Piracy

timhowardlaw

Southeast Asian Anxiety

China’s newly-blue water navy struts.  For three full weeks the force of two destroyers and an amphibious landing craft, possibly accompanied by a submarine escort, prowled the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific Ocean. The warships skirted Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. China probed relational flash points along the way. At the start the vessels patrolled the Paracel Islands, which are claimed by both China and Vietnam. Next stop, James Shoal, claimed by Malaysia as well as China. After forging through the Sunda Strait between Indonesia and Java, they policed the coast of Indonesia in an anti-piracy raid. The group skimmed the coast of Java, passing through the Lombok Strait, cut between two of the islands of the Indonesian group through the Makassar Strait and in the Western Pacific off the coast of the Philippines the ships’ artillery opened a barrage of live fire in a practice drill. Actions reminiscent of territorial claims and trans-national policing, all.

Most of the nations along the route studiously avoided comment, some even pretended not to notice. Most by contrast spoke out in the past at Chinese military actions. Secretary of State John Kerry during February cautioned the Chinese against increasing tensions that could lead to misunderstandings, weak gruel for the warriors who would oppose growing Chinese deepwater naval might and delivered after the January 20-February 11 provocative naval embassy. China’s Ministry of Defense publicly claimed its freedom to navigate the seas, and even the think tank commentators defended the exercise as completely within the bounds of international law (see http://www.iseas.edu.sg/ ). The Chinese naval force did not approach or circumnavigate Australia, yet the Australian Defense Minister overtly stated that China was under no obligation to notify Australia of the long-range forces’ movements, even though Australia monitored part of the exercises using surveillance aircraft.

Surrounding nations soothed with words or silence yet projected anxiety by actions.

timhowardlaw

Piracy or Greenpeace?

The 30 person crew of the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was taken ashore in Murmansk, Russia on Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013 for questioning in connection with the attempted scaling on Sept. 18 of a Russian oil platform owned by OAO Gazprom in the Barents Sea.  The activists were protesting oil drilling in the Arctic, specifically in a new area that Russia was opening for development.  Russia was neither amused nor tolerant; the Investigative Committee, a Russian federal law enforcement body, will probe the incident but has already vowed to bring all those involved to justice.  The potential charge is piracy and the penalty is up to 15 years in a Russian prison.  The crew includes an American, four Russians and six Britons as far as now known.  The Investigative Committee specifically stated that punishment will be levied “regardless of their citizenship.”  The Kremlin’s human rights ombudsman characterized the option sought by the Investigative Committee as “gentle”, called the activists’ goals “noble” but accused them of endangering their lives and the health of others, presumably those on the drilling rig.  The spokesman for the Investigative Committee said that the Dutch-flagged Greenpeace vessel was “full of electronic devices of unknown origin and people calling themselves participants in an ecological rights group”, who tried to “all but storm” the platform.  He concluded that these actions raised doubts about their intentions.

Greenpeace rejected the characterization, called the activists peaceful and took the position that the charges had no basis in international law.  Some of the statement by the Investigative Committee took issue with the legal points, international as well as Russian federal law.

The oil platform?  Drilling now and expected to begin production later this year (2013).  The partners in the oil platform may include oil companies from various countries.  No statement from the governments of those countries or from the oil companies.  Greenpeace demanded the immediate release of the crew (no mention of the vessel) but made no further indication of plans to contest the matter.

Piracy action or Greenpeace activism?  Surprisingly muted response from Greenpeace and no statement at all from ecologically-minded countries, the UN or any NGO about what could be a stunning precedent.