MS Risk Blog

Burundian General Declares Coup Against President Nkurunziza

In a surprise move, a top Burundian general on Wednesday announced the overthrow of President Pierre Nkurunziza. The announcement follows weeks of violent protests against the President’s bid to stand for a third term in office.

During a radio broadcast, General Godefroid Niyombare, who in February was dismissed from his position as the Central African nation’s powerful chief of intelligence, stated “regarding President Nkurunziza’s arrogance and defiance of the international community which advised him to respect the constitution and Arusha peace agreement, the committee for the establishment of the national concord decide: President Nkurunziza is dismissed, his government is dismissed too.” General Niyombare further disclosed that he was working with civil society groups, religious leaders and politicians in order to form a transitional government.

The announcement came just hours after President Nkurunziza arrived in neighbouring Tanzania for talks aimed at ending the crisis. The presidential office quickly dismissed the declaration, stating that it is “a joke.” While it remains unclear whether General Niyombare has the support of the military, on the ground sources reported that police have vanished from the streets of the capital city as thousands of people celebrated the coup attempt against the president.

According to an unofficial count by activists, more than twenty people have been killed since violent street protests erupted more than two weeks ago. Demonstrators, and the country’s opposition, maintain that President Nkurunziza’s bid for another five-year term in office violates a two-term limit in the constitution and the Arusha peace agreement, which ended an ethnically fuelled civil war in 2005 that killed 300,000 people.

Several Western donors, including the United States, have criticized the president’s decision to stand again. Growing international concern over the situation in Burundi resulted in East African leaders and a top official from South Africa to meet in Tanzania’s commercial capital Dar es Salaam in order to discuss the on-going crisis, which has already spilled over into a region that has a history of ethnic conflict. According to the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, more than 50,000 people have fled to neighbouring states because of the violence in Burundi, with UN officials stating that the crisis is heading towards a “worst case scenario” that could see 300,000 people fleeing, with some relocating to other parts of Burundi, while others opting to flee abroad.

Liberia Celebrates End of Ebola

On Monday, thousands of Liberians gathered to celebrate the end of Ebola after the country was declared free of the deadly disease that has killed more than 4,700 people. Several dignitaries participated in the celebration, including the President of Togo, along with guests from the African Union, Ghana and Nigeria.   Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf closed the celebrations by recommitting herself to helping the governments and people of neighbouring Guinea and Sierra Leone to overcome the disease.

In a statement released Saturday 9 May, the World Health Organization (WHO) indicated that 42 days had passed since the last person confirmed with the virus in Liberia was buried. On Monday, the Liberian government declared a public holiday in order to allow workers and students to take part in a festival in the capital city, Monrovia. The ceremony however began on a sombre note, with testimonials from health workers and other staff in the country’s Ebola treatment units (ETU’s) as well as survivors and body disposal team members.

The WHO has hailed the eradication of the deadly disease in Liberia as an enormous development in the crisis, which has affected the West African region for over a year. However the United Nations agency has warned that because outbreaks are continuing in neighbouring Guinea and Sierra Leone, the risk remains high that infected people could re-enter the country. More than 4,700 people died during the Ebola crisis in Liberia, which remains the hardest-hit country by the outbreak. Neighbouring Guinea and Sierra Leone continue to report new cases on a weekly basis. While the number of new cases being reported has significantly declined in recent months, officials in both countries have noted that they have had difficulty in tracing new cases.

Latest figures released by the WHO indicate that 26,720 cases have been reported and 11,079 people have died from Ebola in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Mali, Sierra Leone and the United States, however officials have warned that the full scale of the Ebola outbreak may have been underreported. The latest outbreak, which was officially confirmed in March 2014, has killed five times more people than all the other known outbreaks combined.

Turkish ship attacked off the coast of Libya

On Sunday, a Turkish dry cargo ship was shelled as it approached the Libyan city of Tobruk. The ship was then attacked from the air as it tried to leave the area, according to the Turkish Foreign Ministry. The attack left the ship’s third officer killed and other crew members wounded. The Turkish Ministry maintains that the ship was in international waters at the time.

The Turkish-owned and Cook Islands-flagged ship, Tuna-1, was about 13 miles off the coast of Tobruk where it was carrying cargo from Spain. In a statement released on Monday, the Ankara government said, “We condemn strongly this contemptible attack which targeted a civilian ship in international waters and curse those who carried it out.” Turkey reserves its legal rights to seek compensation, the ministry said. The Turkish statement did not specify who launched the attacks, however a spokesman for the Tobruk-based Libyan National Army (LNA) says the vessel was bombed as it was warned not to approach the Libyan port of Derna.

The attack is not the first to occur in the Libya, where two opposing governments have been fighting to gain power in the country for over a year. On 4 January, a Libyan warplane bombed a Greek-operated oil tanker anchored off the eastern port of Derna, killing two crewmen. Military officials from the Tobruk government said the vessel had been warned not to enter port. Days later, on 9 January, the Commander of the Libyan Air Force announced that airstrikes will be carried out against any ships calling at militant-held Misrata port. A week later on 16 January, an oil tanker approaching the port of Benghazi was bombed. The Tobruk-led Libyan National Army claimed responsibility for the attack, saying the unnamed vessel was attempting to deliver petrol to a radical Islamist group Ansar Al-Sharia.

In February, internationally recognized Prime Minister, Abdullah al-Thani, said his government would stop dealing with Turkey because it was sending weapons to a rival group in Tripoli so that “the Libyan people kill each other.”

The internationally recognised House of Representatives operates out of Tobruk. Its forces, the LNA, have been battling against Fajr Libya, a coalition of militias supporting the Tripoli-based government, the General National Convention (GNC). Amid the chaos, radicalised elements have sought to gain a foothold in the land. The continued conflict has hindered the ability of government forces to differentiate between legitimate threats and innocent vessels.

MS Risk continues to advise merchant vessels to be aware of the threat to ships entering Libyan ports. Commercial vessel operators are urged to notify their insurers prior to sailing into Libyan coastal waters.

US and Japan Defense Cooperation

On April 27, the United States and Japan released the new set of guidelines for defence cooperation, a document which substantially alters the security relationship between the two countries and lays out a broad framework for the roles their respective militaries will play in international affairs. Above all else, this new iteration of the US-Japan defence guidelines outlines an alliance structure that, while grounded in bilateralism, is unequivocally and ambitiously global. It reflects 1) a deepening appreciation of the threats which confront Japan and the US both regionally and internationally and 2) an awareness of the anachronisms that pervade the existing guidelines. After all, when they were first written in 1978, bipolarity was the defining characteristic of the international system. But when the Berlin Wall fell and multipolarity replaced bipolarity, the assumptions underpinning them became less and less relevant. New challenges had begun to emerge on the Korean Peninsula and over Taiwan, and it became necessary to substantially revise the US-Japan security paradigm. That was in 1997. In the intervening eighteen years, new security challenges have emerged, forcing Japan and the US to go beyond the narrowly defined terms of their existing security agreement. Now, as Japan becomes increasingly involved in peacekeeping missions abroad and as China’s territorial ambitions threaten the balance of power in the region, a new guideline for defence cooperation has emerged. Described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as an, “historic transition in the defines relationship between our two countries”, this document is sure to polarise opinion both domestically and regionally. To understand why, several important changes from the 1997 agreement must be explained.

Under the 1997 guidelines, a “bilateral coordination mechanism” (BCM) was established to ensure that attacks on Japan or a “situation in areas surrounding Japan” (SIASJ) would be met with a coordinated response from the allies. However, security incidents that did not meet this criteria, like the 2011 earthquake, would not. To address this weakness, the BCM has been replaced with the “Alliance Coordination Mechanism” (ACM), which will enable a whole-of-government approach to developing security situations regardless of their exact nature. In essence, the ACM means that Japan will not have to be attacked before the alliance can be invoked.

A further refinement on the 1997 agreement is Japan’s increasingly unrestricted sphere of operations. No longer bound by geographical restrictions, Japan will now take a more prominent role in addressing regional and global security challenges. Specifically, Japan is now able to respond to attacks against countries other than Japan and defend against emerging threats to its security. These two conditions allow for a broad margin of interpretation and could refer to anything from defending against Chinese territorial expansion to protecting Japanese ships from piracy. The guidelines also stipulate a number of other circumstances in which Japan would be prepared to engage in “ [b]ilateral cooperation to promote regional and global activities…to [create] a more stable international security environment.” First, in security dialogues and defence exchanges, second, in peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations and third, in emergency relief operations.

It is evident that Japan, under the leadership of Shinzo Abe and his newly reinterpreted constitution, is getting ready to “go global”. Although the new guidelines have not relaxed so far as to include combat or offensive operations, Japan has made it clear that it is prepared to do much more than simply defend its own borders. Clause Five of the Guidelines makes this point clearly: “As situations in areas surrounding Japan have an important influence on Japan’s peace and security, the Self-Defence Forces will conduct such activities as intelligence gathering, surveillance and minesweeping, to protect lives and property and to ensure navigational safety.”

Taken as a whole, the new guidelines have not significantly altered the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific. Japan’s military capabilities will remain more or less unchanged in spite of the latest revisions. What is significant about the agreement – and what has caused so much consternation in Beijing – is Japan’s evident desire to free its self-defence force from the shackles which have bound it for more than half a century. Whether or not a remilitarised, outward looking Japan will act as a deterrent for Chinese expansionism and bring order to a region crippled by instability remains to be seen.

Maersk Tigris expected to be released within days

In a statement today, Maersk announced that they had provided a letter of undertaking relating to a original 10-year old cargo case that resulted in last week’s seizure of container vessel Maersk Tigris by Iranian Authorities. Maersk added, “We are continuing to do everything we can to assist in the safe release of the crew and vessel.”

On 28 April, Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces boarded the Maersk Tigris, a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship in the Gulf. The container ship had been following a normal commercial route, sailing from the Jeddah in Saudi Arabia, bound for the UAE port of Jebel Ali. The vessel was anchored off the Iranian coast between the islands of Qeshm and Hormuz when Iranian patrol boats fired warning shots across its bow and ordered it deeper into Iranian waters. The vessel issued a distress call which was received by US forces operating in the region. The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps naval units seized the vessel and its crew. The vessel’s manager, Singapore-based Rickmers Shipmanagement, reported that there were 24 crew members, mostly from Eastern Europe and Asia. Maersk reported on 29 April that the crew on board are safe and “in good spirits.” The carrier remains in close contact with the Danish Foreign Ministry.

Iranian maintains that the ship’s seizure is a civil matter with no military or political dimension.

Two reports have emerged regarding the reasons for the ship’s capture. Financial Times and other sources report that the ship was taken as the result of a 2005 incident in which ten shipping containers were delivered by Maersk to Dubai for Pars Tala’eyeh Oil Products Company. The containers were disposed of when no one came forward to claim them. In the initial legal proceedings, Iranian courts found in favour of Maersk, but a February 2015 appeal overturned the ruling, fining Maersk $3.6 million. Maersk claims it was unaware of the appeal.

Meanwhile, Hellenic Shipping News has reported information from Hamidreza Jahanian, managing-Director of Pars Tala’eyeh Oil Products Company. Jahanian reports that the seizure stems from a 2003 dispute wherein “a number of containers sent by Pars Tala’eyeh Oil Products Company through the Maersk Line Shipping Company were not delivered to the customer in Jebel Ali in 2003.” He adds that Maersk had some differences with its representative in Iran, and “refrained from delivering the goods to the customer.” Jahanian states that Pars Tala’eyeh Oil Products Company filed a lawsuit, and the court ruled in favour of the Iranian company. They maintain that Maersk owes $10 million, the estimated amount the company incurred in losses.

Iran’s Port and Maritime Organization (IPMO) sanctioned the vessel’s detention following the court ruling. The Iranian company has warned that vessel could be put up for auction if compensation is not paid by Maersk. Maersk demanded legal documentation from Iran regarding the ship’s seizure. As of 4 May, the company says it had not received written confirmation of court rulings or the ship arrest warrant. A statement from Maersk reads, “We have […] not received any written notification or similar pertaining to the claim or the seizure of the vessel. We are therefore not able to confirm whether or not this is the actual reason behind the seizure. We will continue our efforts to obtain more information.”

Lawyers have stated that maritime law allows a nation to arrest a foreign ship based on this type of dispute under certain conditions: the ship needs to be in port, and the seized ship must be the ship against which the claim was filed.

With regard to the 2005 case, the Maersk Tigris was not the ship in question, nor was it at port. Maersk Tigris was in international waters when warning shots were fired, and the vessel was instructed to sail into Iranian waters. Further, despite the name, the Maersk Tigris is not owned by Maersk; it is chartered by them. The vessel is owned by private equity fund Oaktree Capital Management. Therefore, its seizure cannot be used to settle the claim against Maersk. Finally, there are no grounds which allow Iran to detain the vessel’s crew. As such, many have stated that the taking of the vessel is a violation of international maritime law.

The situation is expected to be resolved in the coming days. Iranian state-run news agency IRNA quoted Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham as telling a news conference, “The negotiations between the private complainant and the other party are going on and possibly the issue will be resolved in a day or two.”