'Pirate' death puts spotlight on 'guns for hire'

The death of a suspected pirate off the coast of Somalia has drawn attention to the use of armed private security contractors on board merchant vessels.

The incident, which involved guards aboard the Panamanian-flagged MV Almezaan, is believed to be the first of its kind.

But several organisations, including the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), have previously expressed concerns over the use of armed security contractors.

"While we understand that owners want to protect their ships, we don't agree in principle with putting armed security on ships," IMB director Capt Pottengal Mukundan told the BBC News website.

"Ships are not an ideal place for a gun battle."

One argument is that the use of armed operatives could encourage pirates to use more violence when taking a ship.

But Mr Mukundan said he had seen no evidence that there had been much of an increase in the use of armed guards by merchant ship owners.

Dozens of warships patrol the waters off the Somali coast, but this has not deterred the pirates. The amount of ocean to patrol is extremely vast and pirates have responded to the increased naval presence by moving attacks farther out to sea.

"The naval forces are displacing the threat - they can't be everywhere at once," says Nick Davis, chief executive of Merchant Maritime Warfare Centre, a not-for-profit organisation.

"Almost the whole of the Indian Ocean region - some 5 million square nautical miles - is a security risk."

Prevention

But the shipping industry has, so far, largely resisted arming their boats - not least because this would deny them port in some nations. Furthermore, arming the ships can raise liability issues and increase insurance costs.

Christopher Ledger, director of security firm Idarat Maritime, says the use of private operatives is not necessary and that ship owners can find other ways to protect themselves, such as boosting training, carrying out more drills and purchasing equipment that could prevent pirates boarding a vessel.

"Private security guards are not necessary, they simply muddy the water," he said. "They are often foreign to the crew themselves and they don't know the ship well.
Many are former soldiers that have been in Iraq or Afghanistan and they think they can shake the dust off their shoes and make it as a private security guard. Their day rate is pretty high and the crew have to find ways to get them on and off the vessels."

Their presence, he said, would only lead to "more spilt blood".

This month, international law firm Ince and Co released a report highlighting the issues arising from the use of armed guards. It pointed out that a fundamental question arose as to who would authorise the use of force.

Stephen Askins, a lawyer with Ince, told the BBC News website that the debate on the use of armed guards was one that polarised the industry.

"Most industry bodies and ship-owners are against them," he said. "But no ship with an armed guard has been hijacked, so there are those - particularly those who have had hijacked ships - who think they are necessary."

He said private security companies had come into their own in places like Iraq and had seen seen the maritime sector as potentially lucrative.

"Many have moved across but there is no system of accreditation, so there is no way of knowing the good from the bad," he said.

Legal status

Most security operatives are former British servicemen, but there are also operatives from the US, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Mr Askins said some firms provided armed escort vessels, but that these did not have any status in international law.

"The various conventions dealing with piracy relate to states and their navies," he said. "The rights that they are given, like the right of innocent passage relate to military ships. There are also issues over the use of armed force. The relevant law is the law of the flag state, but a merchant ship could, for example, be Panamanian and the escort ship could be, say, UK flagged."

But he also pointed out that there were some very good companies that had "robust rules of engagement".

"Lethal force for them would come after a series of steps including warning shots. The good companies would follow that procedure. Normally that would be enough to deter an attack."

In May 2009, the US Coast Guard drafted a maritime security directive that would require US-flagged ships sailing around the Horn of Africa to post guards, and ship owners to submit anti-piracy security plans for approval.

At the time, the Coast Guard's director of prevention policy, Rear Admiral James Watson, said that they expected to see "additional security" that could "involve the use of firearms".

He added that they were "looking for things that work but that don't make the situation worse".

The directive has not yet passed into law.

For now, the handling of Tuesday's shooting by a private security operative will be watched closely by legal experts.

An independent inquiry is planned, but first investigators will need to establish who had jurisdiction - the flag the vessel was flying, its owners or the nationality of the contractors - and who was responsible for the security contractors.

read more...

Japan confirms secret pact on US nuclear transit

Japan has confirmed the existence of a secret Cold War deal allowing the transit of nuclear-armed US vessels through its ports.

The move by a government-appointed panel ends decades of official denial - although the existence of the pact was an open secret.

The government said that the move was aimed at increasing transparency.

But it comes at an unsettled time for the US-Japan relationship, amid a row over US military bases in Okinawa.

The secret pact is controversial because after World War II and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan adopted the three "non-nuclear principles" - not making or possessing nuclear weapons, nor allowing them on to its soil.

The secret deal was sealed in the 1960s between US and Japanese diplomats, who agreed that the transit of nuclear arms through ports did not constitute the introduction of weapons into Japan, and so did not require prior consultation on the US side.

By leaving the issue ambiguous, (US) ships carrying nuclear weapons could stop at Japanese ports without prior consultation, while Japan, as its official stance, could deny such a development. But neither side would make a protest,'' Kyodo news agency quoted the panel's report as saying.

Declassified US documents had already confirmed the deal.

A cable from US ambassador Edwin Reischauer detailing a breakfast meeting in April 1963 with Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ohira explained how the two discussed the pact and achieved "full mutual understanding" on the transit issue.

But the deal has been denied by successive Japanese governments, because of fears of public anger.

'Extremely regrettable'

The probe into the deal was ordered by the new Democratic Party government, which ousted the ruling Liberal Democratic Party last year after more than five decades in power.

The panel also confirmed the existence of deals relating to the use of US military bases in Okinawa in the case of an emergency on the Korean peninsula and the cost of the 1972 reversion of Okinawa from US to Japanese control.

Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada told a press conference it was "extremely regrettable that this problem for such a long time remained under cover, to the Japanese, even to parliamentary sessions, even after the end of the Cold War".

Japan and the US have maintained a security alliance since the end of World War II, and the US has almost 50,000 troops stationed at bases across Japan.

But Japan's new government has indicated it wants what it calls a more equal relationship with the US and has said it wants to reduce the US military presence on the island of Okinawa.

A row over plans to relocate the Futenma airbase in Okinawa has chilled ties between the two long-time allies.

read more...

Brazil slaps trade sanctions on US over cotton dispute

The Brazilian government has announced trade sanctions against a variety of American goods in retaliation for illegal US subsidies to cotton farmers.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) approved the sanctions in a rare move.

Brazil published a list of 100 US goods that would be subject to import tariffs in 30 days, unless the two governments reached a last-minute accord.

It said it regretted the sanctions, but that eight years of litigation had failed to produce a result.

It said it would raise tariffs on $591m (£393m) worth of US products - from cars, where the tariff will increase from 35% to 50%, to milk powder, which would see a 20% increase in the levy.

Cotton and cotton products would be charged 100% import tariff, the highest on the list.

The Office of the US Trade Representative said it was "disappointed" by Brazil's decision and called for a negotiated settlement.

Critics say the US has given its cotton growers an unfair advantage by paying them billions of dollars each year.

In 2008, the WTO ruled that subsidies to US cotton producers were discriminatory.

Tall order

Carlos Marcio Cozendey, head of economic affairs at Brazil's foreign ministry, told a news conference: "The idea was to distribute the retaliation broadly in order to maximise pressure.

"US farm subsidies are condemned worldwide. This archaic practice must stop."

However some analysts say major changes to these subsidies would involve modifying agricultural legislation - a tall order for the US Congress against a difficult economic and political backdrop, says the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo.

Our correspondent says the dispute, which began in 2002, is one of the few in which the WTO has allowed cross-retaliation, meaning the wronged party can retaliate against a sector not involved in the case.

He adds that it appears the Brazilian government has deliberately chosen a wide range of products in order to have maximum impact.

Safety net

Cotton producers in the US argue that the system of subsidies has changed since the WTO made its original ruling in 2005.

"The US has made changes in the cotton programme as well as the export guarantee programme," Gary Adams, chief economist at the National Cotton Council told the BBC, adding that US cotton production was now 40% to 45% lower.

Mr Adams said he believed that subsidies were still justified.

"We feel this is a very important financial safety net for producers," he said.

Steven Bipes of the Brazil-US Business Council urged the US to take steps to avoid what he called "damaging" retaliation by Brazil.

"The business community finds it extraordinarily important that countries, including the US, comply with its WTO obligations and otherwise negotiate to find common ground when there are disputes," he told the BBC.

read more...

Man admits murder of teenage girl he met on Facebook

A convicted sex offender has admitted the kidnap, rape and murder of a County Durham teenager who he met on a social networking site.

Peter Chapman, who has a history of violent sex assaults, befriended 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall by posing as a teenage boy on Facebook.

In October, after agreeing to meet him, Ashleigh was strangled and dumped in a farmer's field near Sedgefield.

Chapman, 33, pleaded guilty to the charges at Teesside Crown Court.

He also admitted failing to notify police of a change of address, as required by the sex offenders register.

Chapman, who was brought up by his grandparents in Stockton, has a history of sexual offending, it has since emerged.

Since the age of 15, he has been the subject of several sexual assault investigations, and in 1996 was jailed for raping two prostitutes at knifepoint.

The 19-year-old Chapman was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, and released in 2001.

In October last year, Ashleigh was attracted by a picture of a young, bare-chested man that Chapman - calling himself Peter Cartwright - had posted on the website.

Later that month, she told her mother she was going to stay with a friend. Text messages showed she thought she was being picked up by "Peter Cartwright's" father.

Chapman was arrested after a nationwide alert went out to trace the car he was using.

The registration number had been put into the Automatic Number Plate Recognition System because the convicted sex offender was not complying with his registration requirements.

During initial interviews, he told officers they could "crush his car" and made no mention of Ashleigh, but later he lost his nerve and told stunned detectives about the dead teenager.

He led them to the spot near a lovers' lane where her body was found, almost 24 hours after she left the family home.

Durham Police admit that had he remained silent the car would likely have been crushed and valuable evidence lost.

Det Insp Mick Callan, head of the force's major crime team, said: "The truth is he is a predatory sex offender who, through the tentacles of the internet, could reach out to the young and the vulnerable.

"He knows full well that using his real name and picture would not grab the attention of any young woman for a moment.

"But by using the picture of a good-looking young man as a cover he has woven a web of attraction and deceit that has sadly had a murderous ending."

read more...

Iceland holds referendum on Icesave repayment plan

Icelanders are going to the polls to vote on paying the UK and Netherlands after the collapse of the Icesave bank, with a resounding "no" vote expected.

The British and Dutch governments want reimbursement for the 3.8bn euros (£3.4bn; $5.2bn) they paid out in compensation to customers in 2008.

Talks between the three countries broke down on Friday without agreement.

But the prime minister urged people to shun the referendum, saying better payment terms had been tabled.

Johanna Sigurdardottir said she would not vote herself as her government sought to continue the talks with Britain and the Netherlands.

Opinion polls suggest the majority of voters will reject the referendum.

A "no" vote could put billions of dollars of loans from the International Monetary Fund and other countries at risk.

Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson attempted to play down the significance of the referendum, called after President Olaf Ragnar Grimsson blocked the initial deal.

"It's of utmost importance that we don't over-interpret whatever message comes out of this," he said.

"We want to be perfectly clear that a 'no' vote does not mean we are refusing to pay. We will honour our obligations. To maintain anything else is highly dangerous for the economy of this country."

Apology

The government had hoped to avoid the vote by agreeing a new repayment plan before the weekend.

Foreign Minister Ossur Skarphethinsson told Reuters news agency he expected a new Icesave deal "in the next weeks, perhaps sooner".

Britain and the Netherlands want the money as repayment for bailing out customers in the Icesave online bank, which folded in 2008 due to the global financial meltdown.

President Grimsson rejected suggestions the vote was meaningless, telling the BBC that a strong "no" would strengthen his country's hand.

"It's not a pointless exercise because the referendum, according to our constitution, is on whether the deal which the British and the Dutch insisted on at the end of last year, should remain in force as a law in this country," he said.

"It is encouraging that in the last few weeks the British and the Dutch have acknowledged that that deal, on which the referendum takes place, is an unfair deal and that is by itself a tremendous achievement by the referendum. So, after the vote today, which I believe will be a clear 'no' vote, we will be able to continue the negotiations."

Many Icelanders believe the plan should be rejected because they feel they are being penalised for the mistakes of the banking industry.

"I am going to say no on Saturday because it's not fair and justifiable that the Icelandic nation should pay for other people's mistakes," Benedikt Mewes, a cashier at the National Post Office in Reykjavik, told the Associated Press news agency.

There is also anger against the UK for using anti-terrorist legislation to freeze Icesave assets in the country.

Johanna Sigurdardottir told the BBC that Britain should officially apologise for its actions.

The Reykjavik government approved the repayment plan last December but it was blocked by President Grimsson in January, which led to the referendum being called.

read more...