.
Don’t you find the case of the Arctic Sea, the 4,000-ton cargo ship that was hijacked as it rounded the north-west coast of France, curious?
We have a Maltese registered ship, crewed by 15 Russians that sailed from Finland with a cargo of timber worth £1.1 million bound for the Algerian port of Bejaia. It seems to have been hijacked on 24 July by a small group of armed Estonians, Latvians and Russians who, according to the police in Finland, threatened to blow the ship up unless a ransom was paid.
Although the ship was tracked continuously by maritime officials in Malta, Finland, Sweden, Russia and possibly other countries, the ship was allowed to continue its voyage to an unknown destination until, after part of a Russian naval fleet was sent to intercept it, the hijackers gave themselves up on 17 August and are now in Russian custody.
So we have a Maltese ship, crewed by Russians, hijacked by Estonians, Latvians and Russians monitored by at least Malta, Finland, Sweden and Russia and intercepted by the Russian Navy nearly four weeks after being reported as missing. The hijackers are now in Russian navy custody after being arrested while Arctic Sea was in international waters.
There are many questions:
Doubtless the Russians would have wanted to protect their own citizens ... but I do wonder why they have paid so much attention to this small ship when the navies of other countries might have been able to intercept the ship sooner.
What was on board Arctic Sea that was so valuable or dangerous that prompted a group of men from three different countries to hijack a small ship that was seemingly only carrying timber and which prompted so much attention?
And, assuming the hijackers are bought to court, where will this be and what legal jurisdiction will apply? Doesn’t Finland and Malta have an interest in a prosecution?
All very curious!
.
Don’t you find the case of the Arctic Sea, the 4,000-ton cargo ship that was hijacked as it rounded the north-west coast of France, curious?
We have a Maltese registered ship, crewed by 15 Russians that sailed from Finland with a cargo of timber worth £1.1 million bound for the Algerian port of Bejaia. It seems to have been hijacked on 24 July by a small group of armed Estonians, Latvians and Russians who, according to the police in Finland, threatened to blow the ship up unless a ransom was paid.
Although the ship was tracked continuously by maritime officials in Malta, Finland, Sweden, Russia and possibly other countries, the ship was allowed to continue its voyage to an unknown destination until, after part of a Russian naval fleet was sent to intercept it, the hijackers gave themselves up on 17 August and are now in Russian custody.
So we have a Maltese ship, crewed by Russians, hijacked by Estonians, Latvians and Russians monitored by at least Malta, Finland, Sweden and Russia and intercepted by the Russian Navy nearly four weeks after being reported as missing. The hijackers are now in Russian navy custody after being arrested while Arctic Sea was in international waters.
There are many questions:
Doubtless the Russians would have wanted to protect their own citizens ... but I do wonder why they have paid so much attention to this small ship when the navies of other countries might have been able to intercept the ship sooner.
What was on board Arctic Sea that was so valuable or dangerous that prompted a group of men from three different countries to hijack a small ship that was seemingly only carrying timber and which prompted so much attention?
And, assuming the hijackers are bought to court, where will this be and what legal jurisdiction will apply? Doesn’t Finland and Malta have an interest in a prosecution?
All very curious!
.
No comments:
Post a Comment