijacked ships outside the patrol area," said alliance spokesman James Appathurai. "I'm not aware that there's any intention by NATO to try and intercept this ship."

Meanwhile, a new cargo ship has been hijacked off the Somalia coast - the latest in a series of attacks by pirates operating out of the African country, the U.S. Navy said Tuesday.

Navy Commander Jane Campbell of the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet says the 26,000-ton bulk cargo carrier was attacked Tuesday in the Gulf of Aden.

She said the ship was flying a Hong Kong flag but is operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.

The status of the crew or its cargo were not known. Campbell says the ship is likely heading toward an anchorage site off the Somali coast.

The ship's name or other details were not immediately known.

[tmacm1]

During ww2 the navy would blockade and mine
the harbor entrance to ports where they wanted to keep shipping in or out of, why not do the same, Naval vessel''s stationed out side to stop the pirates from going in or out with their contraband, untill the issue is settled, and the prisoners freed.

[valvj]

ANY craft approaching one of these transport ships (or any ship going through the Canal--what if the pirates decide to take a cruise ship)that does not halt upon serious warning should immediately be fired upon before the pirates have a chance to fire off their weapons. Any craft with lawabiding people aboard would immediately leave the area. NO ONE should get by with piracy/hostage taking and these shippers are nuts for not being fully armed and ready to defend their employees and their cargo.

[sincity_q]

It will eventually happen that ''some'' ship will be seized and it WILL mean something more than a few gallons of gas or even an antique russian tank or two. When that finally does happen, there will be great moaning and gnashing of teeth as powerful and free nations join in a whiney, excuse making contest for allowing this to go on relatively unfettered. Statesmen will wring their hands, naval officers will take the lash and the world will wake one morning to find out that some WMD has fallen into the hands of pirates.

Oh my. What a scene it will be.

[babooph]

The propaganda system"assured" all Iran cannot block Hormuz-a few skinnies on a garbage skow can rip of the huge tanker&THEY CAN DO NOTHING!!!!!Am I the only one distrusting this BS??

It is time to set up a private International Security Force (ISF) with international volunteers under the control of the UN. The UN should adopt a resolution that the ISF will be authorized to act to defend property that is stationary or in transit. ISF should have its own forces but may also contract to get forces and equipment from other countries and companies. ISF should be initially funded by interested counties and corporations. Subsequently, ISF should charge for protection depending on the value of protected assets and the threat perception. Such a force is likely to eliminate the need for direct intervention by US and NATO military forces. For example, UN and ISF may negotiate with the government of Somalia and remove the bases of the pirates in the present situation. The mission of ISF should not be peace keeping but only asset protection from terrorists and pirates.

[magoo2u1]

I think the pirates must get from the ship to the shore. Seems an ideal time to drop an anvil or piano on them. A few 3 inch shells would do nice too I think.

[notblue]

bobnjersey, what an excellent plan! I''m with you, it''s far better than caving to the evil followed by just blaming ourselves.

[bobnjersey]

[Why not negotiate endlessly with the pirates, then send Jimmy Carter to the ship with suitcases full of money to gain release of the cargo? Each pirate could then be made chancellor of a major American university and end up teaching our children about multi-cultural values.]
[Posted by DeckardBR at 04:01 PM : Nov 18, 2008]

or we could take the other approach ... let''s call it the ''booty doctrine'' ... where we sink ''any'' ship moving anywhere near areas where ship hijacking is known to be common ... pre-emptively preventing the pirating ... by removing all pirate ships and the ships they would pirate. anything that doesn''t turn out as we plan we''ll blame on the intelligence.

[inketolstoy]

What do you say guys? Let''s go to the garage, grab some garden tools and a speedboat, and go pirating. Tanks; oil, it is all just floating out there for the taking. When I''m a pirate captain I''ll have a monkee in a captain costume instead of a parrot. Yeehaaw! I mean Argggg!

[tmittelstaed]

It''s cheaper to pay the million dollar ransoms than to take the steps to beef up security.
You could probably stop all piracy if you put a lot more armed guards on these ships, who could simply use machine guns to kill the pirates as they attempted to board. But you would need a LOT of guards because if the pirates are fired on, and they managed to gain control of the ship, they are certainly going to kill all the guards in retribution.
These shipping companies see only a handful of ships every year that get boarded, out of the thousands that they run. Beefing up guards on ALL ships would cost more than the ransom money. And if you have any crew or guard deaths, your going to have lawsuits and claims for money by the families which could quickly add up to the ransom. And if you do get into a firefight and your ship is sunk, not only do you have all the crew and their families demanding money, you have everyone who shipped anything on that boat demanding money too.
The only solution to this problem is for the Somalies to do the same thing that any civilized country does - use it''s internal equivalent to the FBI to infiltrate these pirate gangs, and pay off informants, and arrest them on land before they pirate anything. But, Somali is a mess internally and just can''t do that.

[jsf14]

I wonder whether our navy is developing any plans to deal with pirates who take crew and ship hostage and are probably willing to die. It''ll take a govenment policy decision to do what will also kill the civilian crew. Are there any demands we won;t meet if enough hostages are threatened?

[scallywag8]

I say send a decoy ship out in their waters full of explosives and a bunch of dummies on it and when they surround the ship blow it up.

[susanhelit]

In the past, the pirates have been paid ransoms - hefty ransoms - to leave the ship. That''s what they''re looking for. With the poverty of Somalia, the lawlessness - it doesn''t take much money for this to be incredibly worthwhile to them. One ship, a cut of even a small ransom, and a Somali pirate can be set for life - a wealthy life - in Somalia.

[uglyresult]

Pensacola98 wrote:

[Where will pirates take such a large vessel? Not many ports will even be an option for docking. This ship is more of a jail than a ship, because the pirates can''''t go far or undetected.

More than likely, the pirates are hoping for a partner to assist in their escape on open waters. Any one approaching the ship will be easily identifies. ]

It makes sense (from their perspective) to hold hostage 100M worth of oil destined for the USA, to gain 10M in ransom. Otherwise they blow it up, causing 100M direct loss, untold millions ecological loss and the publicity that goes with it.

Maybe a few AC-130 gunships protecting key tanker transports with a ring of fire would do the trick, but whatever, I think better preparedness and prevention is key here.

[au_fait]

a few points. I never said invade a country makes one stronger. You can build you might/resources and work with others to make yourself stronger. As for 9/11 on the republican watch, you are right it did. Much of it was set in gear though in years past. Some by republicans leadership and some by democaratic leadership. We as a country, have become weak. When attacked, we should attack with a vengence as we did during WWII. We should have never let the first WTC bombings and USS Cole incident go unanswered. We should not be in some of the areas we are as we are not the world''s policeman.

[johncarl54]

how does this happen? we have sattellites that can read a license plate from space. we have radar. how can a pirate approach a large ship with no one knowing about it. put a fire team on each ship. sink the pirate ships. this inaction is insane.

[susanhelit]

Big ships are slower, not faster than small ships - especially cargo vessels like that one. So they''re easy enough to catch.

And they don''t have guns on board - even if it was that easy to shoot another boat racing towards you, bobbing up and down in the water, as your ship does the same. They don''t have guns or weapons because it''s illegal, because of fears (well founded ones - this type of ruse has been used before) of supposed cargo vessels being used to stage an attack on one of the countries that lets them travel through their waters.

Somalia doesn''t have anything to do with this - other than being a poor country. What can they do about a group of 20-30 guys deciding to take a boat and some guns out and do piracy? How are they supposed to know who it is? If it was so easy to stop, we''d have managed to stop our own street gangs, drug runners, etc. It''s not that easy.

The Saudis - how do you figure out who did it? Somalia didn''t - individuals living there did. So attacking the country is out. The pirates are on the ship, so going after them at home is pointless. And no civilized country should hold wives and children as hostages, so that''s out too. So even if they can figure out exactly who is doing it - that doesn''t help this ship a bit. And there are a few thousand more Somalis - sitting there watching their children starve to death as other countries have plenty - who will take the pirates place, so long as there is any chance of money in this crime.

[bobnjersey]

[Teh republican party wanted to make the country stronger. The US citizens have become such pansies that they cannot stomach what it would take to make sure things of this nature will not occur. ]
[Posted by au_fait at 01:41 PM : Nov 18, 2008]

just an fyi ... invading soveign nations ... p!ssing off everyone around the world ... spending a trillion dollars ... and killing innocent civilians in the process does not make us stronger ... it just makes us look stupid.

[pensacola98]

Where will pirates take such a large vessel? Not many ports will even be an option for docking. This ship is more of a jail than a ship, because the pirates can''t go far or undetected.

More than likely, the pirates are hoping for a partner to assist in their escape on open waters. Any one approaching the ship will be easily identifies.

I think the world is about to see an amusing episode of "Worlds Most Stupid Criminals" unfolding in this event....just like a pick-pocket on an airplane in flight who tried to make a run for it.

[glidescube]

2 things

1. It is not our ship, so why get involved. If we do some whiney liberal will *** about it.
2. The incident with the USS Cole happened during a democratic presidency. So don''''t say it was a repulicon''''s fault. Teh republican party wanted to make the country stronger. The US citizens have become such pansies that they cannot stomach what it would take to make sure things of this nature will not occur.


Posted by au_fait at 01:41 PM : Nov 18, 2008


1 Iraq is not our people either but we went in
anyways.

2 The 9/11 attacks were under the Reps watch so I guess tham makes you the bigger loser.