Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Lauren Ploch
Analyst in African Affairs
Christopher M. Blanchard
Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
R. Chuck Mason
Legislative Attorney
Rawle O. King
Analyst in Financial Economics and Risk Assessment
September 28, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40528
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Summary
Pirate attacks in the waters off the Horn of Africa, including those on U.S.-flagged vessels, have
brought new U.S. and international attention to the long-standing problem of piracy in the region.
The International Maritime Bureau (IMB) recorded 111 attacks in the waters off the Horn of
Africa in 2008, almost double the number in 2007. As of September 14, 2009, the U.S. State
Department reported 156 attacks had occurred in those waters since January 2009, with 33
successful hijackings. Attacks remain concentrated in the Gulf of Aden between Yemen and the
northern coast of Somalia and along Somalia’s eastern coastline. However, in July 2009, the
United Nations Secretary General warned that “as a result of the military presence in the region,
pirates have employed more daring operational tactics, operating further seawards, towards the
Seychelles, and using more sophisticated weaponry.” Pirate attacks continue to threaten
commercial shipping and relief shipments bound for East Africa and the Horn, amid a regional
humanitarian crisis that experts are calling the worst since 1984.
The increase in pirate attacks off the Horn of Africa is directly linked to continuing insecurity and
the absence of the rule of law in war-torn Somalia. The absence of a functioning government in
Somalia remains the single greatest challenge to regional security and provides freedom of action
for those engaged in piracy along the Somali coast. Some observers also have alleged that the
absence of coastal security authorities in Somalia has allowed illegal international fishing and
maritime dumping to occur in Somali waters, which in turn has undermined the economic
prospects of some Somalis and may be providing economic or political motivation to some
groups engaged in piracy. The apparent motive of many active Somali pirate groups is profit, and
piracy has proven to be a lucrative activity for many thus far. Ransoms paid to Somali pirates and
their supporters, estimated at over $30 million in 2008, may exacerbate ongoing fighting and
further undermine security in the region.
The U.N. Security Council issued four resolutions (1816, 1838, 1846, and 1851) in 2008 to
facilitate an international response to piracy off the Horn of Africa. At present, Resolution 1851
has authorized international naval forces to carry out anti-piracy operations in Somali territorial
waters and ashore, with the consent of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG).
Resolution 1872, adopted May 26, 2009, authorizes member states to participate in the training
and equipping of the TFG security forces in accordance with Resolution 1772 (2007). In January
2009, a multilateral Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) was established
to coordinate anti-piracy efforts. U.S., NATO, European Union, regional, and other naval forces
are currently patrolling near Somalia in coordination with a U.S.-led Task Force.
Some members of the 111th Congress have expressed concern about the threat posed by piracy,
and President Obama has stated that his Administration is resolved to halt the growth of piracy in
the Horn of Africa region. The Obama Administration has outlined its policy response to the
threat of piracy and pledged to continue working through interagency and multilateral
coordination and enforcement mechanisms established during the Bush Administration. Most
experts believe that the reestablishment of government authority in Somalia is the only guarantee
that piracy will not persist or reemerge as a threat. The 111th Congress has explored a range of
options to address both the threat posed by piracy as well as its underlying causes, and has sought
to influence U.S. policy through oversight of U.S. military operations and diplomatic efforts and
through defense and foreign assistance appropriations and authorizations. See CRS Report
RL33911, Somalia: Current Conditions and Prospects for a Lasting Peace, by Ted Dagne and
CRS Report R40081, Ocean Piracy and Its Impact on Insurance, by Rawle O. King.
Congressional Research Service
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 4
Piracy off the Horn of Africa: Profile..................................................................................... 7
The Pirates...................................................................................................................... 7
Motives........................................................................................................................... 8
Tactics and Demands....................................................................................................... 9
Piracy off the Horn of Africa: Impact .................................................................................. 11
Threats to Commercial Shipping and Global Trade........................................................ 12
Threats to Humanitarian Aid Deliveries......................................................................... 14
Threats to U.S. Flagged Vessels and the MV Maersk Alabama Incident.......................... 14
Potential Financing of Regional Conflict and Terrorism Concerns ................................. 15
U.S. and International Policy Responses.................................................................................... 16
U.S. Policy.......................................................................................................................... 16
United Nations Security Council ......................................................................................... 18
Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia ............................................................... 19
Combined Task Force 151 and Other Navies’ “National Escort Systems” ............................ 19
NATO: Operation Ocean Shield .......................................................................................... 20
European Union: Operation ATALANTA ............................................................................ 21
International Maritime Organization and the Djibouti Code of Conduct ............................... 22
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: “Shipriders” and Capacity Building................. 23
Private Sector and Shipping Industry Responses.................................................................. 23
Issues for Congress and Policy Options ..................................................................................... 24
Legislation in the 111th Congress ......................................................................................... 25
Oversight of U.S. Military Forces and U.S. Foreign Assistance ........................................... 25
Piracy, Law Enforcement, and International Cooperation..................................................... 27
Options for Improving the Immediate Security of Merchant Ships....................................... 30
Risk Reduction and Best Practices................................................................................. 30
Arming Merchant Ships ................................................................................................ 30
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) .......................................................... 32
Convoys........................................................................................................................ 33
Maritime War Risk Insurance and Implications of “Armed Crews”................................ 34
Toward a Long-Term Solution: "Piracy is a Problem that Starts Ashore".............................. 35
Figures
Figure 1. The Horn of Africa, Surrounding Waters, and Key Locations ........................................ 5
Figure 2. Somalia Map................................................................................................................ 6
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 36
Congressional Research Service
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Recent Developments
The summer months of 2009 saw a steep decline in the number of new pirate attacks in the waters
off the Horn of Africa, after the blistering pace of attacks earlier in the year focused international
attention on the challenges posed by piracy and insecurity in the region. Overall, the 156 pirate
attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the waters off Somalia’s eastern coast during the first nine months
of 2009 exceeded the number of attacks—111—recorded in the region during all of 2008. Attacks
remained concentrated in the Gulf of Aden, in spite of increased international maritime security
efforts in those waters. The United Nations Secretary General warned that “as a result of the
military presence in the region, pirates have employed more daring operational tactics, operating
further seawards, towards the Seychelles, and using more sophisticated weaponry.”1 Data
attributed to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) stated that, as of late August 2009,
approximately 104 non-U.S. crew members on 6 hijacked vessels remained in Somali captivity.2
The monsoon season weather credited with the summer decline in attacks began to improve in
late August, and attacks have resumed. Warnings issued by the IMB’s Piracy Reporting Center in
August highlighted a rash of pirate attacks in the Bab el Mandeb strait and advised ships to transit
at least 600 nautical miles from Somalia’s eastern coast. The U.S. Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD) issued a September 2009 advisory warning U.S. vessels to
“anticipate an increase in piracy attacks now through late December due to calmer weather
favorable for small boat activity.” The advisory further states that:
Despite the increase in presence and effectiveness of naval forces in the region, as well as the
effectiveness of defensive and protective measures, pirate activity has continued and a
number of commercial and civilian ships have been successfully attacked and seized. There
are indications that pirates in the area continue to adapt their techniques and procedures in
order to achieve success in capturing vessels, both in the [Gulf of Aden] as well as in the
open ocean off the east coast of Africa, particularly in the increased distances that they are
able to operate effectively off the east coast of Somalia potentially utilizing mother ships.
Naval vessels patrolling the [Maritime Security Patrol Area] provide a measure of deterrence
through their presence, but this is limited due to the vast area of the [Gulf of Aden] and is
even less effective in the open waters east of Somalia. Given the high volume of shipping in
the region, the safety of all ships cannot be guaranteed due to the often long response times
due to the considerable distances involved.3
The United States participated in meetings of the multilateral Contact Group on Piracy off the
Coast of Somalia in March, May, and September 2009 (see “Contact Group on Piracy off the
Coast of Somalia” below). At the September meeting, the Group approved a U.N. Multi-Donor
Trust Fund to support the cost of prosecution and incarceration of piracy suspects by regional
countries such as Kenya, which has taken responsibility for prosecuting most pirate suspects. The
Contact Group’s next meeting is scheduled for January 2010. Within the Group, U.S. officials
have led the efforts of a working group seeking to improve awareness and implementation of self-
defense best practices in the shipping and insurance industries. Since May 2009, the United States
and several other governments have signed a Commitment to Best Management Practices to
1 Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Somalia, S/2009/373, July 20, 2009.
2 Mike Cohen, “Ship Hijackings Off Somalia May Resume After Monsoon,” Bloomberg, August 26, 2009.
3 U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Advisory #: 2009-07, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and Indian
Ocean Transit, September 9, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
1
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Avoid, Deter or Delay Acts of Piracy (the so-called “New York Declaration”), including popular
ship registry countries such as Panama, Liberia, the Bahamas, and the Marshall Islands. Japan
also has announced a $14 million contribution to an United Nations International Maritime
Organization (IMO)4 administered trust fund to support capacity building initiatives for regional
signatories of the Djibouti Code of Conduct anti-piracy agreement (see “International Maritime
Organization and the Djibouti Code of Conduct” below).
As international coordination of anti-piracy efforts has improved at sea and in the region in recent
months, U.S. civilian and military officials have continued to stress the importance and difficulty
of finding solutions to the problem of instability ashore in Somalia. To that end, the African
Union (AU) has extended the mandate of their peacekeeping force in the country, known as the
African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM), and the United Nations Security Council
continues to consider proposals to send a U.N. force to Somalia to replace AMISOM. The U.N.
Security council has pledged $72 million for AMISOM, and the United States has provided
training, logistics support, and assistance worth over $135 million to AMISOM in the past two
years.5 AMISOM forces repeatedly have come under attack from Islamist groups opposed to the
presence of foreign troops in Somalia, including the Al Qaeda influenced group known as Al
Shabaab and a newer group, Hizbul Islam. A recent attack, a suicide truck bombing of an
AMISOM base in Mogadishu on September 17, killed 21, including the AMISOM Deputy Force
Commander and 16 other peacekeepers, and injured 40. Al Shabaab claims that the attack was
committed in retaliation for a September 14 raid, alleged to have been conducted by U.S. special
forces, in which Al Qaeda suspect Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan reportedly was killed.
The U.S. government and international donors have expressed support for the new unity
government formed between the TFG and the Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia (ARS),
which returned to Mogadishu in early 2009 with elected ARS leader Sharif Sheikh Ahmed as its
president. Elements of the ARS based abroad, as well as groups and factions in Somalia, have
vowed to continue fighting against the new government, and violence has surged since May. In
response, the United Nations, the League of Arab States, the African Union, and the regional
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) issued a joint statement in June
condemning the insurgents as a threat "not only to the country, but to the IGAD region and the
international community.”6 The international Contact Group on Somalia continues to work on a
multilateral basis to support Somali efforts to reach reconciliation agreements and implement the
country’s Transitional Federal Charter. An April 23 donors conference netted $213 million in
pledges of support for AMISOM and TFG plans to support police and security forces.7 On May
26, 2009, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1872, granting
new authorization for members states to participate in the training and equipping of the TFG
security forces in accordance with Resolution 1772 (2007) (see “United Nations Security
Council” below).
4 The International Maritime Organization is a United Nations agency with over 168 member governments. Based in
the United Kingdom, its members develop regulations for international shipping related to safety, the environment, and
maritime security. It also serves as a global coordinating body for legal issues, technical co-operation, and maritime
security including anti-piracy efforts. For more information, see: http://www.imo.org/.
5 Remarks by U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Security Council
Debate On Somalia, July 9, 2009.
6 U.N. Political Office for Somalia, “Joint Statement on the Assassination of Somali Security Minister,” June 18, 2009.
7 Agence Europe, “EU/SOMALIA: With $213 million promised, international community surpasses expectations,”
April 24, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
2
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
The U.S. government, working through AMISOM partners, has provided TFG security forces
with small arms and ammunition and funds to purchase weapons. This effort has raised concerns
among some observers who claim that weapons provided to the TFG are being resold and
benefiting insurgents.8 According to U.S. officials, the United States has provided training to TFG
security personnel and funds to the TFG to purchase weapons and ammunition. In mid-2009, the
Administration arranged for “urgent” shipments of approximately 40 tons of small arms and
ammunition to TFG forces in response to growing attacks from its enemies. As of June 2009, U.S.
officials stated that the total value of the program was under $10 million.9 In June 2009, State
Department spokesman Ian Kelly said:
At the request of [the TFG] government, the State Department has helped to provide
weapons and ammunition on an urgent basis. This is to support the Transitional Federal
Government’s efforts to repel the onslaught of extremist forces, which are intent on
destroying the Djibouti peace process and spoiling efforts to bring peace and stability to
Somalia through political reconciliation. Any State Department assistance to the TFG
underscores our longstanding policy of supporting the Djibouti peace process. This is also
supported by the international community and follows on to our participation in International
Contact Group meetings in Somalia.10
In April 2009, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that U.S. diplomats planned to
engage with Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) officials and leaders from the semi-
autonomous region of Puntland (shaded in Figure 1) and the Eyl district to “press these leaders to
take action against pirates operating from bases within their territories.” Puntland authorities
reportedly have taken some limited action in response (see “The Pirates” below).
The Obama Administration requested $40 million in 2009 supplemental Peacekeeping Operations
(PKO) funding to provide “non-lethal equipment, logistical support, and basing facilities for the
African Union Mission to Somalia and to support Somali security sector reform.” The
Administration also sought authority to transfer up to $50 million in supplemental Contributions
for International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) funding to the PKO account for Somalia, if
necessary. For FY2010, the Administration is requesting $67 million in PKO funding for Somalia,
along with $2 million in Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs
funding for small arms and light weapons destruction programs (NADR-SALW) and $40,000 for
International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs. For more information about
political developments in Somalia and U.S. policy, see CRS Report RL33911, Somalia: Current
Conditions and Prospects for a Lasting Peace, by Ted Dagne.
On March 16, 2009, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon released his report to the
Security Council required by Resolution 1846 on the security of international navigation off the
coast of Somalia (S/2009/146). His next 1846 report is due in November 2009. The Secretary
General reported to the Security Council on the Situation in Somalia in July 2009 and, as noted
8 See claims made by Peter Pham cited in Fawzia Sheikh, “As Washington Crafts Somalia Review, Arms Deal Draws
Criticism,” Inside the Pentagon, Vol. 25, No. 34, August 27, 2009.
9 A June 2009 background briefing from an unnamed senior U.S. State Department official described the effort as
providing “small arms and limited munitions,” explaining that the United States has provided “funds for the purchase
of weapons; and we have also asked the two units that are there, particularly the Ugandans, to provide weapons to the
TFG, and we have backfilled the Ugandans for what they have provided to the TFG government.” U.S. State
Department, “Background Briefing on U.S. Assistance to the Somalia Transitional Federal Government,” Washington,
DC, June 26, 2009.
10 U.S. State Department Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, June 25, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
3
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
above, included warned of the increasing range of pirate attacks and provided an update on
international anti-piracy efforts.11
Background
Piracy has reemerged as a global security threat, most recently in the waters off the Horn of
Africa, but also in West Africa, the waters off India, the South China Sea and the Strait of
Malacca, and the Caribbean. Pirates tend to operate in regions with large coastal areas, high levels
of commercial activity, small national naval forces, and weak regional security cooperation
mechanisms. These characteristics facilitate other maritime security threats, including maritime
terrorism, weapons and narcotics trafficking, illegal fishing and dumping, and human smuggling
operations.
Worldwide rates of piracy began to increase in the early 1990s, peaking at roughly 350 to 450
reported attacks per year during the period 2000-2004, then declining by almost half by 2005. In
2007, almost half of the world’s reported pirate attacks took place in African waters, mainly near
Nigeria and Somalia. The number of attacks in Somali waters doubled in 2008, accounting for an
estimated 40% of the 293 pirate attacks reported worldwide.12 The recent increase in pirate
attacks off Somalia is likely to cause the total number of worldwide pirate attacks to increase in
2009, but not necessarily back to the levels of 2000-2004. Nevertheless, high profile attacks in the
Gulf of Aden and the west Indian Ocean have brought renewed international attention to the
problem of piracy in waters off the Horn of Africa.
The U.S. National Maritime Security Strategy, issued in 2005, stated that the “safety and
economic security of the United States depends upon the secure use of the world’s oceans,” and
identified “well organized and well equipped” pirates and criminals as threats to international
maritime security. The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 in the Yemeni harbor of Aden and the
bombing of the French oil tanker MV Limburg in 2002 illustrated the threat of potential maritime
terrorism in the region. The United States, working with its international partners, established a
combined naval task force in 2002 to meet the terrorism threat (Combined Task Force 150),13 and
increased bilateral military and security assistance to regional navies. However, prior to the
establishment in 2008 of the new Combined Task Force 151 (see “Combined Task Force 151”
below), the United States had not assigned any naval assets the sole task of performing anti-
piracy operations in the Horn of Africa region.
Similarly, until 2008, the international community did not respond to the threat of piracy in the
waters off of Somalia in a coordinated, dedicated manner. In December 2008, the European
Union launched EU NAVFOR Operation ATALANTA, representing the first naval operation
under the framework of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). Similarly, NATO has
launched a dedicated anti-piracy mission, Operation Ocean Shield, and other navies have
deployed ships to provide security for vessels bearing their flags. The development of a
collaborative regional response in East Africa in 2009 has mirrored regional reactions to the threat
of piracy in the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, which are credited
11 Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Somalia, S/2009/373, July 20, 2009.
12 Much of the statistical information on pirate attacks found in this report has been provided by the International
Maritime Bureau, a division of the International Chamber of Commerce.
13 See the U.S. Navy’s website for CTF 150, available at: http://www.cusnc.navy.mil/command/ctf150.html.
Congressional Research Service
4
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
with having drastically reduced the instance of piracy in Southeast Asia since 2005 (see
“International Maritime Organization and the Djibouti Code of Conduct” below). Eradicating
piracy in the Horn of Africa region may prove to be a more daunting task. The vast areas of the
western Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden where the pirates operate are remote, Somalia
remains largely ungoverned, and regional states have relatively weak naval capabilities.
Figure 1. The Horn of Africa, Surrounding Waters, and Key Locations
Source: Congressional Cartography Program, Library of Congress, adapted by CRS Graphics.
Congressional Research Service
5
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Figure 2. Somalia Map
Source: Congressional Cartography Program, Library of Congress, adapted by CRS Graphics.
Congressional Research Service
6
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Piracy off the Horn of Africa: Profile
The Pirates
Several groups of pirates currently operate in Somali waters, according to reports from the United
Nations Secretary General and an experts group convened by the Secretary General’s Special
Representative for Somalia in November 2008.14 Organized predominantly along clan lines and
based in distinct, remote port towns, the groups have varying capabilities and patterns of
operation, making generalized responses more difficult. The two primary groups identified by
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his March 2009 report were a pirate network based in the
Puntland region district of Eyl and a pirate network based in the Mudug region district of
Harardera (Xarardheere). The Secretary General and the Special Representative’s experts group
also report that smaller pirate groups also operate from the Somali ports of Bosaso, Qandala,
Caluula, Bargaal, Hobyo, Mogadishu, and Garad .15 The Secretary General has warned that some
of the pirate groups “now rival established Somali authorities in terms of their military
capabilities and resource bases.” Other reports indicate that there may now be three distinct pirate
groups, the Northern gang, based in Eyl; the Central gang, based in Hobyo; and the Southern
gang, based in Harardera.16 Pirate groups have operated from these remote communities, each
heavily dependent on fishing, since the early 1990s.
The northern semi-autonomous region of Puntland (shaded in Figure 1) appears to be home to
the most active and capable pirate networks, and some regional and local government officials
there are alleged to have facilitated and profited from piracy prior to recent efforts by regional
leaders to crack down on piracy-related corruption. In April 2009, Puntland security forces began
to launch raids on pirate bases, and the region’s courts have tried and convicted suspected
pirates.17 Local authorities also initiated wa’yigelin, a “sensitization campaign” and have offered
general amnesty to those that renounce piracy. Puntland’s regional authorities have developed a
basic coast guard, but accounts suggest that the equipment and capabilities of this small force
remain very limited. Several of the pirate groups have adopted names to suggest that they are
acting in a maritime security capacity, and some reports suggest that some of the pirates may have
previously received training by Somalia’s former navy and by foreign security firms and been
given semi-official status to intercept foreign fishing vessels and extract fines. Today, the pirates
are collectively referred to by Somalis as burcad badeed (sea bandits).18 Nevertheless, piracy
appears to have become an attractive pursuit for young men, creating potential legal complexities
for regional and international governments seeking to try young pirate suspects for alleged
crimes.
14Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1846 (2008), S/2009/146, March 16, 2009;
and, International Expert Group on Piracy off the Somali Coast, Final Report: Workshop commissioned by the Special
Representative of the Secretary General of the UN to Somalia Ambassador Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, November 10-12,
2008, Nairobi, Kenya.
15 The Special Representative’s experts group report identified the following specific pirate group leaders (clan,
location in parentheses): Isse Mahmuud and Leelkase (Darood, Eyl), Omar Mahmuud (Darood, Garad), and the
Habargedir (Hawiye, Hobiya, Harardera, and Mogadishu).
16 International Crisis Group, Somalia: The Problem with Puntland, Africa Briefing No. 64, August 12, 2009.
17 All Africa, “Anti-Piracy Campaign Begins Today in Puntland,” April 24, 2009; and, All Africa, “Puntland Nabs 15
Pirate Suspects, Seizes 5 Boats,” May 18, 2009.
18 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Motives
According to the final report of the experts group convened in November 2008 by U.N. Special
Representative to Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, “poverty, lack of employment,
environmental hardship, pitifully low incomes, reduction of pastoralist and maritime resources
due to drought and illegal fishing and a volatile security and political situation all contribute to
the rise and continuance of piracy in Somalia.”19 While the profitability of piracy appears to be
the primary motivating factor for most pirates, other observers argue that since conditions in
Somalia make survival difficult for many and prosperity elusive for most, the relative risk of
engagement in piracy seems diminished. 20
Somali pirates interviewed by international media sources frequently link their piracy activities to
trends such as illegal fishing and dumping in Somali waters that have emerged as the country has
lost its ability to patrol its waters over time.21 While these explanations may mask the
opportunistic piracy of some, reports suggest that illegal fishing and dumping have disrupted
Somalia’s coastal economy. For example, a July 2005 report from the United Kingdom
Department for International Development (DFID) estimated that Somalis lost $100 million to
illegal tuna and shrimp fishing in the country’s exclusive economic zone in 2003-2004.22
The international Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) (see “Contact
Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia”) stated at its inaugural meeting that “piracy is
symptomatic of the overall situation in Somalia including the prevalence of illegal fishing and
toxic waste dumping off the coast of Somalia, which adversely affects the Somali economy and
marine environment.”23 The CGPCS also reaffirmed “its respect for Somalia’s sovereignty,
territorial integrity, and sovereign rights over natural resources” and underscored that the group’s
participants “ensure that their flagged vessels respect these rights.”
Paradoxically, the regional fishing industry reportedly has been damaged significantly by the
threat of piracy. According to some reports, tuna catches in the Indian Ocean fell 30% in 2008, in
part because of fishing vessels’ fears of piracy. This has had a major impact on countries like the
Seychelles, which rely on the fishing industry for up to 40% of their earnings.24
The use of force by international naval patrols to apprehend or kill pirate suspects has raised the
prospect that revenge may become a motivating factor for pirates whose associates are killed or
19 International Expert Group on Piracy off the Somali Coast, Final Report: Workshop commissioned by the Special
Representative of the Secretary General of the UN to Somalia Ambassador Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, November 10-12,
2008, Nairobi, Kenya.
20 The dire economic and security situation in Somalia is illustrated by the continuing outflow of refugees and migrants
to neighboring countries. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that as many as 50,000 people,
predominantly Somalis, crossed the Gulf of Aden to Yemen in 2008. The deaths of hundreds of migrants in a boat
accident off the northern Somali coast in April 2009 illustrate a pattern of similar accidents which continues. “More
Somali Migrants Drown off Yemeni Coast,” UN IRIN, March 1, 2009.
21 The U.N. experts group noted the tendency of pirates to characterize their actions as an alternative livelihood or as
retribution for illegal international activities in Somali waters: “The pirates also firmly believe that they have every
right and entitlement to attack illegal fishing vessels operating in their territorial waters as their fishing resources are
being pillaged daily by international shipping vessels from Asia and Europe.” International Expert Group on Piracy off
the Somali Coast, Final Report, p. 15.
22 DFID, “Review of Impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing on Developing Countries,” July 2005.
23 Statement of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, New York, January 14, 2009.
24 “Somali Piracy ‘Reduces Tuna Haul,’” BBC, January 22, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
8
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
captured. The April 14, 2009, attack on the U.S.-flagged MV Liberty Sun allegedly was carried
out with the intention of damaging or sinking the ship and injuring or killing its crew in
retaliation for the deaths of three Somali pirates during U.S. military efforts to secure the release
of the detained captain of the MV Maersk Alabama days earlier (see “Threats to U.S. Flagged
Vessels and the MV Maersk Alabama Incident” below).25
Tactics and Demands26
As noted above, some Somali pirate groups have developed sophisticated operational capabilities
and have acquired weaponry, equipment, and funds that make them on par with or more effective
than the local forces arrayed against them. The typical Somali pirate team is equipped with a
variety of small arms, including AK-47 rifles and rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launchers.
Many pirate teams use fishing skiffs powered with large outboard motors to give chase to larger,
but slower moving tankers, cargo ships, yachts, cruise ships, barges, and tug boats. Local Somali
fisherman reportedly are forced to support pirate activities in some cases, while in other cases,
coastal Somalis lend their fishing boats, equipment, and navigational expertise to teams of would-
be pirates from inland communities.
Somali pirates initially focused on attacking ships in the western Indian Ocean, off Somalia’s
eastern coast. When ships operating on that route shifted further out to sea, Somali pirates shifted
their focus to the Gulf of Aden, where there is a concentration of merchant ships (an estimated
33,000 per year)27 operating in a more constrained waterway that is relatively close to Somalia’s
northern shore. Most recently, now that international naval forces are patrolling the Gulf of Aden
with some effectiveness, Somali pirates have shifted some of their focus back to the Indian
Ocean, and are now able to operate hundreds of nautical miles from the Somali coastline, often
with the support of so-called ‘mother ships.’ These ‘mother ships’ are larger fishing vessels often
acquired or commandeered by acts of piracy, and tend to operate out of the Somali ports of
Bosaso and Mogadishu and the Yemeni ports of Al Mukalla and Ash Shihr.
U.S. and international officials suspect that in some cases, Somali businessmen and international
support networks provide pirate groups with financing and supplies in return for shares of ransom
payments. The IMB has disputed claims that pirates receive intelligence support in order to target
specific vessels, arguing that “the suggestion that vessels are targeted in advance using shore
based intelligence is spurious…. Further, there is no information in the public domain that would
enable pirates to precisely locate a targeted vessel at sea and then to mount a successful attack off
the Horn of Africa.”28 The pirates refuel and purchase logistical supplies like fuel and engine parts
25 An alleged pirate commander named Abdi Garad told reporters, “This attack was the first against our prime target.
We intended to destroy this American-flagged ship and the crew on board but unfortunately they narrowly escaped us.
The aim of this attack was totally different. We were not after a ransom. We also assigned a team with special
equipment to chase and destroy any ship flying the American flag in retaliation for the brutal killing of our friends.”
Agence France Presse, “Pirates stage rocket attack on US freighter,” April 14, 2009.
26 The U.S. government has provided mariners with descriptions of common pirate tactics and instructions for response.
See, for example, U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, “Somali Pirate Tactics,” December
2008. Available at http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/HOA_Somali%20Pirate%20Tactics_15DEC2008.pdf.
27 Assistant Secretary Andrew J. Shapiro, U.S. State Department, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, “Taking
Diplomatic Action Against Piracy,” Remarks to the Global Maritime Information Sharing Symposium, National
Defense University, Washington, D.C., September 16, 2009.
28 International Chamber of Commerce- International Maritime Bureau, “Shipping Industry dismisses reports of
targeted Somali pirate attacks,” May 15, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
9
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
in Yemen, according to U.S. naval officials.29 According to the NATO Shipping Center, Somali
pirates returning from raids in the Gulf of Aden often stop at the port of Caluula on the northeast
tip of Somalia before proceeding to their safe havens on the Indian Ocean coast.30
One of the unique characteristics of Somali piracy has been the taking of hostages for ransom. In
this sense, piracy off Somalia can be viewed as a form of maritime kidnapping. Unlike pirate
attacks in Strait of Malacca or Nigeria, where ships are boarded either to take the vessel or its
contents, pirates off the Horn of Africa routinely take the target vessel’s crew hostage in return for
ransom payments. This approach to piracy is possible because the pirates have a sanctuary on
land in Somalia and in its territorial waters from which they can launch pirate attacks and conduct
ransom negotiations. Pirates in other parts of the world are less likely to have such sanctuaries.
This has presented maritime security forces with significant challenges to traditional engagement
strategies and tactics.
According to reports, most vessels under attack have less than 15 to 30 minutes between the first
sighting of the pirates and their boarding of the ship and taking of hostages. If a naval ship cannot
arrive on scene within those 15 to 30 minutes, it will likely arrive too late to prevent the ship’s
capture. Naval combatant ships generally can steam at speeds of up to 30 knots (speeds of 20+
knots might be more likely), so unless a naval ship happens to be a few miles away when a
commercial ship comes under attack, it won’t arrive until after (perhaps long after) the 15- to 30-
minute window has come and gone. The large area of water to be patrolled and the relatively
small number of naval ships available means that the closest naval ship is often far too distant to
arrive within that timeframe.
While pirate attacks may involve violence and the use of weaponry, most Somali pirate groups
have not shown a willingness to wantonly harm captives taken in the course of their raids. Pirates
in other parts of the world who engage in these types of attacks might be more likely to kill or
seriously wound merchant ship crew members, since extracting ransom payments is not their
objective. Negotiations for ransom involve the use of satellite telephones, third-party
intermediaries in Somalia and abroad, and public relations efforts to influence interaction with
property owners and foreign officials. Most navies have avoided rescue operations that could
endanger the lives of hostages, preferring instead to engage in hostage negotiations or wait for
shipping companies to negotiate ransom. According to reports, a rescue operation by French
naval forces, designed to free a family held hostage onboard a small sailboat off the Somali coast,
resulted in the death of the vessel’s owner, a French citizen, during an exchange of fire between
the pirates and naval personnel.31
Prior to the U.S. military resolution of the MV Maersk Alabama seizure and other French military
operations, the most sensational cases of piracy to date had been resolved through the payment of
large sums of money to different pirate syndicates.32 The Ukrainian ship MV Faina was released
for a reported $3.2 million ransom in February 2009 after being held for nearly 6 months by
pirates based in Harardera (Xarardheere). The seizure of the ship, carrying T-72 tanks and a
29 Comments by Admiral Mark Fitzgerald in “Work with Yemen Government on Somali Piracy: U.S. Admiral,”
Reuters, March 9, 2009.
30 Report of the UN Secretary General, S/2009/146, paragraph 6, page 2.
31 Others onboard were rescued safely.
32 The French military also has reportedly undertaken a number of raid and rescue operations since April 2008 to free
its citizens held aboard seized ships.
Congressional Research Service
10
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
significant amount of ammunition and small arms, led several governments, including the United
States, to dispatch naval forces to the region to monitor the ship and its cargo. The Saudi oil
supertanker MV Sirius Star was released for a reported $3 million ransom to Eyl-based pirates in
January 2009 following its seizure in November 2008. The hijacking of the Sirius Star illustrated
the threat piracy may pose to international energy supplies as well as the capabilities of some
Somali pirates to operate far out to sea against large vessels. Ransom payments are considered to
be problematic by some observers because they encourage pirates to continue their attacks with
the expectation that insurance and shipping companies will decide that ransoms are cost effective
relative to the insured values of personnel and cargo (see “Threats to Commercial Shipping and
Global Trade” below).
The use of force by international naval forces to apprehend pirates and to free hostages in 2009
has raised the prospect of an escalation in the pirates’ use of force. As noted above, pirate leaders
vowed to retaliate for the deaths of some of their operatives at the hands of U.S. and other
international naval forces. However, to date few hostages have been harmed in pirate attacks.
Nonetheless, the use of force against suspected pirate vessels also may be problematic because of
the difficulty inherent in distinguishing a pirate mother ship from a legitimate commercial ship.
According to reports, in November 2008, a ship from the Indian navy attacked what it thought
was a pirate mother ship, only to discover, after the attack was conducted, that the targeted ship
was an innocent Thai commercial trawler.
The effective use of force against pirate strongholds in coastal towns would likely require
significant military planning and the investment of considerable resources in order to avoid or
minimize civilian casualties. The number of naval ships that would be needed to completely halt
piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the waters of Somalia’s Eastern Coast is probably much larger
than the force that has been operating there recently, approximately 30 combatant ships as of
early September 2009. According to some estimates, as many as 60 might be required to fully
suppress piracy in the Gulf of Aden alone. The adjoining area of concern in the Indian Ocean off
Somalia’s eastern coast, which has been measured at more than 1 million square miles, is much
larger than the Gulf of Aden, so completely halting piracy in that area would likely also require an
even larger number of ships.
Reports suggest that some pirates have invested ransom earnings in sophisticated weaponry and
have fortified their operating bases against local authorities and potential international
intervention. Some observers warn that international military operations to combat pirates ashore
with force could undermine political reconciliation efforts aimed at reestablishing national
governance in Somalia. (See “Oversight of U.S. Military Forces and U.S. Foreign Assistance”
below.)
Piracy off the Horn of Africa: Impact
The strategic location of the Horn of Africa increases its importance for international security and
commerce. The northern coastline of Somalia lies to the south of the Gulf of Aden, a key transit
zone for ships passing to and from the Red Sea and the increasingly active port of Djibouti. The
U.S Department of Energy estimated that, as of 2006, as many as 3.3 million barrels of oil per
day were transiting the Bab el Mandeb strait between the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea.33 The
33 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Brief: World Oil Transit
Chokepoints, January 2008.
Congressional Research Service
11
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Indian Ocean waters off the southeast coast of Somalia are home to busy shipping lanes for trade
between Asia and East Africa, as well as for ships making longer voyages around South Africa’s
Cape of Good Hope. Ship traffic to and from the Kenyan port of Mombasa is particularly
vulnerable to security disruptions in the west Indian Ocean. The Maritime Administration
testified in February 2009 that:
On average, at least one U.S. commercial vessel transits the area each day. Many of these
US-flag vessels carry Department of Defense cargo bound for Operations Iraqi and Enduring
Freedom. U.S.-flag vessels transiting the region also carry humanitarian cargoes generated
by U.S. AID or international organizations to the Horn of Africa, including Djibouti,
Somalia and other countries in East Africa or South Asia.34
Threats to Commercial Shipping and Global Trade35
Somali piracy incurs economic costs in a number of ways, including ransom payments, damage to
ships and cargoes, delays in delivering cargoes, increased maritime insurance rates, the costs of
steps to harden merchant ships against attack, and costs for using naval forces for anti-piracy
operations. The total economic costs of piracy, though significant in an absolute sense, are
thought to be equivalent to only a very small fraction of the total value of worldwide shipborne
commerce. In testimony on February 4, 2009, before the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Peter Chalk, senior
policy analyst at the Rand Corporation, stated that the overall annual cost of piracy to the
maritime industry is estimated to be between $1 billion and $16 billion. Some of these costs are
ultimately paid by the consumer.
In May 2008, insurance underwriters at Lloyds of London designated the Gulf of Aden a “war-
risk” zone subject to a special insurance premium based on the advice of the U.K. insurance
community’s Joint War Committee. In response London-based ocean marine insurers have raised
premium rates for ships making the voyage through the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal. These
levels of increase can only be estimated because of the competitive nature of the ocean marine
insurance business. One group of London insurance brokers and underwriters estimates extra
premiums at $10,000 to $20,000 per trip through the Gulf.36 U.S. rates, however, apparently have
not changed. According to representatives of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters
(AIMU), U.S. ocean marine insurers have not had to pay ransom for any act of piracy; therefore,
they say, hull and cargo insurance rates for vessels leaving the United States remain the same.
London-based shipping firms are usually prepared to pay ransom when the demanded sums are
considered low, ranging from $500,000 to $2 million, compared with the value of the ships and
cargo. Such payments are reimbursed because the hull insurance policies issued in London
explicitly cover the peril of piracy.37 (Hull insurance forms used by American insurers generally
34 U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Statement of Acting Deputy Administrator James
Caponti before the Sub-committee on Coast Guard and Maritime transportation of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives, on International Piracy, February 4, 2009, p. 3.
35 For more information about the commercial impact of piracy, see CRS Report R40081, Ocean Piracy and Its Impact
on Insurance, by Rawle O. King.
36 Piracy Threat Hikes Insurance Premiums: Insurers to Raise Rates in High-Risk Areas After Piracy Heists Off Somali
Coast, November 20, 2008, located at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/278262.
37 Robert F. Worth, “Pirates Seize Saudi Tanker off Kenya: Ship Called the Largest Ever Hijacked,” New York Times,
November 18, 2008, p. A. 6.
Congressional Research Service
12
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
exclude coverage for the peril of piracy.) However, when the ransom demanded exceeds the value
of the cargo, the shippers typically do not pay the ransom. Some firms have developed specific
insurance products to address piracy-related ransom costs.38
Ship operators (and their governments) might judge that the costs of paying occasional ransoms
are less than the costs of taking steps to prevent occasional hijackings such as rerouting or arming
merchant ships. Some assert that payment of ransoms has tended to keep the level of violence
associated with piracy off Somalia relatively low, and while individual ransom payments can be
significant, the small percentage of ships operating in the area successfully attacked and captured
lowers the overall risk in the eyes of some commercial entities. As such, the payment of
occasional ransoms might be viewed by ship operators (and their governments) as a regrettable
but tolerable cost of doing business, even if it encourages more piracy.
The increase in pirate attacks is occurring at a time when the shipping industry is showing
vulnerabilities in its financial health. One development is that the frequency of hiring dry bulk
carriers, a key industry component, has decreased; the “hire” rates dropped over 90% in late
2008.39 (In some cases, the hire rate has dropped because the financial industry stopped financing
some trade due to the global economic downturn.)40 In addition, many ship owners and other key
industry participants reportedly absorbed severe losses from the global financial crisis. Some
major dry bulk shippers lost money speculating on the market in shipping derivatives that offered
potential for strong investment returns.41 Shipping derivatives were developed to manage risk
stemming from fluctuations in freight rates, vessel prices, interest rates, and foreign exchange
rates, more effectively, in a cheaper and more flexible manner. Many shippers made derivative
bets mistakenly on the direction of dry bulk rates during 2008.
In addition to the generalized threat that piracy poses to the security of shipping lanes, the
incidence of piracy has important second order effects on the costs, patterns, and benefits of
regional and international shipping and trade. Egypt’s Suez Canal serves as a vital shipping link
between the Mediterranean Sea and Red Sea, and the revenue derived from ships transiting the
Canal is an important source of funding for Egypt’s government. Canal authorities report that
shipping traffic and resulting revenue have declined over the last year, due both to decreased
economic activity and the piracy threat to the Canal’s approaches in the Gulf of Aden. Rerouting
vessels to avoid the Gulf of Aden and other waters near the Horn of Africa adds additional transit
days and fuel costs to shipping companies. The costs vary by type of ship and frequency of
voyage, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.42
38 Stuart Collins, “Insurers increase war rates for several high-risk areas” Business Insurance, Volume 43; Number 31,
September 7, 2009.
39 Robert Wright, “Shipping in Crisis: Sector Must Navigate Rates Challenge,” Financial Times, November 19, 2008,
p. 18.
40 Ibid.
41 A derivative is a financial instrument whose price is dependent upon or derived from one or more underlying assets.
The derivative itself is a contract between two or more parties. Its value is determined by fluctuations in the underlying
asset. The most common underlying assets include stocks, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates, and market
indexes.
42 For example, circumnavigation rather than transiting the Gulf of Aden/Suez Canal increases the annual operating
cost of an oil tanker “by reducing the delivery capacity for the ship from about six round-trip voyages to five voyages,
or a drop of about 26%. The additional fuel cost of traveling via the Cape of Good Hope is about $3.5 million
annually.” U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration, Economic Impact of Piracy in the Gulf of
Aden on Global Trade, December 2008.
Congressional Research Service
13
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Threats to Humanitarian Aid Deliveries
Piracy also threatens the delivery of vital humanitarian assistance to the Horn of Africa, much of
which arrives by sea.43 Almost 5 million Ethiopians required emergency humanitarian assistance
in the first half of 2009, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) estimates
that 6.2 million will require food aid in the latter half of the year. The United States provided over
$600 million in humanitarian assistance to Ethiopia in FY2008, and has provided over $355
million to date in FY2009.44 In neighboring Somalia, an estimated 3.2 million Somalis,
approximately 43% of the population, required food aid in the latter half of 2008, and some 3.8
million are expected to require emergency assistance in 2009. U.S. humanitarian assistance to
Somalia totaled $270 million in 2008 and over $150 million to date in FY2009.45 The Obama
Administration requested $200 million in FY2009 supplemental International Disaster Assistance
(IDA) funding and $300 million in FY2009 supplemental P.L. 480, Title II humanitarian
assistance, in part to address food and water shortages in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan. For
FY2010, the Administration is requesting $40 million in P.L.480 funding for Ethiopia and $30
million for Sudan.
Food insecurity in the region, caused by drought and instability, has been heightened by high food
and fuel prices in the region. Officials from the World Food Program (WFP), which ships tens of
thousands of metric tons of food monthly to the Horn of Africa region, reports that it has become
more expensive to ship assistance to Mogadishu, and that their ability to deliver relief is
significantly hampered. A combination of rising costs, rising demand, and insufficient funding
recently prompted WFP to announce that it would be closing feeding centers in Somalia. Canada,
NATO, and European Union forces assumed WFP escort responsibilities in late 2008 (see
“NATO: Operation Ocean Shield” and “European Union: Operation ATALANTA” below).46
Threats to U.S. Flagged Vessels and the MV Maersk Alabama Incident
The continuing threat of piracy to ongoing relief efforts and U.S.-flagged vessels was illustrated
clearly in April 2009, when pirates hijacked the MV Maersk Alabama and attacked the MV
Liberty Sun, both U.S.-flagged and crewed cargo vessels contracted by the WFP to deliver
USAID food assistance off the southeast coast of Somalia. On April 8, 2009, Somali pirates
seized the U.S.-flagged commercial shipping vessel MV Maersk Alabama approximately 250
nautical miles south east of the Somali town of Eyl. The Maersk Alabama had delivered food aid
to the port of Djibouti and was en route to the port of Mombasa, Kenya, when it was seized by
Somali pirates. Press reports suggested that the 20-member crew of U.S. citizens overtook their
Somali captors some time after the ship was seized and attempted unsuccessfully to free the
ship’s captain, Vermont resident Richard Phillips.
43 Food insecurity in the region is also exacerbated by banditry, roadblocks, inter-clan fighting, and attacks on aid
workers.
44 USAID, Complex Emergency – Ethiopia, Situation Report #11, September 17, 2009.
45 USAID, Complex Emergency – Somalia, Situation Report #8, August 25, 2009.
46 Christian Fraser, “On Patrol with the Pirate Hunters,” BBC, November 21, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
14
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
In response, the United States Navy dispatched the U.S.S. Bainbridge,47 an Arleigh Burke-class
destroyer, and reconnaissance aircraft to the area in order to monitor the small craft where
Captain Phillips was being held. Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel worked with naval
personnel to conduct hostage negotiations for the captain’s release. On April 11, after officials
determined that Phillips’ life was in immediate danger, U.S. special forces mounted a successful
rescue operation with the authorization of President Barack Obama. Three pirates were killed by
snipers in the U.S. rescue operation; a fourth, a young Somali named Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse,
has been indicted and has pled not guilty to piracy, conspiracy, hostage taking, and weapons
charges before the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York.48 Some
analysts expressed concern that the rescue operation would trigger the use of increasingly violent
tactics in future pirate attacks.
A leader of the pirate group based in the town of Eyl who held Phillips reportedly vowed revenge,
telling reporters that, “this matter will lead to retaliation and we will hunt down particularly
American citizens travelling our waters. Next time we get American citizens ... they [should]
expect no mercy from us.” An attack on a second U.S.-flagged vessel, the MV Liberty Sun, on
April 14 appeared to be an attempt by pirates to make good on that threat. A pirate leader told
reporters after the Liberty Sun attack that, “We were not after a ransom. We also assigned a team
with special equipment to chase and destroy any ship flying the American flag in retaliation for
the brutal killing of our friends.”49
Potential Financing of Regional Conflict and Terrorism Concerns
The volatile Horn of Africa is home to several ongoing armed conflicts, and armed banditry is a
common threat in much of the region. The small arms trade in the Horn and its potential to fuel
instability remains a major concern to the international community. In spite of the longstanding
United Nations arms embargo on Somalia established by Security Council Resolution 733 (1992),
U.N. observers have reported “persistent violations” in recent years amid calls from the African
Union and others for the lifting of the embargo to allow the armament of transitional government
forces battling Islamist insurgents (see “United Nations Security Council” below). According to
the Security Council Resolution 1851, “the lack of enforcement of the arms embargo ... has
permitted ready access to the arms and ammunition used by the pirates and driven in part the
phenomenal growth in piracy.”
Observers have expressed apprehension that some of the revenue from ransoms paid for the
release of ships and hostages may be used to finance an influx of more weapons to the area for
pirates or others. According to some experts, some of the same boats used for pirate attacks are
used to carry refugees and economic migrants from Somalia to Yemen, and many return carrying
47 The U.S.S. Bainbridge is named for Captain William Bainbridge, the commander of the U.S.S. Philadelphia who was
held in captivity in the Barbary state of Tripoli from 1803 to 1805 after the Philadelphia ran aground in Tripoli harbor
during anti-piracy operations. The captivity of Bainbridge and his crew significantly escalated the military
confrontation between the United States and the Barbary pirates, whose threats to U.S. vessels in the Mediterranean
were a key factor in the early development of the United States Navy. For more information, see
http://www.bainbridge.navy.mil/sitepages/history.aspx.
48 See complaint U.S. v. Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse, 09-MG-1012, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New
York, April 21, 2009; and Alexandra Marks, “Teen Somali to be Tried as Adult,” Christian Science Monitor, April 21,
2009.
49 Agence France Presse, “Pirates stage rocket attack on US freighter,” April 14, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
15
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
arms.50 U.S. Navy officials have not found that fighters associated with Al Shabaab have financial
ties to piracy at present, but the potential for personnel linkages may remain.51 To the extent that
ransom payments and new arms further empower criminal pirate groups, the challenge that such
groups pose to local authorities at present and to reconstituted national authorities in the future
could grow.
U.S. and International Policy Responses
Piracy in the waters off the Horn of Africa is a symptom of the wider instability that has plagued
Somalia and the region since the early 1990s. At present, the internationally recognized
Transitional Federal Government (TFG) is working to form a functional unity government and to
reconstitute national security and law enforcement entities. The Bush and Obama Administrations
have supported reconciliation efforts in Somalia and have taken a leadership role in coordinating
diplomatic and military responses to the threat of piracy in the region, in coordination with the
United Nations Security Council. Funds pledged at the April 23 donors conference for Somalia in
Brussels are intended in part to support the development of security forces by the TFG, and such
forces, once developed, may improve local authorities’ ability to act against pirates ashore. Some
caution, however, that assistance provided to TFG forces may in some cases be transferred to the
insurgent groups.52
To date, U.S. and international efforts to respond to the threat of piracy have taken on a multi-
faceted approach. In order to provide a short term response to the immediate threat to
international navigation in the region’s waters, the United Nations Security Council has
authorized third party governments to conduct anti-piracy operations in Somali territorial waters
and ashore, but only with authorization from and in coordination with the TFG. Among CTF-151,
the EU’s Operation ATALANTA, NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield, and other navies’ “national
escort” operations, approximately 30 combatant ships are currently patrolling in the region.
Regional bodies such as the African Union, the Arab League, and ad hoc groupings such as the
participants in the December 2008 International Conference on Piracy in Nairobi, Kenya, have
held consultative meetings and issued policy statements condemning piracy in the region and
providing guidance for the development of coordinated, collaborative regional responses.
U.S. Policy
The U.S. National Maritime Security Strategy, issued in 2005, stated that the “safety and
economic security of the United States depends upon the secure use of the world’s oceans,” and
identified “well organized and well equipped” pirates and criminals as threats to international
maritime security. In June 2007, the Bush Administration adopted a Policy for the Repression of
Piracy and other Criminal Acts of Violence at Sea that stated that it is the policy of the United
States to “[c]ontinue to lead and support international efforts to repress piracy and other acts of
50 International Crisis Group, Somalia: The Trouble with Puntland, Africa Briefing No. 64, August 12, 2009.
51 Vice Admiral William Gortney, the commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command told the House Armed
Services Committee on March 5, 2009, that “We look very, very carefully for a linkage between piracy and terrorism or
any kind of ideology and we do not see it. It would be a significant game changer should that linkage occur. But we
have not seen it. We watch very carefully for it.”
52 Jeffrey Gettleman, “In Somalia, a Leader Is Raising Hopes for Stability,” New York Times, September 17, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
16
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
violence against maritime navigation and urge other states to take decisive action both
individually and through international efforts.” In December 2008, the Bush Administration
issued an implementation plan based on that policy to address piracy threats in the Horn of Africa
region. The U.S. National Security Council (NSC) “Countering Piracy off the Horn of Africa:
Partnership and Action Plan” set out the objective “to repress this piracy as effectively as
possible in the interests of the global economy, freedom of navigation, Somalia, and the regional
states.”53 In pursuit of that objective, the plan outlined three “lines of action” for U.S. policy:
“1) prevent pirate attacks by reducing the vulnerability of the maritime domain to piracy; 2)
disrupt acts of piracy consistent with international law and the rights and responsibilities of
coastal and flag States; and 3) ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held
accountable for their actions by facilitating the prosecution of suspected pirates by flag,
victim and coastal States, and, in appropriate cases, the United States.”
In support of the 2007 policy and 2008 plan, the Bush Administration formed an interagency
Counter-Piracy Steering Group that “addresses the full spectrum of anti- and counter-piracy
efforts, from piracy prevention to interruption and termination of acts of piracy, to ensure the
accountability of pirates.” The State Department and Defense Department are the co-leaders of
the steering group and work with other U.S. government agencies, such as USAID and the
Departments of Transportation, Homeland Security, Treasury, and Justice, to coordinate U.S.
policies and engagement in the multilateral initiatives that have been developed since mid-2008.
To date, the steering group has overseen efforts to implement elements of the December 2008
NSC Action Plan, which pledged U.S. support for the establishment of the international Contact
Group on piracy (established January 2009, see “Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of
Somalia”) and a regional counter-piracy coordination center (under development, see
“International Maritime Organization and the Djibouti Code of Conduct”).
The Obama Administration has endorsed the Bush Administration’s overarching strategic
approach with regard to the piracy threat, and over the course of 2009 Administration officials
have outlined new implementation plans. In addition to providing expanded material assistance to
the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in support of its efforts to provide security
ashore, U.S. officials and military personnel have engaged with leaders and officials from the
regions of Puntland to encourage them to take action against piracy and to improve coordination
with international efforts. The United States remains a leading participant in the multilateral
CGPCS, and has supported the “New York Declaration” initiative to establish benchmark best
practices for governments, shipping companies, and insurance firms with regard to maritime
security and piracy.54
The December 2008 Plan called for U.S. “bilateral assistance programs for judicial capacity
building efforts” for regional states, and the Administration welcomed the September 2009
establishment of a trust fund to support regional prosecutions, but has not announced any U.S.
contribution.55 Comments from officials56 suggest the Administration shares the view expressed
53 U.S. National Security Council, “Countering Piracy off the Horn of Africa: Partnership and Action Plan,” December
2008. Available at: http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Countering_Piracy_Off_The_Horn_of_Africa_-
_Partnership__Action_Plan.pdf.
54 U.S. State Department, “The United States Signs "New York Declaration,” Washington, DC, September 9, 2009.
55 Donna Hopkins, Plans and Policy Team Leader, U.S. State Department Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office
of Plans, Policy, and Analysis, “Safeguarding the Seaways: Counter-Piracy Contact Group Meets in New York,”
Dipnote, September 17, 2009. Available at: http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/entries/seaways_counter-piracy/.
Congressional Research Service
17
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
in the Bush Administration Action Plan that U.S. anti-piracy efforts are intended “to be mutually
supportive of longer-term initiatives aimed at establishing governance, rule of law, security, and
economic development in Somalia.”
United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1816 (June 2008) authorized states acting in cooperation with and with prior
notification of the TFG to “enter the territorial waters of Somalia for the purpose of repressing
acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea” and to “use, within the territorial waters of Somalia, in a
manner consistent with action permitted on the high seas with respect to piracy under relevant
international law, all necessary means to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery.”57 The initial
authorization lasted for six months from June 2008. Resolution 1838, adopted in October 2008,
called on states with military capabilities in the region to contribute to anti-piracy efforts and
clarified the standing of the authorization contained in Resolution 1816 with respect to
international law.58
At the request of the TFG, the mandate established in Resolution 1816 was extended for 12
months in December 2008 in Resolution 1846.59 In December 2008, Resolution 1851 expanded
the mandate by authorizing states and regional organizations that are acting at the TFG’s request
to “undertake all necessary measures that are appropriate in Somalia [italics added] for the
purpose of suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea.”60 Both resolutions require any
authorized international measures to be undertaken in accordance with humanitarian and human
rights laws. Other provisions of Resolution 1851 have guided developments since December
2008 and may inform future U.S or international initiatives (see “Contact Group on Piracy off the
Coast of Somalia”, “United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime”, and “Oversight of U.S. Military
Forces and U.S. Foreign Assistance” below).
Resolution 1846 authorized the provision of technical assistance to TFG personnel and forces “to
enhance the capacity of these States to ensure coastal and maritime security” in accordance with
procedures outlined in Resolution 1772.61 Under paragraphs 11 and 12 of Resolution 1772, the
supply of technical assistance to Somali “security sector institutions” is authorized provided that
prior case-by-case notification is made to the U.N. arms embargo Committee for Somalia.62
Resolution 1851 provides similar authorization to weapons and military equipment destined for
the sole use of Member States and regional organizations undertaking authorized anti-piracy
operations in Somali waters. The transfer of weaponry to Somali maritime security forces would
require separate authorization from the Security Council. The African Union’s Peace and Security
Council and the TFG long requested that the broader U.N. arms embargo be amended or lifted in
order to improve the capabilities of forces fighting Islamist insurgents. On May 26, 2009, the
United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1872, granting new
(...continued)
56 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Announcement of Counter-Piracy Initiatives,” Washington, DC, April 15, 2009.
57 S/Res/1816 (2008) available at: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions08.htm.
58 S/Res/1838 (2008) available at: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions08.htm.
59 S/Res/1846 (2008) available at: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions08.htm.
60 S/Res/1851 (2008) available at: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions08.htm.
61 S/Res/1772 (2007) available at: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions07.htm.
62 For more information, see the Committee web page at: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/751/.
Congressional Research Service
18
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
authorization for members states to participate in the training and equipping of the TFG security
forces in accordance with Resolution 1772.
Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia
Based on Resolution 1851, the Bush Administration led the formation of a multilateral Contact
Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) made up of 24 member governments and five
regional and international organizations.63 The Contact group held its first meeting in January
2009 and identified six tasks for itself: 1) improving operational and information support to
counter-piracy operations, 2) establishing a counter-piracy coordination mechanism, 3)
strengthening judicial frameworks for arrest, prosecution and detention of pirates, 4)
strengthening commercial shipping self-awareness and other capabilities, 5) pursuing improved
diplomatic and public information efforts, and 6) tracking financial flows related to piracy.64 In
support of these goals, four working groups make recommendations at periodic meetings of the
Contact Group secretariat on relevant military/operational, judicial, diplomatic, and public
information aspects of regional and international anti-piracy efforts. The goals of the working
groups’ efforts are to improve operational coordination, information sharing, and the effectiveness
of legal enforcement activities among all regional and international actors combating piracy in the
region.
The CGPCS met in March and May 2009 to begin planning a series of coordinated responses.
The latest plenary meeting of the CGPCS was held in New York in September 2009, and its
membership has grown to 45 member governments, seven regional organizations, and two
observers.65 The participants approved the creation of a U.N.-administered trust fund to help
defray the costs assumed by regional states for the prosecution of piracy suspects. The next
meeting is planned for January 2010.
Combined Task Force 151 and Other Navies’ “National Escort
Systems”
United States Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) commands the Combined Maritime
Forces operating in the Arabian/Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Arabian Sea,
and Indian Ocean. In January 2009, the command established Combined Task Force 151 (CTF-
151), with the sole mission of conducting anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and the
waters off the Somali coast in the Indian Ocean. That role had previously been filled by CTF-150,
which continues to perform counterterrorism and other maritime security operations as it has
since 2001-2002. In August 2008, CTF 150 and partner forces agreed to the establishment of a
Maritime Security Patrol Area (MSPA) in the Gulf of Aden to serve as a dedicated, more secure
transit zone for merchant vessels. The MSPA has been credited in part with lowering the success
rate of Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden transit zone. Within the MSPA, eastbound and
63 Resolution 1851 “encourages all States and regional organizations fighting piracy and armed robbery at sea off the
coast of Somalia to establish an international cooperation mechanism to act as a common point of contact between and
among states, regional and international organizations on all aspects of combating piracy and armed robbery at sea off
Somalia’s coast.”
64 Statement of Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, New York, January 14, 2009.
65 U.S. State Department Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, “Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia: List
of Participants, Fourth Plenary Meeting,” New York, NY, September 10, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
19
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
westbound Internationally Recommended Transit Corridors (IRTC) have been established “to de-
conflict commercial transit traffic with Yemeni fishermen, provide a measure of traffic separation,
and allow maritime forces to conduct deterrent operations in the [Gulf of Aden] with a greater
degree of flexibility.”66 All U.S.-flagged vessels transiting the Gulf of Aden have been directed to
plan their voyages using the IRTC.67
The list of countries participating in CTF-151 is fluid and consists of personnel and
approximately two dozen ships from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark,
France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, South Korea,
Turkey and Yemen, among others. Task force operations are coordinated from the NAVCENT
command center in Bahrain. U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETs) operate
aboard CTF-151 vessels and perform support and advisory missions during boarding operations
and provide training to task force personnel on evidence procedures, maritime law, and related
issues. As of August 2009, NAVCENT reported that, since January 2009, CTF-151 and other
cooperating naval forces had “encountered 527 pirates; 282 of which were disarmed and released,
235 disarmed and turned over for prosecution, and 10 were killed.”68
Other countries, most notably Russia, China, and India, have deployed naval forces to the region
to participate in monitoring and anti-piracy “national escort system” operations. From an
operational perspective, while these countries do not formally and fully coordinate their policies
with CTF-151, there are ongoing communication efforts. A military coordination mechanism
known as Shared Awareness and De-confliction (SHADE) coordinates the activities of coalition
forces and Russia, China, India, and Japan. Naval observers and officials in the United States
have noted the engagement of China with particular interest, as Chinese naval operations in the
Horn of Africa region demonstrate the Chinese government’s desire and ability to protect
international shipping lanes far from China’s shores.
NATO: Operation Ocean Shield
In October 2008, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) deployed the first of two
Standing NATO Maritime Groups to conduct anti-piracy operations in the Horn of Africa region.
The first deployment, named Operation Allied Provider, served as a temporary protection force
for World Food Program assistance shipments in the region. In December 2008, NATO ended
Operation Allied Provider and transitioned WFP protection responsibilities to the European
Union’s new naval operation (see “European Union: Operation ATALANTA” below).
In March 2009, NATO launched a new anti-piracy mission, Operation Allied Protector, under the
command of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). According to NATO, the forces
participating in Operation Allied Protector acted to “deter, defend against and disrupt pirate
activities.” The Maritime Group was originally scheduled to perform temporary anti-piracy
missions as it transited the Horn region en route to South East Asia and as it returned in June
2009.69 In April 2009, NATO officials cancelled the planned SNMG1 visits to Singapore and
66 U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration Advisory # 2009-07, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, and
Indian Ocean Transit, September 9, 2009.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 The task force is scheduled to visit Karachi, Pakistan, Singapore, and Perth, Australia, before returning to the Horn of
Africa Region.
Congressional Research Service
20
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
Australia and extended the Operation Allied Protector mission until June 20, 2009. As of late
March 2009, the following ships were participating in SNMG1 and Operation Allied Protector:
NRP Corte Real (flagship, Portugal), HMCS Winnipeg (Canada), HNLMS de Zeven Provinciën
(The Netherlands), SPS Blas de Lezo (Spain), and the USS Halyburton (United States).
In August 2009, NATO replaced Operation Allied Protector with a new anti-piracy mission,
Operation Ocean Shield, under the command of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2).
Like its predecessor missions, Operation Ocean Shield has a primary responsibility to deter and
respond to piracy. A new component of the mission is participation in capacity building efforts
with regional governments. In relation to this new mission, the Group flagship has hosted
maritime officials from the Puntland regional government and visited the Somali port of Bosaso
in the northern province of Bari (see Figure 2, “Map of Somalia”) for consultations with officials
responsible for port security and maritime transportation.70 As of August 2009, the following
ships were participating in SNMG2 and Operation Ocean Shield: HMS Cornwall (flagship,
United Kingdom), HS Navarinon (Greece), ITS Libeccio (Italy), TCG Gediz (Turkey), and USS
Laboon (United States).
European Union: Operation ATALANTA
In December 2008, the European Union launched EU NAVFOR Operation ATALANTA, its first
naval operation under the framework of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).
Forces participating in Operation ATALANTA have been tasked with provide protection for WFP
vessels and merchant vessels and are authorized to “employ the necessary measures, including the
use of force, to deter, prevent and intervene in order to bring to an end acts of piracy and armed
robbery which may be committed in the areas where they are present.”71 In June 2009, the
European Council extended the mandate for Operation ATALANTA for one year from its original
deadline of December 2009. According to the European Union, the operation will involve up to
twenty ships and over 1,800 personnel over its full term. As of September 2009, the Netherlands,
Spain, Germany, France, Greece, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, and Luxembourg have made permanent
contributions of forces and personnel to the operation, and other EU member states support the
operation’s headquarters.72 In coordination with the deployment, EU NAVFOR also has
established an online center known as Maritime Security Center-Horn of Africa (MSC-HOA) for
transiting ships to record their ships’ movements voluntarily and to receive updated threat
information.73 Similar voluntary tracking and reporting services are provided by the United
Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations office in Dubai and the U.S. Navy’s Maritime Liaison
Office in Bahrain.
70 NATO Allied Maritime Component Command, “NATO works with Somali officials,” August 14, 2009. Available
at: http://www.manw.nato.int/page_operation_ocean_shield.aspx.
71 European Union Council Secretariat, “Fact Sheet: EU naval operation against piracy (EU NAVFOR Somalia -
Operation ATALANTA),” EU NAVFOR/04, March 2009.
72 EU NAVFOR Somalia - Operation ATALANTA, “Fact Sheet: EU Naval Operation Against Piracy,” September 17,
2009.
73 Information on the Maritime Security Center-Horn of Africa (MSC-HOA) is available at:
http://www.mschoa.eu/Default.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
21
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
International Maritime Organization and the Djibouti Code of
Conduct
The International Maritime Organization (IMO)74 has had an international anti-piracy program
since the late 1990s and has successfully engaged on a multilateral basis in other regions to
improve anti-piracy cooperation. At present, cooperative mechanisms for managing the security
of the waters near the Horn of Africa are being developed as called for by the IMO75 and as
encouraged by Resolution 1851.76 The IMO began sponsoring consultation meetings on piracy for
the Horn of Africa region in 2005, which led to the development of a draft cooperative framework
agreement in early 2008.
In January 2009, representatives of 17 regional governments met at an IMO-sponsored meeting in
Djibouti and adopted a Code of Conduct concerning the Repression of Piracy and Armed
Robbery against Ships in the western Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden.77 As of late January
2009, nine regional governments78 had signed the Code of Conduct, which remains open for
signature by other parties. Three regional facilities—the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in
Mombasa, Kenya, the Sub-Regional Coordination Centre in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and a
regional maritime information center that is to be established in Sana’a, Yemen—are planned to
support the information sharing components of the agreement. The parties also agreed to
resolutions on technical cooperation and the establishment of a regional training center in
Djibouti. In September 2009, Japan made an initial contribution of $14 million to a trust fund
dedicated to supporting the IMO’s Djibouti Code-related training and capacity building
operations.
A similar cooperative framework developed by the IMO, the littoral states of the Strait of
Malacca, and other Asian governments has been in force since 2006. Known as the Regional Co-
operation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against ships in Asia
(ReCAAP),79 the agreement established procedures for coordinating responses to piracy and
sharing best practices among law enforcement and security personnel. The ReCAAP Information
Sharing Center (ISC) in Singapore now serves as the principal clearinghouse for piracy reporting
74 The International Maritime Organization is a United Nations agency with over 168 member governments. Based in
the United Kingdom, its members develop regulations for international shipping related to safety, the environment, and
maritime security. It also serves as a global coordinating body for legal issues, technical co-operation, and maritime
security including anti-piracy efforts. For more information, see: http://www.imo.org/.
75 IMO Resolution A.1002(25) “calls Upon Governments in the region to conclude, in co-operation with the
Organization, and implement, as soon as possible, a regional agreement to prevent, deter and suppress piracy and
armed robbery against ships.”
76 Resolution 1851 “encourages all states and regional organizations fighting piracy and armed robbery at sea off the
coast of Somalia to consider creating a center in the region to coordinate information relevant to piracy and armed
robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia.”
77 Meeting minutes available at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf9/piracy-djibouti-meeting.
78 Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Seychelles, Somalia, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Yemen
signed the code of conduct in January.
79 Text available at: http://www.recaap.org/about/pdf/ReCAAP%20Agreement.pdf. Sixteen signatories include the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, the
Republic of India, the Republic of Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Democratic Socialist
Republic of Sri Lanka, the Kingdom of Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Congressional Research Service
22
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
and response coordination.80 These steps, taken in conjunction with other regional agreements
between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore to coordinate anti-piracy patrols in the Straits of
Malacca and surrounding waters, have been successful in reducing piracy in that region. The
negotiation of the bilateral and multilateral initiatives in the Straits of Malacca region highlighted
several issues that may be of interest to parties seeking to establish similar programs in the Horn
of Africa region, namely the importance of addressing local concerns over sovereignty, territorial
water rights, and the presence of foreign military forces in regional waters.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: “Shipriders” and
Capacity Building
Under the auspices of Resolution 1851 and in conjunction with the judicial working group of the
(CGPCS), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has launched a project to facilitate
regional law enforcement participation in anti-piracy enforcement efforts off the coast of
Somalia.81 The program was encouraged in language included in Resolution 1851 and focuses on
providing judicial capacity building assistance to regional states and facilitating so-called
“shiprider” arrangements in which regional law enforcement personnel are seconded to
international vessels to perform anti-piracy arrest and investigation functions. The United States
has shiprider agreements with a number of Western Hemisphere governments to facilitate
maritime security operations in waters of shared concern.
In general, shiprider arrangements are designed to address the logistical and legal challenges
inherent in multilateral naval enforcement efforts in remote areas or where the capacity of
regional governments does not allow for the provision of sufficient security. With regard to
current operations in the Horn of Africa region, long transport times, limited military resources,
legal limitations on the operations of military personnel, and complex differences in jurisdictional
standards and requirements would complicate the arrest and prosecution by the varied non-
regional forces operating under Resolution 1851. In order to help regional governments meet the
added resource requirements that the arrest, detention, and prosecution of Somali pirate suspects
would create, the UNODC plans to provide judicial capacity building assistance, in coordination
with other donors. UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa testified before the House
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight on
the shiprider concept and proposed U.N. support in May 2009.82
Private Sector and Shipping Industry Responses
Private sector and shipping industry responses to the threat of piracy in the waters off the Horn of
Africa have varied. In addition to altering financial decisions based on higher insurance costs,
some accounts suggest that shipment navigation patterns have changed in response to the threat of
80 A diagram of ReCAAP-ISC reporting and response procedures is available at:
http://www.recaap.org/about/pdf/Information_Flow_Response_chart.pdf.
81 Resolution 1851 “invites” states and regional organizations “to conclude special agreements or arrangements with
countries willing to take custody of pirates in order to embark law enforcement officials (“shipriders”) from the latter
countries, in particular countries in the region, to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of persons detained as a
result of operations conducted under [the] resolution.”
82 Transcript, UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa testimony before the House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, May 14, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
23
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
piracy, with some vessels preferring to circumnavigate the southern Cape of Good Hope rather
than risk attack in the Gulf of Aden. Crews also have developed a number of unique
countermeasures and best practices in their attempts to ward off and resist pirate attacks. The use
of water cannons, fire hoses, and passive sonic defenses has become more widespread, and
industry surveys suggest that ships that operate at speeds above 15 knots83 and that have higher
freeboards84 have proven less susceptible to pirate attack, thus far. Debates about the use of armed
guards continue among shipping industry representatives, government officials, and observers
worldwide (see “Options for Improving the Immediate Security of Merchant Ships”).
The IMO and other bodies such as the International Chamber of Commerce International
Maritime Bureau (ICC-IMB) have developed detailed guidance and recommendations for
governments and commercial vessels seeking to prevent, deter, and respond to pirate attacks.85
The IMB also has established a 24-hour piracy reporting center in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
which seeks to serve as the global, one-stop shop for piracy reporting and piracy threat
information distribution for commercial vessels. The IMB also works with other regional
information centers to collect and disseminate threat and situation reporting. For the Horn of
Africa region, the IMB and European Union Maritime Security Center-Horn of Africa (MSC-
HOA) issue periodic “Industry Updates” detailing recent trends in pirate attacks and making
recommendations to vessels transiting regional waters.86
Issues for Congress and Policy Options
The risk of pirate attacks in the waters off the Horn of Africa is unlikely to disappear in the near
term, and the United States government has identified piracy as a direct threat to U.S. national
security interests. Policies developed by the Bush Administration to address Somali piracy have
been revisited and enhanced by the Obama Administration in light of high profile attacks on U.S.-
flagged vessels and crew members in April 2009.
Most defense analysts acknowledge that while the unprecedented level of naval patrols in the
area—conducted by more than twenty nations—has deterred some attacks, the area is simply too
vast to prevent all incidents. When the MV Maersk Alabama was attacked on April 8, 2009, the
closest naval vessel, the U.S.S. Bainbridge, was approximately 300 nautical miles away.
Similarly, the U.S.S. Bainbridge was only able to arrive on the scene of an aborted April 14 attack
on the MV Liberty Sun a reported six hours after the attack ended. The continuing anti-piracy
operations of international navies also comes at significant cost, as governments around the world
weigh the budgetary impact of the current economic downturn and military requirements in other
theaters of operation.
Like terrorism, acts of piracy in African waters pose a transnational security threat that emanates
from areas plagued by conflict, weak governance, and economic insecurity. Continuing conflict in
Somalia and Yemen illustrate the unstable regional context surrounding new anti-piracy
operations. Regional security forces currently have limited maritime capability, and many
83 One knot is unit of measurement equivalent to one nautical mile per hour or 1.15 miles per hour.
84 The term ‘freeboard’ refers to the distance between the waterline and the main deck of the ship.
85 Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the Coast of Somalia, Version 2, August
2009. Available at: http://www.icc-ccs.org/images/stories/pdfs/bmp 21-8-2009.pdf.
86 Available at: http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=344&Itemid=233.
Congressional Research Service
24
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
governments have prioritized the development of their armies at the expense of navies or coast
guards. That has changed to some extent in recent years, as international studies have highlighted
the threat to local economies posed by illegal fishing, in addition to more traditional maritime
security threats. Regional coordination and intelligence sharing also is weak.
The United States and its international partners have policy tools that have been used to address
similarly complex security circumstances in other regions. However, ongoing U.S. and
international security operations in environments such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and
Colombia suggest that military intervention and foreign assistance require political consensus,
political will, local partnership, and significant coordination in order to be successful. Maritime
security efforts in the Persian Gulf, the Caribbean, the waters of West Africa, and the Strait of
Malacca have had the same requirements. While short term results in containing other
transnational threats have proven to be achievable, the long-term ability of international
intervention to eliminate these threats is less certain in the absence of committed and capable
regional and local actors.
Legislation in the 111th Congress
The 111th Congress has explored other options for protecting maritime traffic in the region. H.R.
3376, the U.S. Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009, introduced in July by Representative
Frank Lobiondo, aims to address the use of force and the right of self-defense of U.S. mariners
against acts of piracy. Sec. 3505 of the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act
for FY2010, H.R. 2647, would require vessels carrying cargo for the Department of Defense in
areas of high risk of piracy to be equipped with non-lethal defense measures to protect the vessel.
H.R. 2647, Sec. 3506, would further require the Secretary of Defense to embark military
personnel on board U.S.-flagged vessels carrying cargos owned by the U.S. government if a
vessel is traveling in a high risk area and is determined by the Coast Guard to be at risk of being
boarded by pirates. The Senate version of the bill did not include these measures.
Congress has also stressed that the U.S. government and others must address the piracy problem
both at sea and on land. H.Rept. 111-166, accompanying H.R. 2647, expressed concern with
continuing safe havens for Somali pirates, noting that “there does not appear to be a strategy for
dealing with the organizations ashore in Somalia.” S.Rept. 111-35, accompanying the FY2010
National Defense Authorization Act, stressed the need for a “holistic approach,” emphasizing the
need for the commercial shipping industry to develop effective piracy countermeasures to protect
its ships and crews.
Two resolutions passed by the House and Senate in April 2009 commended the crew of the MV
Maersk Alabama, Captain Richard Phillips, and the U.S. military for its efforts in rescuing
Captain Phillips and serving in anti-piracy missions (H.Res. 339 and S.Res. 108). The Senate
resolution called on President Obama to “work with the international community and the
transitional government of Somalia to develop a comprehensive strategy to address both the
burgeoning problem of piracy and its root causes.”
Oversight of U.S. Military Forces and U.S. Foreign Assistance
U.S. military engagement in the region is divided among two geographic combatant Commands.
U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility (AOR) includes the waters of the Gulf of Aden
and those off the eastern Somali coast, while the AOR of the new U.S. Africa Command
Congressional Research Service
25
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
(AFRICOM), which became fully operational in October 2008, encompasses the African
continent.87 To date, much of the U.S. military’s anti-piracy response has been conducted at sea,
by Central Command (CENTCOM). On land, AFRICOM provides security assistance to several
regional maritime security forces, few of which have “blue water capacity.” CENTCOM provides
similar assistance to the Yemeni coast guard.
Oversight of U.S. Navy anti-piracy operations focuses on forces associated with CTF-151 and
with NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield. Several U.S.-homeported Navy ships support the
deployment of U.S. Navy ships operating on a continuous basis in the areas where Somali pirates
are active. As such, the commitment of a single additional U.S. Navy ship to the area can affect
the Navy’s ability to perform missions in other parts of the world.
U.S. military operations in the region are not limited to anti-piracy efforts. The United States has
conducted anti-terrorism activities in the Horn of Africa and in Yemen for over a decade,
including the naval Combined Task Forces established as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
Djibouti has hosted a semi-permanent Forward Operating Site, known as the Combined Joint
Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) since 2003, with over 2,000 U.S. military personnel in
residence. The command authority for CJTF-HOA, formerly under CENTCOM, has been
transferred to AFRICOM. Its efforts initially focused primarily on countering violent extremism
in the region, but the Task Force’s activities have expanded in recent years to include a wide
variety of activities aimed at building the capacity of regional militaries to respond to more
general threats, such as natural disasters and armed conflict. CJTF-HOA personnel provide
training to the region’s security forces on counter-terrorism, maritime security, and peacekeeping.
As mentioned above, the United States conducts an array of maritime security assistance
programs in East Africa and Yemen. In Kenya, for example, the United States provides maritime
security assistance to both the Kenyan Navy and an array of agencies, including the Kenya
Wildlife Service, revenue authority, and police, to address an array of threats, from smuggling and
illegal fishing to terrorism. The U.S. also began support for a regional Maritime Center of
Excellence in Mombasa in early 2009; courses at the Center are attended by participants from
throughout East Africa. Several African countries, including Djibouti, Kenya, Tanzania, and
Yemen, have received U.S. support for the installation of radar systems that provide enhanced
maritime domain awareness. Congress expanded the Department of Defense’s Section 1206 “train
and equip” authority in FY2009 to include assistance for civilian maritime security forces.
Several FY2009 Section 1206 programs aim support increased maritime capacity to address
terrorist threats in the waters affected by Somali piracy, including programs for Djibouti, Yemen,
Mozambique, Mauritius, Tanzania, and the Seychelles. In August 2009, AFRICOM and the
government of the Seychelles announced an agreement with that will allow the U.S. military to
operate P-3 Orion aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles from the Seychelles in an effort to
improve maritime surveillance in regional waters.88
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1851 “calls on Member States to assist the TFG, at its request
and with notification to the Secretary-General, to strengthen its operational capacity to bring to
87 AFRICOM’s AOR includes all African countries except Egypt, which remained in the AOR of CENTCOM after that
command transferred responsibilities for the Horn of Africa countries to AFRICOM in 2008. For more information see
CRS Report RL 34003, U.S. Africa Command: U.S. Strategic Interests and the Role of the U.S. Military in Africa, by
Lauren Ploch.
88 U.S. AFRICOM/Republic of Seychelles, Office of the President, “Seychelles President James Michel Hails
Strengthening of Surveillance Cooperation with the United States,” August 20, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
26
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
justice those who are using Somali territory to plan, facilitate or undertake criminal acts of piracy
and armed robbery at sea.” The Obama Administration may seek to expand current assistance
programs for regional and Somali actors subject to congressional appropriations and authorization
and in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. As noted above, the Obama
Administration requested $40 million in 2009 supplemental Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)
funding to provide “non-lethal equipment, logistical support, and basing facilities for the African
Union Mission to Somalia and to support Somali security sector reform.”89 While those funds are
likely to be directed toward improving Somali capacity to counter threats from insurgents and
terrorists, to the extent that assistance improves the overall ability of government forces to
operate effectively and assert security control, it may have positive implications for anti-piracy
operations in the future. The Administration is requesting $67 million in FY2010 PKO funding
for Somalia.
Although some press reports in April 2009 quoted unnamed U.S. officials as stating that the U.S.
military may consider launching military attacks against pirate strongholds, in testimony before
the House Armed Services Committee in March 2009, Stephen Mull, then-Acting Undersecretary
of State for International Security and Arms Control stated that although the United States
supported the inclusion in Security Council Resolution 1851 of authorization for anti-piracy
operations on land, there were, at that time “no plans to conduct counter-piracy operations on
land.”90 Various parts of the U.S. government continue to encourage Somali figures in the
Transitional Federal Government and in the region of Puntland to take action against pirate safe
havens ashore. Overall, the Administration has signaled any major changes from the December
2008 National Security Council Partnership and Action Plan, which states that the United States
“will work with concerned governments and international organizations to disrupt and dismantle
pirate bases to the fullest extent permitted by national law.”
Piracy, Law Enforcement, and International Cooperation
Several United Nations instruments address the problem of piracy, including the Convention on
the High Seas,91 the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),92 and the Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention).93
The United States is a signatory to the Convention on the High Seas and the SUA Convention, but
not to UNCLOS. A “global diplomatic effort to regulate and write rules for all ocean areas, all
uses of the seas and all of its resources” resulted in the convening of The Third United Nations
Conference on the Sea in 1973 and the adoption of UNCLOS in 1982.94 UNCLOS generally
89 According to the Administration justification for the supplemental request, “funding may also be directed towards
Security Sector Reform (SSR) efforts. Some funding will pay for equipment and logistical support for training efforts
for Somali troops by Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, and other nations in the region that will implement the training
activities.” The Administration also is seeking authority to transfer up to $50 million in supplemental Contributions for
International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) funding to the PKO account for Somalia, if necessary.
90 Testimony of then-Acting Undersecretary of State for International Security and Arms Control Stephen Mull before
the House Armed Services Committee, March 5, 2009.
91 Convention on the High Seas, 13 U.S.T. 2312; T.I.A.S. 5200; 450 U.N.T.S. 82. Signed at Geneva, April 29, 1958.
Entered into force September 30, 1962.
92 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), 21 I.L.M. 1261. Convention adopted December 10,
1982. Entered into force November 16, 1994 (the United States is not a party to the Agreement).
93 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, T.I.A.S. Signed at
Rome, March 10, 1988. Entered into force March 1, 1992 (for the United States March 6, 1995).
94 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (A historical perspective), available at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
incorporates the rules of international law codified in the Convention on the High Seas, but also
comprehensively addresses the use of other areas of the sea including, for example, the territorial
seas, natural resources, and the seabed.
The Convention on the High Seas, to which the United States is a party, and UNCLOS both
address piracy by stating that “[a]ll states shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the
repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State.”95
The term “piracy” is defined in UNCLOS (Article 101) as:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private
ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed-
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board
such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with
knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or
(b).96
Article 110 of UNCLOS authorizes warships to visit and/or inspect ships on the high seas that are
suspected of engagement in piracy. Although the United States is not party to UNCLOS, the
Convention on the High Seas also authorizes the right of visitation/inspection of vessels
suspected of being engaged in piracy.97 States, under both the Convention on the High Seas and
UNCLOS, are authorized to seize a pirate ship, or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of
the pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board.98 The courts of the State whose
forces carry out a seizure may decide the penalties to be imposed on the pirates.99
The SUA Convention further expands on the judicial treatment of pirates. Its main purpose is “to
ensure that appropriate action is taken against persons committing unlawful acts against ships.”100
Unlawful acts include, but are not limited to, the seizure of ships; acts of violence against persons
on board ships; and the placing of devices on board a ship which are likely to destroy or damage
it.101 The SUA Convention calls on parties to the agreement to make its enumerated offenses
“punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of those
(...continued)
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm.
95 Convention on the High Seas at Article 14; UNCLOS at Article 100.
96 UNCLOS at Article 101. (The definition is, with a minor grammatical change, the same definition found in the
Convention on the High Seas (Article 14).
97 Convention on the High Seas at Article 22.
98 Convention on the High Seas at Article 19; UNCLOS at Article 105.
99 Id.
100 International Maritime Organization statement on aims for the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. Available at http://www.imo.org/.
101 Id.
Congressional Research Service
28
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
offenses.”102 The United States criminalizes acts of piracy103 and foreigners or U.S. citizens that
commit acts of piracy are subject to imprisonment for life.104 While it appears that U.S. law is
sufficient to address the criminality of piracy, this may not be the case in other countries.
Additionally, even with comprehensive criminal laws, the logistics related to the enforcement of
the laws may be an impediment to their utilization.
Questions regarding legal jurisdiction, due process for detained pirate suspects, and the role of
foreign military forces in anti-piracy law enforcement activities may complicate current U.S. and
international operations against pirates in the Horn of Africa region. The most immediate legal
concern associated with anti-piracy operations are jurisdictional questions that arise based on the
location of pirate attacks and/or international naval interventions, the nationalities of crew
members, and the countries of registry and/or ownership of any seized vessels.105 Multiple
governments may be able to assert legal jurisdiction depending on the specifics of the incident.
But many governments lack sufficient laws and judicial capacity to effectively prosecute
suspected pirates. The disposition of property and insurance claims for vessels involved in piracy
also raises complex legal questions. A developing legal issue concerns the prosecution of
juveniles participating in acts of piracy. Recent reports suggest that some of the Somali pirates are
teenage minors,106 and therefore could have a defense of infancy in certain jurisdictions that may
assert jurisdiction over the offense.107
To date, some of these legal and law enforcement challenges have been addressed through the
establishment of bilateral agreements by the United States, the United Kingdom, the European
Union and others with governments in the Horn of Africa region, particularly with Kenya. Some
agreements concluded to date define procedures for the detention, transfer, and prosecution of
captured pirate suspects. For example, suspected pirates captured by U.S. military forces now
may be transferred to Kenyan custody for prosecution according to the terms of a bilateral
memorandum of understanding signed in January 2009. As of September 2009, 100 suspected
pirates captured by warships from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,
and the United States are being prosecuted in Kenyan courts.108 The United States has provided
capacity building assistance to Kenya’s Department of Public Prosecutions since 2005, and a
resident legal advisor from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is providing the Kenyan
government with assistance in piracy cases. DOJ has conducted several piracy workshops for
prosecutors, police, and maritime security personnel. Other international donors have become
increasingly engaged, and U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is currently implementing
a substantial capacity building program funded by the European Commission. As noted above
102 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation at Article 5.
103 18 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.
104 18 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1652.
105 For one review and discussion of these legal questions from a U.S. military point of view, see Cmdr. James Kraska
and Capt. Brian Wilson, “Fighting Piracy,” Armed Forces Journal, February 1, 2009 (expressing view that
international and regional cooperation, not armed force, is the long-term solution to piracy).
106 See http://www.smh.com.au/world/fate-of-teen-pirate-uncertain-20090414-a5ih.html.
107 For example, under common law, children under the age of seven are conclusively presumed to be without criminal
capacity, those who have reached the age of fourteen are treated as fully responsible, while as to those between the ages
of seven and fourteen there is a rebuttable presumption of criminal incapacity. In addition jurisdictions have adopted
juvenile court legislation providing that some or all criminal conduct by those persons under a certain age (usually
eighteen) must or may be adjudicated in the juvenile court rather than in a criminal proceeding. LaFave & Scott,
Criminal Law §4.11 (2d ed. 1986).
108 The U.S. State Department provided CRS with documents on the status of piracy trials in Kenya in September 2009.
Congressional Research Service
29
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
(see “United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: “Shipriders” and Capacity Building”), efforts
also are underway to establish mechanisms for regional law enforcement personnel to serve as
shipriders on coalition vessels and to expand the anti-piracy law enforcement and judicial
capacities of neighboring states.
Options for Improving the Immediate Security of Merchant Ships
Risk Reduction and Best Practices
The U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) issues detailed
guidance to U.S. mariners transiting the waters off the Horn of Africa region to help ensure their
safety and security.109 Its latest guidance, issued September 9, 2009, includes instructions for U.S.
flagged vessels seeking escort support from the U.S. Navy and Combined Maritime Forces
participating in coalition naval security operations in the region.110 As noted above, international
bodies such as the International Maritime Organization111 and the International Maritime
Bureau112 also have revised their recommendations for actions that merchant ships and their
crews can take to reduce their risk of being attacked and captured.
These include measures that can be taken before and during pirate attacks. For example, rerouting
ships, if possible, allows ships to avoid waters where Somali pirates are known to operate. This
option can lengthen operating routes and increase shipping costs, but perhaps not as much as
paying an occasional ransom. Recommendations suggest that transit of high-risk areas is not
recommended at times of day when Somali pirates historically have been more likely to stage
attacks, namely in early morning or dusk hours. In transit, effective watch procedures are
recommended, since early detection of impending attacks increases the likelihood that avoidance
and suppression measures will succeed. Higher ship operating speeds and evasive maneuvers
have proven effective in many cases, as have denial systems such as barbed and razor wire and
specialized electrical fences for ships. Crew preparation, training, and responses also are credited
with reducing risks of successful pirate attacks.
Arming Merchant Ships113
Arming merchant ships can be done by either giving arms to the ship’s crew, or by hiring armed
security teams to ride on the ships. Some observers and industry representatives have advocated
for these options as a means of ensuring that there is an immediate security presence aboard
vessels to serve as a deterrent or to respond to pirate attacks. Supporters argue that the large
109 U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Advisories are available at:
http://www.marad.dot.gov/news_room_landing_page/maritime_advisories/advisory_summary.htm.
110 U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration Advisory #: 2009-07, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea and
Indian Ocean Transit, September 9, 2009.
111 International Maritime Organization, “Guidance to shipowners and ship operators, shipmasters and crews on
preventing and suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships,” MSC1/Circ.1334, June 23, 2009.
112 International Maritime Bureau-Piracy Reporting Center, Best Management Practices, August 2009. Available at:
http://www.icc-ccs.org/images/stories/pdfs/bmp 21-8-2009.pdf.
113 Most of the concerns listed here are discussed in John W. Miller and Paulo Prada, “Attack Raises Debate On Guns
For Sailors,” Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2009; and Keith Bradsher, “Rescue Fuels Debate Over Arming Crews,”
New York Times, April 13, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
30
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
geographic distances and limited responsiveness of international naval assets to piracy attacks
makes the provision of on-ship security necessary. Others contend that the training of crew
members to safely handle weapons does not pose an undue financial or practical burden to
shipping companies. However, some merchant ship owners and operators are strongly averse to
arming merchant ships, for practical and financial reasons.
U.S. government officials traditionally have expressed concern that merchant ships with armed
crew members could pose security or terrorism risks visiting U.S. ports. As noted above, private
or military gun battles with pirates can raise the overall level of violence associated with piracy
off Somalia, which may increase risks to all merchant mariners on ships operating in that area.
Since merchant ship crews are often not trained in the use of weapons, they might not be able to
use them very effectively in fighting pirates. If ship crews try to defend themselves with firearms
and fail, the pirates might be more likely to kill some of the crew members.
Even if used properly, lighter firearms might not be effective in countering pirates armed with
heavier weapons, such as rocket-propelled grenades. Pirates with access to large amounts of
money from prior ransom payments can acquire heavier weapons, so as to out-gun the merchant
ships. In all cases, fire is a major safety concern, particularly on tanker ships, and gunfire could
ignite vapors from the ship’s cargo, or the cargo itself.
Financial concerns may also mitigate against arming merchant ships. Hiring armed security teams
might be more expensive than paying occasional ransoms. Liability for fatal shootings aboard a
ship can be a complex legal matter that can lead to expensive lawsuits. Since many ports restrict
vessels from having weapons on board, commercial ships that often make calls at multiple ports
along their operating routes could find it difficult to operate along certain routes. Reports suggest
that private companies providing armed guards and shipping companies using armed security
teams are grappling with these and other related issues in an effort to avoid legal trouble. Hugh
Martin, general manager of security firm Hart Security UK has stated that “the amount of effort
we put in to ensure we are legal is colossal.”114
In mid-2009, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee released the following guidance:
The MSC agreed that flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms
by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship…the use of unarmed
security personnel is a matter for individual shipowners, companies, and ship operators to
decide. The carriage of armed security personnel, or the use of military or law-enforcement
officers (duly authorized by the Government of the flag State to carry firearms for the
security of the ship) should be subject to flag State legislation and policies and is a matter for
the flag State to authorize, in consultation with ship owners, companies and ship operators.115
114 Katharine Houreld, “Private Ship Escorts Guard Against Pirates,” NavyTimes.com, June 5, 2009. For additional
discussions of issues relating to arming of merchant ships, see Keith Bradsher, “Rescue Fuels Debate Over Arming
Crews,” New York Times, April 13, 2009; and John W. Miller and Paulo Prada, “Attack Raises Debate On Guns For
Sailors,” Wall Street Journal, April 11, 2009.
115 Revised guidance on combating piracy agreed by IMO Maritime Safety Committee, Maritime Safety Committee -
86th session: 27 May - 5 June 2009.
Congressional Research Service
31
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) may be an area of concern for ship owners
desiring to arm their vessels in self-defense against acts of piracy. Section 38 of the Arms Export
Control Act (ACEA)116 authorizes the President to control the export and import of defense
articles and defense services. The President, through Executive Order 11958, as amended,
delegated the statutory authority to promulgate regulations with respect to exports of defense
articles and defense services to the Secretary of State. The resulting regulations are known as the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations.117
ITAR requires U.S. persons118 to obtain a license in order to export or import items identified on
the United States Munitions List.119 As defined by regulation, the term “export” includes “sending
or taking a defense article out of the United States120 in any manner.”121 Objects covered by the
term “defense article” are found on the United States Munitions List122 and are classified into 21
separate categories. Categories I and III appear to be most relevant in a discussion regarding
protection from acts of piracy because they include firearms (category I) and ammunition
(category III) that could be used in the defense of a vessel. Based on the definitions of export and
defense articles, a ship owner would be required to obtain a license for the temporary export of
firearms and ammunition, or other covered armaments, for use in the defense of a vessel.
There is an exception to the licensing requirement under ITAR for the temporary export of not
more than three non-automatic firearms and not more than 1,000 cartridges. To comply with this
exception a U.S. person: (1) must declare the temporary export of the firearms and submit to an
inspection by a customs officer; (2) must retain the firearms with the person (i.e., not mail the
firearms to the destination); and (3) maintain the firearms for that person’s exclusive use and not
for reexport or transfer of ownership.123 The regulation makes a distinction between U.S. persons
and crew members of vessels, but how the distinction would affect the status of the vessel as an
entity is unclear.124 This exception may be an option available to owners as a way to arm their
vessels, without obtaining an export license since the term “U.S. person” is defined to include a
corporation, business association, and partnerships, as well as other entities. Additionally, it
would appear that individual crew members would be able to temporarily export firearms under
the exception. However, crew members utilizing privately owned weapons to defend corporate
property could raise significant legal liability issues for both the individuals and the corporation.
116 P.L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. § 2778) (Arms export control is addressed in Chapter 39 of Title 22 of the
United States Code (22 U.S.C. §§ 2751-2799aa-2)).
117 22 C.F.R. §§ 120-130.
118 A ‘U.S. person’ is defined at 22 C.F.R. §120.14 and §120.15, as a “natural person who is a lawful permanent
resident as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(20) or who is a protected person as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a)(3). It also
means any corporation, business association, partnership, society, trust, or any other entity, organization or group that is
incorporated to do business in the United States. It also includes any governmental (federal, state, local) entity.”
119 22 C.F.R. pt. 121.
120 The term ‘United States’ is defined at 22 C.F.R. § 120.13, as “when used in the geographical sense, includes the
several states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the insular possession of the United States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands, any territory or possession over which the United States exercises
any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction.”
121 22 C.F.R. § 120.17(a).
122 22 C.F.R. § 121.1.
123 22 C.F.R. § 123.18(c).
124 Id.
Congressional Research Service
32
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
The ITAR licensing requirement exception does not supersede prohibitions against exports to
certain countries, including, but not limited to countries identified by the United Nations Security
Council through a United Nations Arms Embargo.125 Additionally, a license to export defense
articles, or in the alternative obtaining an exemption from the licensing requirement, does not
address or satisfy requirements of foreign countries that may exist with respect to operating a
vessel in their territorial waters while carrying weapons. The vessel’s owner is responsible for
knowing and respecting the laws of the foreign country.
Convoys
Some observers argue that U.S. and international naval vessels should provide convoy protection
services to ships transiting the Horn of Africa region, particularly the Gulf of Aden. Supporters
argue that the direct participation of coalition or other naval assets in merchant ship convoys
would eliminate the risks posed by unescorted travel through the Gulf of Aden or areas along the
eastern coast of Somalia by cutting down the response times to attempted attacks. However,
merchant ship operators may be reluctant to use a convoy system because it can require merchant
ships to wait in a certain location for the next scheduled convoy to begin. The delays associated
with this waiting can impose costs on ship operators that could be greater than the cost of paying
an occasional ransom. The establishment and maintenance of a convoy system over the long term,
in the absence of broader efforts to address the root causes of the piracy problem, could pose
unacceptable costs for international navies.
Escorts by Navy Ships
As of September 2009, the current MARAD advisory indicates that U.S.-flagged vessels may
contact U.S military headquarters in Bahrain to request escort services. Navy or Coast Guard
vessels could escort U.S.-flagged commercial ships traveling in the Gulf of Aden, just as U.S.
Navy vessels escorted U.S.-flagged ships (including reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers) in the Persian
Gulf in 1987-1988 (aka Operation Earnest Will) so as to protect them from potential Iranian
attack during the Iran-Iraq war.
If Navy ships that are forward deployed to the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf region were diverted
from their current missions in that region to a mission of escorting U.S.-flagged commercial ships
in the Gulf of Aden, the incremental financial cost (i.e., the additional dollar cost, above the costs
that would be incurred if the ships continued performing their currently assigned missions in the
Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf region) might be small. There would be an opportunity cost in terms
of those ships not performing their currently assigned missions in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf
region. Such missions can include engagement activities aimed at building or reinforcing U.S.
partnerships with other countries in the region, humanitarian assistance and disaster-response
(HADR) operations, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations,
counterterrorism operations, deterrence of regional aggression, and crisis response and
containment. Policymakers might need to weigh the potential advantages of escorting U.S.-
flagged commercial ships in the Gulf Aden against the potential disadvantages of reduced Navy
capacity for performing other missions in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf region.
125 22 C.F.R. § 126.1.
Congressional Research Service
33
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
If Navy ships that are forward deployed to other regions, such as the Mediterranean or the
Western Pacific, were diverted from their current missions in those regions to a mission of
escorting U.S.-flagged commercial ships in the Gulf of Aden, the incremental financial cost could
be larger due to the need to expend additional fuel to transit to and from the Gulf of Aden region.
Even so, the incremental financial cost might be relatively small as a fraction of annual Navy
costs for ship operations. There would again be an opportunity cost in terms of those ships not
performing their currently assigned missions in the regions from which they were diverted, which
again can include things such as engagement activities, HADR operations, ISR operations,
counterterrorism operations, deterrence of regional aggression, and crisis response and
containment. Policymakers might again need to weigh the potential advantages of escorting U.S.-
flagged commercial ships in the Gulf Aden against the potential disadvantages of reduced Navy
capacity for performing missions in areas such as the Mediterranean or Western Pacific.
Armed Security Details of U.S. Military Personnel
An alternative to having U.S. Navy (or Coast Guard) ships escort U.S.-flagged commercial ships
would be to provide a small security detail of armed U.S. military personnel to each U.S.-flagged
ship for the duration of its transit through the Gulf of Aden. The detail would board each U.S.-
flagged ship at the start of its transit through the high-risk zone and depart the ship at the end of
its transit through the high-risk zone. One person who has suggested this alternative—a retired
U.S. Navy vice admiral—asserted that “A few well-armed teams aboard a few ships could
accomplish this mission” of protecting U.S.-flagged commercial ships traveling through the
area.”126 An August 2009 news report states that France has placed military personnel aboard tuna
fishing boats in the Indian Ocean and Belgium has offered eight-person military teams at a cost of
$162,000 per week.127 Some U.S. corporate officers have argued that military teams should
protect U.S.-flagged in order to avoid “regulatory shortfalls, liability concerns, and international
reluctance to permit armed merchant vessels into their ports.”128 Section 3506 of the House-
passed version of H.R. 2647, the FY2010 Defense Authorization act, would require the Secretary
of Defense to embark military personnel on board U.S.-flagged vessels carrying cargos owned by
the U.S. government if a vessel is traveling in a high risk area and is determined by the Coast
Guard to be at risk of being boarded by pirates. The Senate version of the bill did not include
these measures.
Maritime War Risk Insurance and Implications of “Armed Crews”
Federal law (Title XII of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended) authorizes the federal
government to administer a maritime war risk insurance program that insures or reinsures, as a
last resort, ocean-going commerce should private ocean marine insurance markets prove
insufficient. Available statistics suggest that the insurance industry’s financial resources are
adequate, given policyholder surplus levels, and there is ample supply of coverage for ocean-
going vessels, albeit at an elevated insurance premium level.129 As a result, despite the dramatic
126 John B. Perkins III, “Protect Our Mariners,” Washington Times, August 30, 2009: B1.
127 Christopher Torchia, “Western Nations Weigh Arming Civilian Ships,” NavyTimes.com, August 13, 2009.
128 Testimony of Arthur J. Volkle, Jr., Vice President, American Cargo Transport, Inc., before the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, May 20, 2009.
129 According to the A.M. Best Company, the U.S. property/casualty insurance industry’s reported surplus, a measure
of claims-paying capacity or capital, declined by about $62.3 billion or 12%, at year-end in 2008 to $455.6 billion from
$517.9 billion at year-end 2007. While not all of the $455.6 billion is allocated to ocean marine insurance, the level of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
34
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
increase in piracy off the coast of Somalia and increased premiums for sending a cargo shipment
through the Gulf of Aden, some may contend that Congress does not need to amend the existing
federal insurance statutory construct.
Others have urged arming ship crew as a risk mitigation option; Congress might consider steps to
allow armed crews on some ships or support the use of military personnel in response to the
current wave of piracy. Ocean marine insurers are conflicted on the “armed crew” issue. Some
insurers believe traditional negotiations after an act of piracy—that lead to prompt formula-based
ransom payments and a professional understanding between ship owners and the pirates about not
damaging the ship or cargo in exchange for expedited payments—are the best approach to
minimizing the cost of ocean marine transportation in piracy zones. Acts of piracy are actually
declining in other areas although piracy still poses a threat to shipping and trade. Some might
contend that arming ship crews would introduce new forms of armed conflict and increase the
risks to cargo, vessels, and crew associated with piracy. Still other insurers would support
increased levels of oversight and investigation into the piracy situation in an effort to ensure that
international commerce remains stabilized, particularly at a time of global economic crisis.
Toward a Long-Term Solution: "Piracy is a Problem that Starts
Ashore"130
Some Members of Congress have called on the
Administration to develop a “comprehensive
“Ultimately, piracy is a problem that starts
approach” to Somalia that responds to the threat
ashore and requires an international solution
ashore. We made this clear at the offset of
of piracy in the context of a broader initiative to
our efforts. We cannot guarantee safety in this
stabilize the country and support transitional
vast region.”
government institutions. Some U.S. officials
Vice Admiral William Gortney
support a similar approach. In January 2009, Dr.
Jun Bando, Maritime Security Coordinator and
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command
U.S. AFRICOM Liaison for the U.S. Department
Testimony before the House Armed Services
of State Bureau of African Affairs argued that “a
Committee, March 5, 2009
durable solution for ending piracy in the Horn of
Africa will require improving security, stability, rule of law, and economic opportunity in
Somalia, as well as solidifying political progress by forming a unity government and advancing
the peace process.”131
Beginning in January, the Obama Administration signaled its intention to continue working with
U.S. partners in the Contact Group on Somalia and the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of
Somalia toward those goals. In response to recent attacks on U.S.-flagged and -crewed vessels, a
more robust anti-piracy policy has been developed, and official statements indicate that the
Administration intends to proceed on a multi-track basis by building regional capacity, supporting
(...continued)
industry-wide surplus suggests U.S. private insurers have the overall financial resources to cover potential losses from
incidences of ocean piracy.
130 United States Navy, Commander, Combined Maritime Forces Public Affairs, “Combined Maritime Forces Issues
New Alert to Mariners,” April 7, 2009.
131 Dr. Jun Bando, Maritime Security Coordinator/U.S. Africa Command Liaison, U.S. Department of State Bureau of
African Affairs, “International Response to Piracy Expanded, Unified,” DipNote, January 30, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
35
Piracy off the Horn of Africa
multilateral anti-piracy initiatives, and improving coordination in the U.S. interagency.132 The
Administration’s interagency Counter-Piracy Steering Group continues to lead the efforts of over
75 bureaus, offices, and embassies engaged in anti-piracy operations. The State and Defense
Departments lead the Steering Group and the Departments of Transportation (U.S. Maritime
Administration [MARAD]), Justice, Homeland Security, Treasury, and USAID are members.
Enhanced U.S. assistance to the Somali Transitional Federal Government and engagement with
regional Somali representatives also aims to strengthen the ability and willingness of Somalis to
secure regions where pirates currently enjoy safe havens.
In the short term, the international community has responded to the threat of piracy in the waters
off the Horn of Africa with multinational naval patrols, diplomatic coordination efforts, and
enhanced private security efforts by members of the commercial shipping industry. In the longer
term, U.S. officials and international experts believe that addressing the threat of piracy will
require the strengthening of regional security capabilities, improved intelligence gathering and
sharing, more effective and capable law enforcement, and enhanced multilateral coordination,
both at sea and on land. By all accounts, pirates will likely continue to find sanctuary in Somalia
until basic governance and security conditions there improve, a prospect threatened by ongoing
conflict.
Author Contact Information
Lauren Ploch
R. Chuck Mason
Analyst in African Affairs
Legislative Attorney
lploch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7640
rcmason@crs.loc.gov, 7-9294
Christopher M. Blanchard
Rawle O. King
Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs
Analyst in Financial Economics and Risk
cblanchard@crs.loc.gov, 7-0428
Assessment
rking@crs.loc.gov, 7-5975
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610
132 U.S. State Department Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, “Fact Sheet: United States Actions To Counter Piracy
Off the Horn of Africa,” September 1, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
36