MV Seaman Guard Ohio: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> |
|||
{{Article for deletion/dated|page=MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident|timestamp=20131020015156|year=2013|month=October|day=20|substed=yes}} |
|||
<!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident|date=20 October 2013|result='''keep'''}} --> |
|||
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|||
{|{{Infobox ship begin |infobox caption=}} <!-- commercial vessels --><!-- caption: yes, nodab, or <caption text> --> |
{|{{Infobox ship begin |infobox caption=}} <!-- commercial vessels --><!-- caption: yes, nodab, or <caption text> --> |
||
{{Infobox ship image |
{{Infobox ship image |
||
| Line 59: | Line 55: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
|} |
|} |
||
The '''MV ''Seaman Guard Ohio''''' is a |
The '''MV ''Seaman Guard Ohio''''' is a [[patrol vessel]] owned by AdvanFort. [[Indian Coast Guard]] impounded the ship after it entered Indian waters without adequate permissions for weapons and armed-guards. Indian Police detained all 10 crew members and 25 security guards.<ref>{{cite web|title=Police Arrests Crew of detained US Ship Seaman Guard Ohio|url=http://news.biharprabha.com/2013/10/police-arrests-crew-of-detained-us-ship-seaman-guard-ohio/|accessdate=18 October 2013}}</ref> |
||
==Ship== |
==Ship== |
||
| Line 67: | Line 63: | ||
== Interception by Indian Coast Guard == |
== Interception by Indian Coast Guard == |
||
{{undue|date=October 2013}} |
|||
[[File:Locatie Golf van Mannar.PNG|thumb|Gulf of Mannar]] |
[[File:Locatie Golf van Mannar.PNG|thumb|Gulf of Mannar]] |
||
| ⚫ | The MV Seaman Guard Ohio was intercepted on 12 October 2013 beyond the [[International Maritime Bureau|ICC CSS]] ''High Risk Area'' and within Indian Customs Waters by [[Tara Bai-class coastal patrol vessel|ICGS Naiki Devi]]. The vessel was escorted to the [[Tuticorin Port Trust|VOC Chidambaranar Port]] in [[Thoothukudi]] (Tuticorin). <ref>{{cite news|title=Arms-laden US ship in Tuticorin: No clear answers yet|url=http://www.newsx.com/national/nation/item/11942-arms-laden-us-ship-in-tuticorin-no-clear-answers-yet|newspaper=News X|date=15 October 2013}}</ref> The 10 crew and 25 guards were interrogated by a federal multi-agency joint investigation team comprising members of the Indian Coast Guard, [[Indian Navy]], [[Central Board of Excise and Customs|Customs]], [[Research and Analysis Wing]] (RAW) and the Q Branch of [[Intelligence Bureau (India)|Intelligence Bureau]]. <ref>{{cite news|title=Ship with armed guards detained in Indian waters|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/ship-with-armed-guards-detained-in-indian-waters/article5229375.ece|newspaper=The Hindu|date=13 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=US ship with armed guards detained at Tuticorin; no papers authorising possession of arms|url=http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/us-ship-with-armed-guards-detained-at-tuticorin-no-papers-authorising-possession-of-arms-431775|newspaper=NDTV|date=13 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=India seizes armed anti-piracy ship owned by US security firm |url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-seizes-armed-anti-piracy-ship-owned-by-US-security-firm/articleshow/24104493.cms|newspaper=Times of India|date=13 October 2013}}</ref> |
||
[[File:AMS-Gulf of Mannar (SW) .jpg|thumb|Tuticorin & Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (U.S. Army Map Service) ]] |
|||
[[File:Zonmar-en.svg|thumb|[[UNCLOS]] boundary areas]] |
|||
The MV Seaman Guard Ohio was intercepted on 12 October 2013 beyond the [[International Maritime Bureau|ICC CSS]] ''High Risk Area'' and within Indian Customs Waters by [[Tara Bai-class coastal patrol vessel|ICGS Naiki Devi]]. The vessel was escorted to the [[Tuticorin Port Trust|VOC Chidambaranar Port]] in [[Thoothukudi]] (Tuticorin). <ref>{{cite news|title=Arms-laden US ship in Tuticorin: No clear answers yet|url=http://www.newsx.com/national/nation/item/11942-arms-laden-us-ship-in-tuticorin-no-clear-answers-yet|newspaper=News X|date=15 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The MV Seaman Guard Ohio had been loitering close to a protected maritime conservation zone : the [[Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park]] a [[Biosphere Reserve]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Armed guards back in spotlight after detention of anti-piracy ship in India|url=http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/tP9S8lnqPVPEojiojRNSQO/Armed-guards-back-in-spotlight-after-detention-of-antipirac.html|newspaper=Live Mint|date=24 October 2013}}</ref> Indian coastal police were tipped-off by fishermen that the ship was carrying armed guards. Indian newspapers quoted police sources saying that the MV Seaman Guard Ohio was "15 nautical miles away from Thoothukudi". <ref>{{cite news|title=Ship detained within Indian waters:Police|url=http://newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/Ship-detained-within-Indian-waters-Police/2013/10/18/article1842095.ece|newspaper=New Indian Express|date=18 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=U.S. vessel’s entry into Indian waters illegal: police official |url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/us-vessels-entry-into-indian-waters-illegal-police-official/article5244825.ece|newspaper=The Hindu|date=18 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title= TN police defends detention of US ship & crew |url=http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/tn-police-defends-detention-of-us-ship-crew-113101700840_1.html|newspaper=Business Standard|date=17 October 2013}}</ref> Defense personnel were quoted saying that the interception occurred 10.75 nautical miles off Vilangushuli Island.<ref>{{cite news|title=US vessel was anchored close to baseline|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/us-vessel-was-anchored-close-to-baseline/article5266109.ece|newspaper=The Hindu|date=24 October 2013}}</ref> The ship was reportedly spotted by a satellite while being refuelled. <ref>{{cite news|title=Detained American ship illegally bought diesel|url=http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Detained-American-ship-illegally-bought-diesel/2013/10/15/article1836001.ece|date=15 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Thomas Chacko of AdvanFort conceded that it had no permission to sail into the Indian waters.<ref>{{cite news|title=MHA seeks detailed report on US ship carrying arms|url=http://newindianexpress.com/nation/MHA-seeks-detailed-report-on-US-ship-carrying-arms/2013/10/15/article1836153.ece|newspaper=New Indian Express|date=15 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The company said that the vessel did so partly to avoid the effects of [[Cyclone Phailin]], which made land-fall at [[Gopalpur, Odisha]], over 1000 kilometers from Thoothukudi. William H. Watson, the company president, thanked the Indian government for offering the ship safe harbor.<ref>{{cite news|title=AdvanFort thanks Indian officials for providing safe harbor for its vessel|url=http://www.piracydaily.com/advanfort-thanks-indian-officials-providing-safe-harbor-vessel/|newspaper=Piracy Daily|date=13 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Indian maritime authorities said that the master of the vessel had not obtained clearances to enter Indian waters, and that "[o]ne of their intentions was to procure fuel. Transfer of fuel, suspected to be subsidised diesel in this case, within the Customs Waters (24 nautical miles) can amount to smuggling (...) The question of escaping from Cyclone Phailin does not arise as the cyclone had no impact in that area."<ref>{{cite news|title=Foreign ship entered Indian waters intentionally|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/foreign-ship-entered-indian-waters-intentionally/article5241188.ece|date=16 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
=== Investigation and charges=== |
|||
[[International Maritime Organisation]] (IMO) Alert Embankment circular MSC.1/Circ.1405/Rev.1 provides guidelines for ships involved in anti-piracy operations and explicitly states : "The Master should report to the appropriate military authorities when a ship intending to |
|||
transit, or transiting the High Risk Area is carrying PCASP, firearms and security-related |
|||
equipment on board".<ref>{{cite news|title=Revised interim guidance to shipowners, ship operators and ship-masters on the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships in the High Risk Area|url=http://www.imo.org/blast/blastData.asp?doc_id=14264&filename=1405-rev-1.pdf|newspaper=International Maritime Organisation (IMO)|date=16 September 2011}}</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Coast Guard Commandant Anand Kumar said: "At the moment the documents are still awaited. We have to see how valid are the documents that they do produce towards their entry into Indian waters and carrying arms and ammunitions." Indian authorities have impounded the MV Seaman Guard Ohio as well as 35 weapons including sophisticated semi-automatic rifles along with around 5,700 rounds of ammunition till all the paper-work relating to authorisations for the weaponry to enter Indian waters is received from AdvanFort and examined. <ref>{{cite news|title=Crew of US ship arrested, arms, ammunition seized|url=http://www.tehelka.com/crew-of-us-ship-arrested-arms-ammunition-seized/|newspaper=Tehelka|date=18 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=India seizes Sierra Leone-flagged ship Seaman Guard Ohio owned by Virginia-based AdvanFort|url=http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/10/13/india-ship-idINL3N0I307320131013|newspaper=Reuters|date=13 October 2013}}</ref> Commandant Anand Kumar went on to state that marine police got involved in the probe after the ship's master failed to answer basic questions, including why the ship was patrolling in the [[Bay of Bengal]] when its permit was limited to the Indian Ocean, and why no permits were available on board for the weapons and ammunition. <ref>{{cite news|title=India Seizes U.S. Maritime Security Ship which was patrolling in the Bay of Bengal when its permit was limited to the Indian Ocean|url=http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304561004579135552413001532|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|date=14 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Former eastern regional commander of Indian Coast Guard Commodore R.S.Vasan, opined that the investigation should be handed over to National Investigation Agency (NIA) as mandated by Union home ministry protocol adopted after the 2008 terror attacks in Mumbai. |
|||
[[Tamil Nadu Police|Tamil Nadu Police Coastal Security Group]] is investigating customs and immigration issues related to the Sierra Leone-flagged ship.<ref>{{cite news|title=Tamil Nadu Marine Police to bring out facts on ship with arms|url=http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/marine-police-to-bring-out-facts-on-ship-with-arms-coast-guard_883013.html|newspaper=Zee News|date=13 October 2013}}</ref> Indian media revealed that the MV Seaman Guard Ohio had previously been repeatedly sighted off the coast of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The vessel had even berthed at Kochi Port from 23 to 26 August 2013. |
|||
According to UNCLOS art.19(g), "''the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;''" is contrary to [[innocent passage]]. UNCLOS Art.21(h) and Art.25 gives a coastal State the right to pass legislation to this effect. UNCLOS Art.33 allows a coastal State to exercise control over the [[Territorial waters|Contiguous Zone]] (24 nautical miles from the baseline) to both "''prevent''" and "''punish''" acts that cause "''infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea''". |
|||
"We have asked for a detailed report. Since it was carrying arms and bought fuel in India illegally, we have asked the agencies for a thorough probe into the matter," said a spokesperson from the ministry of home affairs.<ref>{{cite news|title=India Charges Crew of Detained US Ship Seaman Guard Ohio |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/513932/20131015/india-ship-tuticorin-advanfort-arms-cyclone-phailin.htm|newspaper=IB Times|date=16 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Union Shipping minister G.K.Vasan said : "We are still to find answers to many questions, the probe will bring out the truth. Till then, the ship will not be allowed to move out of Tuticorin port".<ref>{{cite news|title=US Ship won't move till probe completed: Shipping Minister G.K.Vasan|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Chennai/US-Ship-won-t-move-till-probe-completed-Vasan/Article1-1136019.aspx|newspaper=Hindustan Times|date=16 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The MMD headquarters in Chennai told journalists that they are yet to participate in the investigation and have not taken charge of the ship's VDR ([[Voyage Data Recorder]]). Maritime safety experts advising central investigation agencies said lack of coordination between different agencies delaying a proper investigation might spoil chances of retrieving crucial communication including its voyage details. <ref>{{cite news|title=US ship with arms was in Indian waters for a month|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-ship-with-arms-was-in-Indian-waters-for-a-month/articleshow/24212910.cms|newspaper=Times of India|date=16 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
On 13 October 2013, the Coastal Security Group of the Tamil Nadu police filed a FIR against the crew and guards of the ship based on Section 25(i)(b),(a) and (f) of the Indian Arms Act 1956 for unauthorised entrance into Indian waters in the Bay of Bengal with arms and ammunition and also under Sections 7(i)(a), (ii) of Essential Commodities Act read with Order 2(e) (iv,v,vi) and 2(f) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 for improper purchase of subsidised marine fuel.<ref>{{cite news|title=Foreign vessel and crew booked under Arms Act|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/india-detains-crew-of-us-ship-carrying-weapons/article5233543.ece|date=16 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=Detained American ship illegally bought diesel|url=http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/Detained-American-ship-illegally-bought-diesel/2013/10/15/article1836001.ece|date=15 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Indian investigations have involved US embassy officials in the probe. <ref>{{cite news|title=Indian police 'investigating' US ship crew|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24586344|newspaper=BBC News|date=18 October 2013}}</ref> The US embassy in [[New Delhi]] told media that it had "no comments" on the case.<ref>{{cite news|title=Indian police arrest crew of US-owned anti-piracy escort ship and seize guns|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/indian-police-arrest-crew-american-ship-arms-charges|newspaper=The Guardian|date=18 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Between 18 and 19 October 2013, police disembarked all 25 guards and 10 crew members consisting of 14 Estonians, 12 Indians, 6 Britons and 1 Ukrainian. Judge C. Kathiravan of Tuticorin judicial magistrate court remanded the entire detachment on board the MV Seaman Guard Ohio to judicial custody till 31 October 2013. <ref>{{cite news|title=US ship crew, guards land behind bars|url=http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/US-ship-crew-guards-land-behind-bars/2013/10/19/article1843418.ece|newspaper=New Indian Express|date=19 October 2013}}</ref> They were interred at [[Palayamkottai Central Prison]] in [[Tirunelveli]].<ref>{{cite news|title=U.S. ship crew arrested in Tuticorin|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/us-ship-crew-arrested-in-tuticorin/article5247423.ece?homepage=true&ref=relatedNews|newspaper=The Hindu|date=19 October 2013}}</ref> On 23 October 2013, 22 of the 23 foreign citizens were transferred to [[Puzhal Central Prison]] in [[Chennai]].<ref>{{cite news|title=22 sailors of US ship being shifted to Chennai’s Puzhal prison for 'security reasons'|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/22-sailors-of-US-ship-being-shifted-to-Chennais-Puzhal-prison-for-security-reasons/articleshow/24597525.cms|newspaper=Times of India|date=23 October 2013}}</ref> On 25 October 2013, the Q Branch of Indian Police were given the custody of a British national and two Indian nationals for 5 days.<ref>{{cite news|title=Five-day police custody for U.S. ship crew|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/fiveday-police-custody-for-us-ship-crew/article5269269.ece?homepage=true|newspaper=The Hindu|date=25 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Following the arrests, AdvantFort termed the arrests as "inappropriate" and that it would explore diplomatic and legal avenues to obtain the release of the crew, saying that the ship had been asked to enter Indian waters by the coast guard.<ref>{{cite news|title=Seaman Guard owner to fight arrest of ship's crew in India|url=http://www.upiasia.com/Top-News/2013/10/22/Seaman-Guard-owner-to-fight-arrest-of-ships-crew-in-India/UPI-84311382425320/|author=[[UPI]]|date=22 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Justifying the arrests, India's Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh stated: "The vessel was stopped by our coast guard in consideration of issues relating to the presence of arms, ammunition, and armed guards on board without the necessary authorization. (...) Cases have been filed with regards to the Arms Act and the Essential Commodities Act. Basic information on this case has been shared in routine course with U.S. Embassy representatives," <ref>{{cite news|title=Foreign office justifies ship crew's arrest|url=http://www.voanews.com/content/india-arrests-crew-of-us-ship/1772162.html|newspaper=Voice of America|date=18 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|title=India Arrests Crew of US-Owned Anti-Piracy Ship|url=http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Foreign-office-justifies-ship-crews-arrest/2013/10/19/article1843507.ece|newspaper=New Indian Express|date=19 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
=== Domestic policies and political impacts=== |
|||
The illegal entry into Indian waters of arms, ammunition and military personnel on board the MV Seaman Guard Ohio revived memories of the [[2008 Mumbai attacks|2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks]], when a group of sea-borne suicide gunmen from Pakistan went on a rampage in Mumbai and killed 166 persons.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/why-the-seamanguard-ohio-is-a-worry-for-coastal-security/1/320299.html |title=Why the Seaman Guard Ohio is a worry for coastal security|publisher= India Today |date= 26 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1385 |title=The curious case of seizure of MV Seaman Guard Ohio off Tamil Nadu Coast|publisher= South Asia Analysis |date= 21 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The exercise of elements of governmental authority within India's Exclusive Economic Zone rests with the Indian Navy, Indian Coast Guard and Marine Police. With the aim of safeguarding national security interests, several coastal states including India have declared their intent to exercise limited controls within their Contiguous Zone and EEZ through the extension of territorial jurisdiction. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/conferences/sos/s_kopela_paper.pdf|title=The ‘territorialisation’ of the Exclusive Economic Zone - Implications for maritime jurisdiction|publisher=Durham University (United Kingdom)|accessdate=24 October 2013}}</ref> India's Ministry of Shipping guidelines SR-13020/6/2009-MG(pt.) dated 29/8/2011 forbids private military ships and armed guards from [[PMSC]]s to operate within Exclusive Economic Zones without permission. A clear distinction is made between VPDs and PCASPs on board privately owned ships exercising commercial activities and uniformed military personnel on board Government-owned warships, [[auxiliary vessel|auxiliary vessels]] and military crafts. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Security/PiracyArmedRobbery/Documents/PCASP/India.pdf.|title=Response to questionnaire MSC.1/Circ.1408 on the Interim Recommendations for port and coastal States regarding the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships in the High Risk Area|publisher=International Maritime Organisation (IMO)|accessdate=24 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
India's largest opposition questioned the government's silence on the MV Seaman Guard Ohio case. BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said : "Till date, the legal status of those on board is unclear and the complete papers carrying permissions and licenses are unavailable (...) Floating armouries of this kind and their legal status being unclear, raise a lot of questions. Legal or otherwise, the risk of their falling in wrong hands is very high and raises issues of national security,".<ref>{{cite web |url= http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-15/news/43068668_1_merchant-vessel-nirmala-sitharaman-legal-status |title=Why is govt "silent" on merchant vessels carrying arms: BJP |publisher= Economic Times |date= 15 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web |url= http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/arms-laden-us-ship-in-tuticorin-why-this-silence_883529.html |title= Arms-laden US ship in Tuticorin: Why this silence? |publisher= Zee News |date= 16 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Claims by AdvanFort that it employs military special operators, intelligence community veterans and former security professionals from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), evoked the possibility of an intelligence gathering operation on India's strategic assets. The MV Seaman Guard Ohio was intercepted outside the piracy High Risk Area close to a strategically important installation : the [[Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant]]. Former Indian Navy commander Captain Balakrishnan highlighted contradictions in the narrative put forth by AdvanFort : “If it is a ship involved in anti-piracy activities, it should have been chartered either by the US Navy or the Coast Guard of that country. Anti-piracy security activities are done by national navies and coast guards. Till date we have not come across any private anti-piracy agencies operating on behalf of navies or coast guards,(...) In normal course, the Navy that hires the ship sends requests for '[[innocent passage]]' to Governments of countries along the coast through which the ship sails,”<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dailypioneer.com/todays-newspaper/suspect-us-ship-crew--and-passengers-detained.html|title=Suspicious looking US ship seized by the Indian Coast Guard|publisher= Zee News |date= 15 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The [[Popular Front of India]] urged the Indian government to conduct a multi-agency investigation into the MV Seaman Guard case by underscoring the risks of gunrunning and espionage.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.popularfrontindia.org/pp/story/high-level-investigation-needed-about-us-ship-popular-front|title=High level investigation needed about the US ship: Popular Front|date= 26 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
== Regulation of Private Maritime Security industry == |
|||
{{coatrack|date=October 2013}} |
|||
While fully supporting global anti-piracy efforts to protect [[Sea lines of communication|SLOC]]s, India has demonstrated increased sensitivity to its national security interests and a marked intransigence to violations of its maritime boundaries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-24577190|title=MV Seaman Guard Ohio: India police arrest crew of US ship|publisher=BBC News|accessdate=19 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57608126/india-arrests-35-from-u.s-security-firm-advanforts-well-armed-anti-piracy-mother-ship/|title=India arrests 35 from U.S. security firm AdvanFort's well-armed anti-piracy "mother ship"|publisher=CBS News|accessdate=18 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
The MV Seaman Guard Ohio case once again drew attention to the lack of a legal framework under which private security contractors and armed guards operate in the high seas. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-india-arrests-us-vessel-20131018,0,7908125.story#axzz2iUUrWJ3f|title=Indians arrest 35 aboard U.S.-owned vessel reportedly carrying weapons|publisher=Los Angeles Times|accessdate=18 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131019/jsp/nation/story_17470105.jsp#.UmLKpVNy3N4|title=Storm clouds gather over detained US ship|publisher=The Telegraph|accessdate=18 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.asiasentinel.com/econ-business/trouble-on-india-high-seas/|title=Trouble On India’s High Seas|publisher=Asia Sentinel|accessdate=21 October 2013}}</ref> The incident also brought to the forefront already existing issues surrounding the use of [[flags of convenience]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/Not-first-brush-with-law-for-ship-owner/2013/10/20/article1844838.ece|title=Not first brush with law for ship owner|publisher=New Indian Express|accessdate=20 October 2013}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.counterpiracy.ae/upload/Briefing/Carolin%20Liss-Essay-Eng-2.pdf|title=Regulating Private Military and Security Companies at Sea - New Developments and Challenges|publisher=Counter Piracy UAE|accessdate=26 October 2013}}</ref>by companies to bypass controls and flout international laws and maritime regulations on [[SALW|Small Arms and Light Weapons]] (SALW).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.swedishclub.com/upload/Loss_Prev_Docs/Piracy/PIRACY_and_USE_OF_ARMED_GUARDS_-_General_overview.pdf|title=Piracy & Use of Armed Guards|publisher=Swedish Club|accessdate=26 October 2013}}</ref> Security analysts called for a reinforcement of coastal surveillance capabilities and focused on the risks to national security if non-State entities could, in the absence of effective controls by the flag-State, freely transport weapons without adequate permissions from the littoral State. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/files/dmfile/download17591.pdf|title= Threats from the Global Commons - Problems of jurisdiction and enforcement|publisher=University of Melbourne (Australia)|accessdate=26 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
India's Deputy National Security Advisor opined that the ship was a private 'floating armoury' : "You have had piracy earlier in the [[Strait of Malacca]] and now in the [[Persian Gulf]]. People who provide such security need a floating armoury. My suspicion is that the boat in Tuticorin is a floating armoury for one of these private security agencies"<ref name="australian" /> <ref>{{cite news|title=Know the detained USA ship-MV Seaman Guard Ohio|url=http://news.oneindia.in/india/know-the-detained-ship-mv-seaman-guard-ohio-from-usa-1325616.html|newspaper=OneIndia News|date=17 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
Policing of coastal waters including the Exclusive Economic Zone and up to the High Seas has traditionally rested with government maritime agencies like coast guards and littoral police. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://law.wisc.edu/m/kxzdv/gomez_del_prado_paper.doc|title=Mercenaries, Private Military and Security Companies and International Law|publisher=UN Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (United Nations Organisation) |accessdate=23 October 2013}}</ref> Speaking in the aftermath of the detention of the MV Seaman Guard Ohio, former Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Naval Command Vice Admiral (retd.) K N Sushil questioned the legal basis and jurisdictional authority of private maritime security companies to conduct maritime policing activities : "Who authorised them? What are the conditionalities involved? Who pays them? What is the right of passage for the vessel to enter Indian territorial waters? Who sanctioned them the right to operate with armed guards? If no countries have issued such a sanction, they themselves should be treated as pirates,". <ref>{{cite web|url=http://newindianexpress.com/nation/Foreign-office-justifies-ship-crews-arrest/2013/10/19/article1843507.ece|title=Foreign office justifies MV Seaman Guard Ohio crew's arrest|publisher=New Indian Express|accessdate=19 October 2013}}</ref> The former Vice Chief of Naval Staff, Vice Admiral (retd) K K Nayyar echoed : “What was the objective and purpose of the ship in Indian waters ? There is not much piracy near our maritime borders. I think some of the biggest scandals are happening out there, and we have to find out what,” <ref>{{cite web|url=http://newindianexpress.com/thesundaystandard/Shadowy-Arab-billionaire-behind-armed-US-ship/2013/10/20/article1844739.ece|title=Shadowy Arab billionaire behind armed US ship|publisher=New Indian Express|accessdate=20 October 2013}}</ref> |
|||
In the aftermath of the 2012 ''[[2012 Italian Navy Marines shooting incident in the Laccadive Sea|Enrica Lexie incident]]'', when armed guards shot at a trawler and killed two fishermen, Indian maritime authorities initiated steps to ensure that fishing activities are not disrupted by commercial shipping traffic.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/logistics/ships-with-armed-guards-govt-may-fix-responsibility-on-flagstate/article2910600.ece|title=Ships with armed guards: Govt may fix responsibility on flag-state|publisher=The Hindu|accessdate=19 February 2013}}</ref> Coastal communities had also demanded guarantees for the safety of fishermen at sea.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/373250?type=bloomberg|title=Brother Shot Dead Fishing Tests Armed Guards' Accountability|publisher=Business Week|accessdate=28 November 2012}}</ref> Egypt, Oman and India have demanded the United Nations [[Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia]] (CGPCS) to review the piracy High Risk Area map to prevent commercial shipping traffic from getting uncomfortably close to the exclusive economic zone which in turn adversely affects fishermen.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://newindianexpress.com/nation/India-for-redraw-of-piracy-risk-map/2013/05/20/article1597574.ece#|title=India for redraw of piracy risk map|publisher=New Indian Express|accessdate=20 May 2013}}</ref> Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton defined the EU and India cooperation in the fight against piracy as "a mutual interest" and stressed that the legal basis for arming cargo vessels needed to be looked into.<ref name=Ashton>{{cite news|title=Ashton vows support for Italy in arrested marines case|url=http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2012/03/13/visualizza_new.html_131131849.html|accessdate=17 November 2012|newspaper=ANSA|date=13 March 2012}}</ref> |
|||
The (Third) Restatement of US foreign relations law through its Congressional appearance in 18 USC § 7 at (7) as the Special Maritime Jurisdiction asserts United States extraterritorial jurisdiction to areas where no other convention or treaty or law prevails. If the flag state asserts no jurisdiction, other than the civil acts of registry, the United States could conceivably take jurisdiction under the broad scope of the anti-terrorism statutes, if it so chose.<ref>{{cite news|title=Counter-Piracy and the flap about floating armouries|url=http://www.piracydaily.com/counter-piracy-and-the-flap-about-floating-armories/|accessdate=26 October 2013|newspaper=Piracy Daily|date=01 July 2013}}</ref> |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
Revision as of 00:57, 28 October 2013
 MV Seaman Guard Ohio photographed at Singapore, July 2012
| |
| History | |
|---|---|
| Owner | AdvanFort |
| Port of registry | Sierra Leone |
| Builder | Narasaki Shipbuilding, Muroran, Japan |
| Completed | 1984 |
| Identification | list error: <br /> list (help) IMO number: 8410691 MMSI number: 667004026 |
| General characteristics | |
| Tonnage | list error: <br /> list (help) 394 GRT 197 DWT |
| Length | 45.93 metres (150.7 ft) |
| Beam | 7.32 metres (24.0 ft) |
The MV Seaman Guard Ohio is a patrol vessel owned by AdvanFort. Indian Coast Guard impounded the ship after it entered Indian waters without adequate permissions for weapons and armed-guards. Indian Police detained all 10 crew members and 25 security guards.[1]
Ship
The MV Seaman Guard Ohio is a Sierra Leone-flagged fishery patrol vessel (Call Sign: 9LA2125, IMO: 8410691, MMSI: 667004026) owned and operated by AdvanFort, a Virginia (USA) based Private Maritime Security Company (PMSC) that provides commercial anti-piracy protection services to merchant vessels. [2] The Seaman Guard Ohio is a special purpose vessel for Privately Contracted Armed Security Personnel (PCASP) paid to defend cargo ships in piracy high risk areas (HRA).[3] The vessel is equipped with a wide array of directive and omnidirectional radio-communications sensors including numerous VHF, UHF, HF and satellite communications antennae, maritime radars and satellite navigation systems.[4]
The ship was built by Narasaki Shipbuilding of Muroran, Japan, and was originally the Kaio Maru. In May 2011 she was renamed Timor Navigator, and in January 2012 Seaman Guard Ohio.[5]
Interception by Indian Coast Guard
The MV Seaman Guard Ohio was intercepted on 12 October 2013 beyond the ICC CSS High Risk Area and within Indian Customs Waters by ICGS Naiki Devi. The vessel was escorted to the VOC Chidambaranar Port in Thoothukudi (Tuticorin). [6] The 10 crew and 25 guards were interrogated by a federal multi-agency joint investigation team comprising members of the Indian Coast Guard, Indian Navy, Customs, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the Q Branch of Intelligence Bureau. [7] [8] [9]
References
- ^ "Police Arrests Crew of detained US Ship Seaman Guard Ohio". Retrieved 18 October 2013.
- ^ "Seaman Guard Ohio". Marine Traffic. 12 October 2013.
- ^ "India seizes US mercenary ship". The Australian. 16 October 2013.
- ^ "Rogue vessels in Indian waters". Hindu Business Line. 24 October 2013.
- ^ "Seaman Guard Ohio - 8410691 - Patrol Vessel" (pdf). Maritime Connector. Retrieved October 22, 2013.
- ^ "Arms-laden US ship in Tuticorin: No clear answers yet". News X. 15 October 2013.
- ^ "Ship with armed guards detained in Indian waters". The Hindu. 13 October 2013.
- ^ "US ship with armed guards detained at Tuticorin; no papers authorising possession of arms". NDTV. 13 October 2013.
- ^ "India seizes armed anti-piracy ship owned by US security firm". Times of India. 13 October 2013.