MS Risk Blog

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.”

Burundian Court Backs President’s Third Term

On Tuesday, Burundi’s constitutional court confirmed that the country’s president Pierre Nkurunziza can run for a third term in office, a decision that has led to renewed protests in the capital.

Under the current constitution, presidents can only be elected to two terms in office, however supporters of President Nkurunziza argued that his first term, which was appointed by parliament, does not count. The constitutional court’s vice president had earlier reportedly fled the country, citing “death threats.” Reports have indicated that while Sylvere Nipagaritse disclosed that most of his colleagues believed that the third term was unconstitutional, they were under pressure to change their minds. The president’s spokesman, Gervais Abayeho, however has denied these reports, stating that there were no threats or pressure placed on the judges. He further disclosed that their discussions were private so there was no way that individuals could be singled out for their views.

Shortly after the constitutional court made its ruling on Tuesday, more than five hundred protesters went to the streets of Musaga, which is a southern suburb of the capital Bujumbura. On the ground sources disclosed that three people were killed in protests in Musaga on Monday. Live rounds have also been fired near the US embassy at people demonstrating against the third-term bid. Further protests in the capital and across the country are likely to continue over the coming days. The presidential elections are due to take place next month.

The court’s approval of a third term in office comes just days after United States Secretary of State John Kerry urged President Nkurunziza to abandon his re-election bid. Speaking to reporters Monday during a visit to Kenya, Mr Kerry stated, “we are deeply concerned about President Pierre Nkurunziza’s decision, which flies directly in the face of the constitution of this country.”

Yemen Security Brief- 5 May

On 3 May, at least 20 troops from the Saudi-led coalition came ashore in Aden on what military officials called a “reconnaissance” mission. Their nationalities are unknown. The troops landed in a central area between Aden’s neighbourhood of al-Mansoura and the airport. It is unclear whether they arrived by boat or helicopter. This marks the first ground landing of troops since the coalition began their air campaign against the Houthi rebels on 26 March. The troops carried assault rifles and topography equipment and had access to at least four vehicles.

The objective of the reconnaissance mission appears two-fold: first, Yemeni military officials say the coalition troops will train forces loyal to President Hadi, who has been in exile in Riyadh since March. Yemeni officials said that streamlining the militiamen fighting against the Houthis in Aden would be a critical step in developing a coherent force. This would aid coalition ground forces should they send troops into the region. Second, the troops will try to identify an area that could serve as a “green zone” — an area from which Hadi’s exiled government can operate upon their return to Yemen. Among the most likely locations is the the al-Bureqah area west of Aden.

Saudi officials denied that a major ground operation was under way, or that it had put non-Yemeni forces on the ground in Aden. However the kingdom has warned on more than one occasion that a ground operation could follow air campaign. Reports suggest that Egypt will be a likely participant should any ground offensive take place in Yemen.

The troops landed amid intense fighting in Aden. Days of heavy clashes have been reported in central districts of Mualla and Khor Maksar, near the main commercial port, as well as in the city’s north, around a military camp and the airport. Houthi reinforcements were reportedly sent in from al-Dhalea and Abyan to fight the southern militias.

On Monday, the Saudi-led coalition targeted several airports across Yemen. The coalition reportedly conducted 150 strikes on Aden’s airport. Airstrikes also targeted airports in Hodeida and Sana’a. In downtown Sana’a, fighter jets struck al-Sabeen Square. The square was once where Yemen held military parades. The area was targeted to prevent the Houthi militants from using it as an airport for Iranian planes. Further strikes were aimed at the Houthi stronghold of Saada, and in Marib, where the coalition airdropped weapons to tribes allied to Hadi’s government.

Meanwhile, Senegal announced it would contribute troops to back the Saudi-led coalition. Senegalese Foreign Affairs Minister Mankeur Ndiaye said his country is sending 2,100 soldiers to help back the Saudi-led intervention. Senegal becomes the first sub-Saharan African country to contribute soldiers to the effort. The nation has received significant financial investments from Saudi Arabia in recent years. Senegalese President Macky Sall met last month with the Saudi king, who sought troop contributions at that time.

The international monitoring group Human Rights Watch (HRW) says that credible evidence show that the Saudi-led coalition “used banned cluster munitions supplied by the United States in airstrikes against Houthi forces in Yemen.” They add, “Cluster munitions pose long-term dangers to civilians and are prohibited by a 2008 treaty adopted by 116 countries, though not Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or the United States.” HRW evidence since mid-April shows that these munitions were used in coalition airstrikes in the Saada governorate, the Houthi stronghold bordering Saudi Arabia. The bombs appeared to land on a cultivated plateau, within 600 meters of several dozen buildings in four to six village. Saudi Arabia’s coalition spokesman was not immediately available to comment on the report, but had previously stated that the kingdom was not using cluster bombs.

The fighting in Yemen has left more than 1,200 people dead, mostly civilians, and at least 300,000 residents have been displaced. In the midst of a humanitarian crisis, the UN has warned that key infrastructure, including water supplies, food, health services and telecommunications, are on the verge of breaking down due to a major fuel shortage. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) issued a statement of extreme concern about the severe damage caused by recent coalition attacks on airports. The attacks have obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance and movement of humanitarian personnel. The joint statement says:

“The disruption of the key logistic infrastructure, including airports, sea ports, bridges and roads are having alarming consequences on the civilian population, and the humanitarian situation has now become catastrophic. Checkpoints by the different armed factions have obstructed the delivery of urgent medical supplies to hospitals and have prevented patients and wounded to access essential healthcare.”

Johannes van der Klaauw of the UN warned that the absence of fuel imports could further worsen the situation:

“Without fuel hospitals can’t work, ambulances can’t go out. You can’t have the water system working because water has to be pumped. The telecommunication network risks shutting down […] if something is not done in the next few days in terms of bringing fuel and food into the country, Yemen is going to come to a complete stand-still.”

On Monday, newly appointed Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said coalition countries were considering a cease-fire to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid. He said the coalition is seeking specific places to deliver humanitarian assistance, during which there will be a halt of all air operations. Al-Jubeir also warned the Houthis against exploiting any possible halt in airstrikes, saying the kingdom will resume airstrikes over any “violations” impeding the humanitarian efforts.

Today, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states will meet in Riyadh to discuss the ongoing regional crises, including Yemen. French President Francois Hollande will also attend, the first foreign leader to attend a GCC Summit since its inception in 1981.