Spanish fishermen (actually Spanish owners of fishing businesses) are demanding our army to get some soldiers aboard each and every one of their ships in the Indian Ocean. The answer has been, the law forbids using military forces as security guards for private businesses, be it warehouses, factories, ships... and much less outside Spain. The army is willing to train and support private security guards for them, but is not going to disperse soldiers by twos and threes in fishing boats for months, not even if the law was changed.
For the record, I agree. Their demand is ludicrous. If they want security personnel aboard they can contract private security but deploying a few infantrymen in each small ship would be both scarcely useful and an awful precedent. What would be next, supermarkets demanding AFVs to carry money to the bank? Newlyweds demanding a couple of marines to escort them during their honeymoon in Bali? Millionaires demanding military bodyguards?
Still, I'm interested in knowing if this problem has arisen in other countries too and what do their laws state. With the recent surge of piracy in the Indian, the question of protecting or escorting ships is probably doomed to become a hot issue...
Since overfishing is a problem thanks to generous subsidies to the fishing industry, I say let the pirates weed out a few of the fishermen.
Agreed. The demand is ridiculous. They are essentially demanding a government handout for a failing business. It's almost as bad as bailing out the banks.
All the other examples you mentioned take place where some police force, either Spanish or Indonesian, is supposed to have jurisdiction. On the high seas there is none.
Heaven forbid that the pirates interfere with ongoing Spanish biocide.
I was going to say, the world could stand a thinning out of Spanish fishermen.
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2009, 09:36:33 AM
Heaven forbid that the pirates interfere with ongoing Spanish biocide.
I loved the Turbot War. But there wasn't enough gunplay. :(
It is reasonable in the sense that all nations are at war with pirates.
It is unreasonable in the sense that the overfishing done by these fishermen is what drove the local somali fishermen into piracy.
I saw on the news this week that some Spanish fishermen were taken hostage, so I guess this request comes in response to that? I agree that it's probably not a good idea to deploy soldiers aboard fishing boats. Although after one or two pirate attacks met with well armed soldiers were turned away, pirates might decide to leave Spanish boats alone. However, navies of all nations are deployed in the area to guard against piracy, and probably the best course is for more ships and/or aggressive posture towards piracy. And maybe, at some point, an attack on pirate areas/hideouts.
This kind of begs the question: why are they demanding military personnel and not private security personnel? Is it for the heavier firepower or because they're just trying to get the soldiers cheaper?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 06, 2009, 01:35:34 PM
This kind of begs the question: why are they demanding military personnel and not private security personnel? Is it for the heavier firepower or because they're just trying to get the soldiers cheaper?
Or perhaps because they believe the state bears some responsibillity for protecting them from high seas piracy.
Is it possible there are rules against arming civilians on the boats?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 06, 2009, 03:52:06 PM
Is it possible there are rules against arming civilians on the boats?
If so, then they are justified in asking for the state to defend them.
Xe is available for all missions.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 06, 2009, 03:52:06 PM
Is it possible there are rules against arming civilians on the boats?
That's actually what I was wondering: whether Spain's maritime laws permit arming civilians on boats.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2009, 09:18:56 AM
All the other examples you mentioned take place where some police force, either Spanish or Indonesian, is supposed to have jurisdiction. On the high seas there is none.
I agree. If you don't use your military to fight/defend from pirate threat, then what the hell do you do with it :huh:
Build schools and stuff like that. The thought of the military actually shooting at stuff is not that popular.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 07, 2009, 08:47:56 AM
Build schools and stuff like that. The thought of the military actually shooting at stuff is not that popular.
How will schools help with the problem?
Its not like the soldiers would be doing much else, why not? Except for Spanish fishermen being evil.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 06, 2009, 03:52:06 PM
Is it possible there are rules against arming civilians on the boats?
The bigger issue would be foreign ports prohibiting civilian ships from docking with firearms on board. In that particular case it wouldn't matter if the weapons belonged to Spanish soldiers, private security details, or the crew.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 06, 2009, 09:18:56 AM
All the other examples you mentioned take place where some police force, either Spanish or Indonesian, is supposed to have jurisdiction. On the high seas there is none.
Good point... However, there is still the problem of Spanish law forbidding such 'loan' of military forces to private firms. Even if the only problem were the potential conflict between the authority of the captain (and the owner) and the military chain of command that would suffice to make it a bad idea when they can contract private security.
Oh, yes, the owners are
a. Trying to get protection for free
b. Trying to defect the blame from themselves
Because we are indeed in the middle of a mini-crisis with elements of tragedy and comedy.
1. Some fishing boats decided to exit the zone protected by the EU flotilla and get closer to the coast (how close they got is an interesting question, but they were warned help wouldn't arrive in time if they did leave the protected zone)
2. As any fool could have predicted, one of them was attacked and captured
3. Now things get interesting. The Spanish Navy caught the boat of the pirates before it could reach the coast and captured two prisoners.
4. More interesting still, a famous and polemic Spanish judge decides to claim jurisdiction (perhaps considering the boat Spanish territory, but I'm not sure about this) According to the law, the two 'prisoners' automatically became 'accused', were flown to Spain, and jailed. Now they can't be used as bargaining tools in the negotiations.
5. Pirates demanded the freedom of their comrades before talks started. They were told to screw themselves.
6. Profit?
Oh, and now the elements of comedy
1. The families are demanding to the Spanish government and the judge the freedom of the pirates and anything else necessary to get their men back home (incidentally most of the kidnapped sailors, roughly 60% of them, are actually Somalis, Kenyans, etc) and, if rumors are to be believed, they have succeeded at... making the pirates double the ransom they demand to the owner from 2 millions dollars to 4.
2. Apparently the pirates are having problems of their own with the families of the two prisoners. They actually tried to deliver four fishermen to them as bargaining tools... in essence telling them to negotiate their freedom independently. The families refused, and an alternative rumor says the pirates always have wanted 2 millions for the ship, the other 2, added later, would be for the family of the two prisoners.
Note 1: Spanish law in principle allows arming civilians on the boats. According to the news, it is ambiguous about arming them with "weapons of war", i.e. pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc, pose no problem, but machine guns and heavier weapons could do.
Note 2: The trouble with sending soldiers to fishing boats is double. First, you disperse a lot of men in small packets for months, and most of them would never even see a potential pirate, much less fight a real one (for all the talk of rampant piracy, only a tiny handful of ships is actually attacked). Second, those fishing ships are small and crowded, and you need six men inside each boat if two of them have to on guard permanently. Third, there would be a very serious potential problem if pirates avoided Spanish ships only to attack ships of other nations... the multinational force is supposed to protect them all equally.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 07, 2009, 08:47:56 AM
Build schools and stuff like that. The thought of the military actually shooting at stuff is not that popular.
Hard to build schools in the ocean.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2009, 03:11:32 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 07, 2009, 08:47:56 AM
Build schools and stuff like that. The thought of the military actually shooting at stuff is not that popular.
Hard to build schools in the ocean.
If the Spanish government imposed a 100% tax on the incomes of fishermen and fishing concerns, they could buy a bunch of trawlers on the cheap and convert them to floating schools.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 07, 2009, 02:53:38 PM
4. More interesting still, a famous and polemic Spanish judge decides to claim jurisdiction (perhaps considering the boat Spanish territory, but I'm not sure about this) According to the law, the two 'prisoners' automatically became 'accused', were flown to Spain, and jailed. Now they can't be used as bargaining tools in the negotiations.
5. Pirates demanded the freedom of their comrades before talks started. They were told to screw themselves.
I find these 2 points both neither tragic or comedic, but entirely appropriate.