Kolkata Ship Puts Spotlight on U.N.
by Wall street Journal
Bigger countries, including the U.S. and India ship their own goods back and forth for such peacekeeping operations, but smaller countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal, rely on the U.N. for transport. The Indian official expressed concern that the U.N. is effectively outsourcing the transport of sensitive weaponry to private contractors. The cargo on board the Aegean Glory included mortars, anti-aircraft guns, bombs and rocket launchers, the Indian official said.
“Imagine in this day and age of heightened security concerns, with piracy on the high areas — what if someone drops the cargo off mid-ocean to some Al Qaeda person?” said the official, adding that it is “appalling” that the U.N. transports military cargo in this way.
Read more
Thanks for the post, but this is not unexpected. But there are some fallacies in some of the statements. Firstly, only merchant ships are suitable to carry shipments of this nature. Naval ships are not constructed to carry cargo (except LPDs, LSTs etc.). Even if a suitable Naval ship is found, it will most probably have to operate point-to-point, i.e. from loading port to discharging port as Naval ships may not get automatic 'right to innocent passage' through territorial waters of other states. This may not be technically or financially viable. As far as UN missions are concerned (AFAIK) the UN is responsible both for arranging and defraying the cost of mobilisation to the station concerned. Merchant ships are used for this purpose after a tendering/chartering process is gone through. i don't know which part of the UN structure controls this. But the Deploying Force would
necessarily be involved in both
planning and monitoring the movements. So this needs very great co-ordination between the Deploying Force and the Controlling Body (UN). Civilian bodies viz. clearing and forwarding agents would need to be involved to liase with and expedite/facilitate
(including palm greasing) with authorities like local Customs, Ports and transporters. This is how it works. Even Indian Army contingents have had to use UN arranged facilities. Now the point is that the UN works like any bureaucracy. They will go and charter the cheapest ship available- which is understandable. But this ship will usually be a 'rust-bucket' owned by a 'dodgy' owner under a 'flag of convenience' with a crew from disparate parts of the world. As in this instance.
Now with the present world-wide security scenario, this indeed is extremely risky. But what is the way out; no armed escort can be put on the ship, because of other legal issues, i.e. the status of the escort for instance.
As of now, the only way seems to be employment of ships belonging to a reputable organisation under a well-known flag etc. But that will cost substantially more and many of the better shipping lines stay (understandably)well clear of such cargoes.
Governments shipping their own military cargoes opt to use their own merchant ships as they have greater control. But this is not always feasible. Take the case of the Ukrainian ship hijacked by Somali pirates and carrying tanks and other vehicles apart from rocket launchers for the Kenyan Army. The ship was released after payment of a big ransom.
Needless to say, the UN needs to get its act together. But the UN itself is staffed by people of many nationalities who
may carry various national and personal agendas. Hence the possibility of deliberate wrong-doing.
Of course; as you alluded to, the world of arms trading/movements internationally is another matter altogether and full of "mysterious" stories.
