Somali Pirates Hijack Yacht with Four Americans Aboard

[downunder]

Where are the navy patrols??

Clearly they don't give a stuff about crusiers - only their own countries commercial shipping.

[matauwhi]

G'day, mates. Our thoughts will be the crew of SV Quest for a positive outcome in a very difficult, life threatening, situation. We also feel fortunate that life presented us with an option to base out of New Zealand and continue to enjoy cruising long term in the South Pacific.

[Ex-pat]

I might be forgiven for thinking this issue is not about the choices cruisers make, and instead about the choices sovereign nations refuse to make.

However this time it's personal ... i.e. it's an American yacht ... native to a nation with supposedly the most powerful military in the world with the supposedly most powerful navy in the world.

Let's see if Barack and the US Navy have the B*LLs to do what the French and South Koreans were not afraid to.......

[downunder]

I hope thay have but not so sure based on the British Navy and their lack of B***s in the highjack of the British couple watching it go down.

[BlueWaterSail]

Originally Posted by svBeBe

Insurance carriers for the large ships continue to pay and point the finger at governments and governments, like mine, continue to point the finger at the insurance companies and the people who transit these seas.

I say, give the navies of the world a free hand to solve this problem and the problem will be eliminated...how many US Marines do you think it will take? The answer is a finite number and the mission is achievable with minimal casualties...unfortunately our politicians want a guaranty of zero casualties from our armed forces...hopefully we could be that lucky, but no amount of skill or planning will get us to "guaranteed zero casualties."

It takes guts to make a decision to solve this problem.

I don't think it is a matter of guts, more plain old economics.

The insurance companies are paying because they then recoup the money by jacking premiums, which every single one of the shipping companies pass on down to - you guessed it - us! So we actually pay the ransoms.

Second, the government is not interested in spending millions to maintain a fleet of navy ships in the IO without something in return - A few somalis in a skiff isn't much of a return, is it?

Finally, the government will tell you that you ultimately knew of the danger, and chose to put yourself at risk. So when bad things happen, you take responsibility.

Maybe a solution to the piracy issue lies in the private sector - a private security force that accompanies merchant ships, and is paid a percentage of the ransom for every attack they foil. As a result everyone gets off cheaper, and the flood of cash into Somali piracy would be cut off. No money, no more pirates.

This would appear to be an excellent opportunity for those soldiers of fortune types, though economics might not be their strong suit.

BWS

[David_Old_Jersey]

The Somali Pirate problem could be solved overnight with the stroke of a pen - and no gunfire.

Plenty of laws already to combat paying money to criminals or terrorists. All Uncle Sam needs to do (or another big player - like China or India or EU or Russia) is to use these laws and go after those who pay the Ransoms. Not the folk who deliver the bag of cash, but the ship owners / insurance companies, and not just the companies but individuals (including owners and Directors). Take away the cash and the problem goes away - ship gets hijacked and magically re-appears then ship owner goes under investigation. and not just fines, but jail time.

Sooner or later the Somalis would get the message that no reward possible. or if not they would run out of ship mooring space and / or capacity to protect the ships from foreign forces - or from other Pirates!

In practice the ship owners would probably also have to add some fire power on board - but units of ex-forces on multiple vessels (and some private escort ships) mixed up with warships would help prevent the slower witted Pirates carrying on - and together with no ransoms would over time help degrade the Somali Pirate capacity to operate (the more able / smarter Pirates would move on to other things that pay better). Removing the Ransom option for shipowners would then make the private security option economically attractive (if the only other option is losing a ship).

Tough titty on those already captured - but the UN / AU could broker something piecemeal or en masse (wrapped up with Aid to local warlords who have power that week, even if some of that aid was $$$ expenses). And throw in the threat of military action - and not being too fussy about getting all the hostages back alive from that, more about degrading Pirates - from ability to live. At this point I would personally favour B52's over entire towns that have captured vessels moored nearby - but might be some legal problems with that so US using it's drones for targetted "action" (that way collateral damage is "unexpected" ).

Anyway, helluva way to end a holiday

[kjames]

I understand people here are upset but in suggesting immediate and unrestrained action, remember the Somali pirates hold over 700 prisoners and if it were simple to retrieve those people it would have been done already. There’s just nothing good or simple about this whole affair.

[BlueWaterSail]

Originally Posted by Ex-pat

However this time it's personal ... i.e. it's an American yacht ... native to a nation with supposedly the most powerful military in the world with the supposedly most powerful navy in the world.

True, but unfortunately they won't send the most powerful military in the world to rescue your sorry behind just because you're bobbing around in dodgy international waters by choice with the stars & stripes blowing in the wind and a bunch of hooligans taking pot shots at it.

If you were Barack Obama, well, they would. But only because that means they screwed up, he should have never been in that situation in the first place.

BWS

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

The Somali Pirate problem could be solved overnight with the stroke of a pen - and no gunfire.

Plenty of laws already to combat paying money to criminals or terrorists. All Uncle Sam needs to do (or another big player - like China or India or EU or Russia) is to use these laws and go after those who pay the Ransoms. Not the folk who deliver the bag of cash, but the ship owners / insurance companies, and not just the companies but individuals (including owners and Directors). Take away the cash and the problem goes away - ship gets hijacked and magically re-appears then ship owner goes under investigation. and not just fines, but jail time.

Sooner or later the Somalis would get the message that no reward possible. or if not they would run out of ship mooring space and / or capacity to protect the ships from foreign forces - or from other Pirates!

In practice the ship owners would probably also have to add some fire power on board - but units of ex-forces on multiple vessels (and some private escort ships) mixed up with warships would help prevent the slower witted Pirates carrying on - and together with no ransoms would over time help degrade the Somali Pirate capacity to operate (the more able / smarter Pirates would move on to other things that pay better). Removing the Ransom option for shipowners would then make the private security option economically attractive (if the only other option is losing a ship).

Tough titty on those already captured - but the UN / AU could broker something piecemeal or en masse (wrapped up with Aid to local warlords who have power that week, even if some of that aid was $$$ expenses). And throw in the threat of military action - and not being too fussy about getting all the hostages back alive from that, more about degrading Pirates - from ability to live. At this point I would personally favour B52's over entire towns that have captured vessels moored nearby - but might be some legal problems with that so US using it's drones for targetted "action" (that way collateral damage is "unexpected" ).

Anyway, helluva way to end a holiday

I dunno Dave, I'm not a big fan of making criminals out of the victims.

[Springbok]

This skipper is a seasoned cruiser, he should know better than deliberately sail alone in know Pirate waters. Whether it is arrogrance or complacency I don't know. Sympathy is difficult to give to someone who knowingly and deliberately stands in front of the target. Re the World Navies, as long as the policies are basically sitting on the fence, the Pirates will always win. I think they have some 60 boats at present awaiting ransom payments. This is not anymore some illiterate, fishermen whose waters have been exploited etc, this is BIG organised crime using modern weapons,gps co-ordinates,AIS tracking, mother-ships and a very wide area of piracy. This is now controlled by Mafia-like criminals. If the navies don't change policy to shoot to kill, then this problem could spread to ALL cruising grounds

Clyde

[svBeBe]

Originally Posted by Doodles

I think you are preaching to choir Bill. But I don't think it's about zero casualties. I think it's purely financial, too much money for a few cruisers. Too many bigger budget problems.

IO and GoA Piracy does not impact just the cruisers, it impacts 2,000 commercial vessels per month and hundreds of billions of commerce per year...it is definitely the politics, and will take guts to solve.

Best,

Bill

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Tellie

I dunno Dave, I'm not a big fan of making criminals out of the victims.

Victims? If they can't take a joke

The market will adjust, higher shipping / transit costs (ultimately paid by you & me - as we do on the insurance premiums / Ransoms) to pay for onboard armed protection - ship owner takes a risk without and loses? that's just business - some you win, some you lose. At the moment for the ship owner it's a no brainer / no risk situation - lose a ship and you and me pay.........I simply want to move the risk back on his plate, which I think is fair - as he gets the reward $$$..........up to him to decide whether the risk is worth the reward (and he is best placed to both decide and manage that risk).


FWIW much of what Cruisers are talking about is not really avoiding being Pirated - it's doing that on the cheap (free!) for them / on someone else's dollar.

As they say, you get what you pay for. $30k will likely get you freighted. $20k (or less) would get you some armed gunmen onboard. and maybe even an escort vessel with same onboard. A few years back that would have been a business opportunity I could have had a close look at. Even if reason being that just that having a "Navy" would be funny / kinda cool

[pullord]

Originally Posted by svBeBe

QUEST was part of the Blue Water Rally which is the most experienced rally through these dangerous waters...sailing from India to Oman has never been more dangerous...last year it was the GoA, today it is the IO.

The problem is that piracy is the only big money-making industry in Somalia. Insurance carriers for the large ships continue to pay and point the finger at governments and governments, like mine, continue to point the finger at the insurance companies and the people who transit these seas.

I say, give the navies of the world a free hand to solve this problem and the problem will be eliminated...how many US Marines do you think it will take? The answer is a finite number and the mission is achievable with minimal casualties...unfortunately our politicians want a guaranty of zero casualties from our armed forces...hopefully we could be that lucky, but no amount of skill or planning will get us to "guaranteed zero casualties."

It takes guts to make a decision to solve this problem.

I am not sure that exists. A few minutes ago I read a story about QUEST that was titled: "Somali pirates hijack yacht of U.S. couple on Bible mission." Why do you think the LA Times did this? QUEST is on the same mission that most of the members of this group are. Someone somewhere wants to change the message so that ignoring these so-called bible-toting missionaries is OK. I wonder who in government asked for this favor?

Can you tell I am pissed?

BTW, we have elected to spend a lot of money to ship BeBe to the med from here.

Best,

Bill
s/v BeBe
Amel 53
Currently Cochin, India

-lucky and smart to ship your yacht through that area however many cannot afford the 35k usdollars or so to do that so some compassion is due to those who attempt it,,as for the media labelling the crew bible-thumpers that is the truth? no or yea? perhaps the hijackers will realize they have no money and release them quickly as i know from personal experiance i dont like bible-thumpers around bothering me with their puritanical views while i sip whiskey planning my next move on earth,,for god so loved the earth he gave his son a bad job..and if you think you can fix this hellhole dont cry to me when you fail,,evil prevails and thats it,,dont matter what righteous men do,,later

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Victims? If they can't take a joke

The market will adjust, higher shipping / transit costs (ultimately paid by you & me - as we do on the insurance premiums / Ransoms) to pay for onboard armed protection - ship owner takes a risk without and loses? that's just business - some you win, some you lose. At the moment for the ship owner it's a no brainer / no risk situation - lose a ship and you and me pay.........I simply want to move the risk back on his plate, which I think is fair - as he gets the reward $$$..........up to him to decide whether the risk is worth the reward (and he is best placed to both decide and manage that risk).


FWIW much of what Cruisers are talking about is not really avoiding being Pirated - it's doing that on the cheap (free!) for them / on someone else's dollar.

As they say, you get what you pay for. $30k will likely get you freighted. $20k (or less) would get you some armed gunmen onboard. and maybe even an escort vessel with same onboard. A few years back that would have been a business opportunity I could have had a close look at. Even if reason being that just that having a "Navy" would be funny / kinda cool

I'm not paying $50/day to sail on your boat... this marksman has a day rate...

[svBeBe]

Originally Posted by pullord

-l.......as for the media labelling the crew bible-thumpers that is the truth? no or yea? .........

Depends on how you define Bible-thumpers. Yes, they carried a supply of Bibles that were used as gifts for certain people as they cruised across the Pacific and even the Bay of Bengal.

The reporter at the LA Times has endangered the lives of the crew by labeling them as being on a "worldwide voyage to distribute Bibles." In the first paragraph of his article the reporter attributes that statement as coming from Somalia's U.N. Mission. No other news source has reported that the U.N. Mission for Somalia has made any such statement.

[In my opinion, the story is written in] such a way that it appears that the crew of Quest were sailing in the area for the purpose of distributing Bibles -- something that anyone with half a brain knows is absolutely forbidden in Islamic countries. [Political commentary deleted. TJ]

Judy
S/V BeBe