BILLIONAIRE’S SPACE ODYSSEY ENDS

So far, none of my friends seems convinced at my assertion that commercial space travel will be a reality in our lifetime, or at least by 2024. That’s only 15 years from now.

Clicking on the blog entry title will open a new window or tab. The International Space Station is shown in photo #1. This lead photo of the parachute landing is shown in photo #9.

A Russian Soyuz space capsule lands in Kazakhstan on April 8. The capsule carried a U.S. astronaut, a Russian cosmonaut and the billionaire space passenger Charles Simonyi from the International Space Station. Simonyi made his fortune at Microsoft by managing the development of the Microsoft Office suite.

This was Simonyi’s second trip to space. Simonyi was already the fifth space tourist in 2007 when he took his first trip.

I think I can now revise my estimate to 2019, just ten years from now. But doesn’t this all depend upon the definition of commercial space travel? What is it? What constitutes commercial space travel?

A CHRISTMAS-NEW YEAR IN EASTERN EUROPE

In Orthodox societies, Christmas and New Year are celebrated differently. In the former Soviet republic of Ukraine, for instance, Christmas (December 25th) is a non-event. Christmas is celebrated on January 7th instead. The country works through December 31st and then goes on holiday from January 1st to the 7th.

First, a country background. Ukraine is ancient. It lies along the many routes of conquerors and the conquered. From the north came the Vikings and the ancient Germanic tribes. From the west came the Romans, from the south, the Turks. And from the east came the Mongols. As can be expected, its people are a varied lot. Ukrainians share their Slavic roots with people of the surrounding regions—the Russians, Poles, Serbs, and Macedonians—to name some of them. The Slavic heritage, in turn, comes from the Vikings. Around 1000 AD, Ukraine, specifically its capital—Kyiv—was the seat of a kingdom called Kyivan Rus. The seat of this kingdom eventually migrated north, to present-day Moscow, to form the offspring that we now call Russia.

Second, a political background. Ukraine has a tortured past. Its national anthem, for example, can be translated as “Ukraine is still standing" or "Ukraine is not yet dead.” While it implies heroism, it also conjures an image of desperate bravery. In fact, with the major exception of Kyivan Rus, Ukraine has always belonged, in whole or in part, to more powerful kingdoms. After the Nazi occupation, it became an important cog of the defunct USSR. The Soviets exploited Ukraine to the hilt. It was simultaneously its “breadbasket” as well as its heavy metal (steel) source. In addition, many of the USSR’s engineering talent had Ukrainian origins. Most of the USSR’s navy was built in Ukraine. Its space program was based in Ukraine as was its nuclear missles. Indeed, after the USSR’s collapse in 1991, Ukraine suddenly found itself with the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal (after Russian and America). One of the longest-lived Soviet leaders, Leonid Brezhnev, was Ukrainian by birth although he did not bestow any special benefits to his native land during his era. Today, Ukraine is divided. Its president is pro-West and has been driving his country towards membership in NATO and the European Union. Ukraine’s prime minister, on the other hand, prefers the status quo and stay close to Russia. The division divides Ukraine along nearly geographic lines. With Kyiv in the center, the eastern half—the one adjacent to Russia—is pro-Russian. And it can literally be heard on the streets. The dominant language is Russian. The western half, by contrast, is more nationalistic if not pro-West. Similarly, Ukrainian is the lingua franca.

Dnipropetrovsk

Dnipropetrovsk, “Dnipro,” as the locals call it, is Ukraine’s third largest city (1.1 million). It’s in the eastern half and lies along the banks of the great Dnipro river (known in Russian as the “Dnieper”). During the Cold War, it was a “closed city.” Admission into and out of Dnipro was tightly controlled. Among other things, most of the USSR’s InterContinental Ballistic Missles (ICBMs) were produced there. So tight was its security that this city of 1 million did not officially exist in any map.



Padlocks seal the new marriage

People practice different customs in their part of the world. In Ukraine, newlyweds carry on a cute tradition. A bridge connects the city center (downtown) to an island on the river.



This island, Monastyrskiy, contains the earliest evidence of human inhabitation in the area. Today, the island houses a rebuilt cathedral and one of the tallest statues of Ukraine’s most heroic figure, Taras Schevchenko. A transplanted New Yorker, Michelle, explained a custom that newlyweds engaged in after getting married. They lock a padlock to the bridge’s rails. As you can see, the city has had many newlyweds.

(You can enlarge any image by clicking on it. To return to this page, click on the back-arrow of your browser or press the Backspace key on your keyboard.)

IMPOTENT NAVIES ENCOURAGE MORE PIRACY

Back in September I reported what was then the most serious piracy incident—the hijacking of MV Faina, a Ukrainian-owned freighter that happened to be carrying 33 Russian T-72 tanks. The US Navy promptly dispatched the USS Howard and Russia followed by sending the missile frigate Neustrashimy (Fearless).

A few days later, on 2 October, I provided an update. (1) I simply had to repeat what the New York Times reported:

In a 45-minute interview, the pirate spokesman explained what the pirates wanted (“just money”) to why they were doing this (“to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters”) to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, “you know, normal human-being food”).

He said that so far, in the eyes of the world, the pirates had been misunderstood. “We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” he said. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.”

IMPOTENCE

Well to my disbelief I have to report that the MV Faina is still in the hands of the pirates. It has been surrounded by four US warships and the Russian warship for the last six weeks. I am at a loss for a rational explanation for the impotent behavior of these major powers.

There are currently 14 warships in the Gulf of Aden. Eight of them come from the combined task force of the coalition that is fighting the war in Afghanistan. NATO has four. Russia has one. And India has one. (2)

NAVIES HAVE THEIR HANDS TIED

ABC News recently reported that most of the navies have declared that shipping companies must protect themselves:

There is no consensus among the world's powers, however, to go after the pirates despite the fact that the ships that have been captured are anchored in clear view off the coast of Somalia.

The U.S. Navy said Wednesday that it’s not about to use its military might to free a giant oil tanker or any other ship captured by Somali pirates because if naval forces recover one ship, they would have to recover them all.
Besides, a Pentagon official asked, what would they do with all the captured pirates?

The U.S. Fifth Fleet has dozens of ships patrolling the pirate-infested waters off the Somali coast in the Gulf of Aden and in the Indian Ocean. They have been joined by warships from several other nations trying to create a safe corridor through the busy shipping lanes. (3)

But so what? I wonder why President Bush hasn’t made a decision. This is so unlike him. The presidential elections are over. His administration will be in power for just two more months. (The presidential inauguration of Senator Obama is scheduled for 20 January 2009.) Does he intend to hand over this problem to his successor?

BAD EXAMPLE

This impotence can only make the pirates bolder. Thugs like them only understand one language and that is the language of power. Apparently while they don’t understand the lack of action, they’re not wasting time pondering this. Since the MV Faina incident, about 15 more vessels have been hijacked.

According to the same ABC News article, 95 ships have been attacked so far this year and 39 have been captured.

A TIMELY EXCEPTION

Last week, on 19 November, Wednesday, the only Indian warship took offensive action at the first opportunity. (4) The INS Tabar first saved two merchant vessels on 11 November and followed it up on the 19th by destroying one of the mother ships of these Somali pirates.

INS Tabar encountered the pirates’ mother ship with two speed boats in tow and there were about 20 pirates on board the ship, it is learned.

“This pirate vessel was similar in description to the ‘Mother Vessel’ mentioned in various piracy bulletins. INS Tabar closed in on the vessel and asked her to stop for investigation,” a Navy spokesperson said.

But the pirates threatened to blow up the warship if it sailed closer to their mother ship, despite repeated calls from INS Tabar to stop and let the Navy personnel to inspect the ship, he said.

The Navy noticed that pirates were roaming on the upper deck of the vessel with guns and rocket propelled grenade launchers in hand, and they continued the threats and subsequently fired upon INS Tabar.

In their retaliatory action in “self-defence,” INS Tabar opened fire on the mother vessel of the pirates. “As a result of INS Tabar's guns booming, fire broke out on the pirate vessel and explosions were heard, possibly due to exploding ammunition that was stored on the vessel,” he said.

Congratulations to the Indian government and its navy for setting a good example.

THE LARGEST INCIDENT YET

Today, the Swiss news website, swissinfo.ch, reported that:

Somali pirates holding a Saudi supertanker after the largest hijacking in maritime history have reduced their ransom demand to $15 million (10 million pounds), an Islamist leader and regional maritime group both said on Monday.

The November 15 capture of the Sirius Star—with $100 million of oil and 25 crew members from Britain, Poland, Croatia, Saudi Arabia and the Philippines—has focused world attention on rampant piracy off the failed Horn of Africa state. (5)

Hopefully this will prod the powers to finally take action. The cry has been building:

Tom Barnett of ScrippsNews—a major US media conglomerate—wrote an op-ed (opinion-editorial) that plainly said “when piracy threatens global commerce, great powers need to fight back—collectively.” (6) I might add that the US navy should be able to do it by itself if the President ordered it. After all, if the US can invade two countries, surely it can exterminate several thousand pirates.

Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky of the Russian Navy was quoted by the Russian News & Information Agency (Novosti) as saying that warships from all of the Russian Navy fleets will be involved in measures to fight piracy in the Horn of Africa region. (7)

And back to the good-example-maker, India. Outlook India claims that India has been given the UN’s blessing to take on the pirates:

With international maritime nations identifying Somalian waters as the source of increasing piracy threats, India today said the UN Security Council has granted it permission to “suppress” the sea brigands there.

“So far India’s encounter with the pirates has been in the international waters. Our desire to fight piracy through the UN route has been conveyed and confirmed through the UN Security Council via the UN Permanent Representative of Somalia in UN,” Ministry of External Affairs Secretary (East) N Ravi told reporters here.

Navy officials, on their part, said the UN has given permission to navies operating in that area to take action against pirates, as enshrined in the UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions 1814, 1816 and 1838.

They said the go-ahead came after the Transitional Government of Somalia approached the UN welcoming action against pirates in their territorial waters. (8)

As my daughters would say, "whatever!" Let’s see what happens next.

REFERENCES

(1) “PIRACY UPDATE - 2 October 2008.” Retrieved from http://philosophytoastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/10/piracy-update-october-2-2008-when.html on 22 November 2008.
(2) “FACTBOX: Foreign ships off Somalia.” Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE4AK4M020081121 on 22 November 2008.
(3) “Shipping Companies Must Protect Themselves.” Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6292014 on 23 November 2008.
(4) “Indian Navy Sinks Pirate Ship in Gulf of Aden.” Retrieved from http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=635226 on 23 November 2008.
(5) “Somali pirates want $15 million for Saudi ship.” Retrieved from http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=10005525&ty=ti on 24 November 2008.
(6) “Barnett: Fight the pirates.” Retrieved from http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/38139 on 23 November 2008.
(7) “Warships from all Russian Navy fleets to fight piracy off Somalia.” Retrieved from http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081123/118473138.html on 23 November 2008.
(8) “India gets UN nod to take on piracy in Somalian waters.” Retrieved from http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=636464 on 23 November 2008.

NINE MONTHS RACING AROUND THE WORLD

10 legs. 9 months. 8 competitors. And 37,000 nautical miles. It started at the port town of Alicante, Spain and will finish at the port city of St. Petersburg, Russia.

The race began 40 days ago and is expected to finish in late-June of 2009.

All eight racers finished the first leg safely (from Alicante to Cape Town, South Africa) and had departed from Cape Town six days ago.

The race began in 1973 and was known back then as the "Whitbread Round the World." In 2000, Volvo became the primary sponsor and renamed it the Volvo Ocean Race (VOR).



The boats are essentially giant surfboards because of the way they perform. These are huge vessels, 70 feet long (21 meters), and manned by 11 maniacs. The maniacs come from Britain, Russia, China, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Uruguay, etc.



From the official website:

During the race the crews will experience life at the extreme: no fresh food is taken onboard so they live off freeze dried fare, they will experience temperature variations from -5 to +40 degrees Celsius and will only take one change of clothes. They will trust their lives to the boat and the skipper and experience hunger and sleep deprivation.

The race is the ultimate mix of world class sporting competition and on the edge adventure, a unique blend of onshore glamour with offshore drama and endurance.

It is undeniably the world’s premier global race and one of the most demanding team sporting events in the world.

After looking at these videos, tell me if you don't fall in love with the sport!

A BIG BET ON RUSSIA: BP's PREDICAMENT

BP—formerly known as British Petroleum—is currently facing the largest crisis in its storied 99-year history. The crisis is full of superlatives. By any measure, it’s enormous. It involves tens of billions of dollars and the direct employment of almost 100,000 Russians. It’s being closely watched as a harbinger of Moscow’s real intentions—economically and militarily. It has the potential to bring down a giant company. And it involves numerous ethical and legal issues.

Befitting the largest British company, BP shares trade primarily at the London Stock Exchange. Energy is currently a hot industry. Last year, BP was the fourth largest company in the world measured by revenue, preceded only by Exxon-Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

In 2003, BP bet big. For starters, it invested $6.15 billion for 50% ownership in a joint venture called TNK-BP. This was just for starters. BP took this gamble not only because of the enormous potential of Russia’s Siberia but also because it’s traditional haunts in the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaska had become prohibitively expensive, its proven reserves were perilously low, and its global oil production (on which its revenue depended upon) was declining. In short, BP was desperately looking for new fields (literally) to mine.

But why Russia? Virtually all the other oil majors, with the exception of Royal Dutch Shell, had steered clear of it. BP’s peers had concluded (and it appears, rightfully so) that Russia’s legal fabric was still unproven. Why is its legal fabric so important? Russia has historically been an autocratic state. Its recent behavior in Georgia is indicative of the way the Russian government pursues its objectives. It shoots first and then presents the world with a fait accompli.

BP was undeterred. It forged ahead. The promise of enormous gas and oil reserves, low cost, and the advantages of vertical integration—from the ground through the pipes to the consumer—was irresistible. It was willing to risk bad governance, a corrupt judiciary, venal bureaucracy, combative local partners, organized crime, and capricious legislation. It boldly proclaimed that Russia is changing for the better. Russia’s fledgling democratic society is becoming stable. Russia needs foreign investment and will give its investors at least a level playing field. It has to behave like a civilized country of laws for it to retain its status as an inviting place for investment.

It seems to have fooled itself. Whether or not it deluded itself, this is a dangerous type of managerial delusion. It puts a lot of jobs, not to mention resources, at risk—if the decision, in fact, was a product of managerial delusion.

A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

I think Senator McCain, the current Republican candidate for the US presidency, said it best. In a campaign interview last month, he said:

Let me put a little bit of historical perspective on this. I think all of us had [developed] a kind of a romanticized view of the world after the fall of the Soviet Union. There was a period of time when we saw dramatic progress around the world of countries attaining democracy [referring primarily to the former vassal states of the USSR]. Many assumed that it was almost automatic that China and Russia would inexorably [follow] a path toward democratic and free societies. Then we saw Tiananmen Square, the chaos [including the attempted coup d’état] in Russia and their diminished stature in the world. Now Vladimir Putin and company are eager to reassert [their centuries-old self-image of being one of the major powers in the world].

So, in other words, great economic progress did not mean the diminishment of autocracies. I still believe that history will show that democracy and freedom go hand in hand with economic development, sophistication, and the technologies that enable the free flow of information. I think we all are realizing that progress is not going to be as rapid as we may have thought it was going to be in the halcyon days of the 1990s.

Assassination continues to be one of their tools (referring to Alexander Litvinenko), oil, brazen attacks on civilians (in Chechnya, etc.), outright attacks on the pretext of protecting its citizens (in the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia).

I don’t think we’re going to reignite the Cold War. I don’t think there’s going to be a nuclear confrontation with Russia. I do think there’s going to be a dramatically different relationship.

We should always try to maintain relations and communications with every country in the world. But never confuse national interests with personal relationships.

Comment: Incidentally, that’s what President Bush did back in 2001. His famous remark was “The more I get to know President Putin, the more I get to see his heart and soul ...the more I know we can work together in a positive way.” Sorry George, you’re very wrong on that one. Putin is a former KGB agent. What were you thinking?

Three short years later, by 2006, TNK-BP went on stream. In its 2007 Annual Report, BP announced that TNK-BP accounted for 25% of its global oil production and contributed 15% of its net income. From 2003 to 2006, BP claimed that it had earned enough dividends to recoup its initial investment. Indeed, by the third quarter of 2006, BP’s share of revenue amounted to $6.9 billion. (I’m not clear on the source or nature of these “dividends.” The term might be used generically.) Not so prominently mentioned was the fact that BP has no other major projects on stream that could take TNK-BP’s place.

The economic climate turned around in 2007. Russia had tasted the wealth and power that comes with being the major supplier of Europe’s energy needs. Now the real Russia came out.

RUSSIA MAKES ITS MOVES

In December 2006, it forced Royal Dutch Shell along with its Japanese partners, Mitsui and Mitsubishi, to sell its controlling stake in Sakhalin-2. This was a $22 billion stake. This is not an amount to trifle with—even for the oil majors. Russia was able to impose its will anyway. How? It used a government environmental agency (just like the EPA of the US government) to threaten to freeze work on the project.

Since then, Russia has focused its efforts on harassing BP. It uses a combination of tactics—the same environmental agency, the tax revenue police, the justice police, and, most ominously, the FSB (the modern-day successor of the KGB).

The results were predictable. There is no contest between one of the largest companies in the world against the largest country in the world.

By June 2007, BP agreed to sell one of TNK-BP’s prize assets—one of the world’s largest natural gas fields—to Gazprom. The latter is a Russian state company and a monopoly. The leverage used by the Russians was typical: the threat to revoke the company’s license to develop the gas field. The Russians window-dressed the transaction. Gazprom would “buy” it from BP for $700 to $900 million. BP will take a huge opportunity loss on this. Analysts estimate that the gas field, called “Kovykta,” was capable of earning between $1.5 to $2 billion. Furthermore part of BP’s compensation will be the opportunity to invest another $3 billion and form a joint venture with Gazprom.

Comment: Thank you very much. First, you force me to sell at a loss. Second, you’re generous enough to give me another opportunity to lose more money.

BP’s reaction was puzzling, to say the least. Its CEO welcomed the arrangement as the start of a new strategic partnership with Gazprom. Furthermore, in the same speech (given in Moscow, incidentally), BP’s CEO praised BP’s business progress and encouraged other companies to invest in Russia. He called the gas field dispute just “one of those bumps in the road.” Of course, this was probably smoothing the crisis on the surface. Wait and see and until then, pretend everything is going smoothly.

Thirteen months later, in July 2008, BP-TNK’s CEO was effectively ousted. Moscow’s tactic: the non-renewal of the expatriates’ work permits. Affected with the CEO were 150 senior engineers of BP. Moscow presented BP with one small consolation—the CEO was still the CEO and could continue to run the company albeit from overseas.

CAN WE DRAW SOME CONCLUSIONS?

Would you agree that the following conclusions can be drawn from this story?

1. Russia is pursuing a policy of state control. It lures Western oil companies and, over time, makes them junior partners. It needs Western investment and technology and is only intent on building its own capabilities.
2. It will not use bald-faced tactics to expropriate Western investments. Instead, Moscow uses its entire arsenal of laws and regulations to harass its foreign partners until it achieves its goals. Time and location are on Russia’s side.
3. Russia’s power elite, led by Putin, will not hesitate to apply these same tactics to domestic enemies. The former owner of Yukos, Russia’s first large oil company, dared defy Putin in 2003. Yukos was looted and eventually absorbed by Russia’s state owned oil company, Rosneft. As for the billionaire who defied Putin, he now languishes indefinitely in an obscure penal colony close to the Russian-Mongolian-Chinese border. Apart from him the other big losers were Western banks who were owed more than $1 billion.
4. It’s obvious that Russia is leveraging its power as the single largest fossil fuel producer (second after the entire OPEC cartel) to re-arm itself. Russia’s goal is to return to its place as one of the world’s superpowers. This goal can only be attained by developing its industrial and military capabilities. To this end, it is vital for Russia’s oil and gas to stay within Russia’s border until it reaches its European customers. This is a major reason for its hostility to the West and to its former satellite states for daring to build a trans-Caucus pipeline.

WHY DID BP MAKE THIS DECISION?

Why did they take such an enormous risk especially since most of their peers, save another one (Royal Dutch Shell), played it safe?

It won’t do much good to second guess the board’s decision. The agreement to go ahead was signed with much publicity. Putin even flew to London for the event. BP’s decision doesn’t seem like it was made secretively.

A clue may be found in the reported condition of BP’s board in 2001 till 2003. It seems that BP’s board was dysfunctional. The CEO, Lord Browne, led autocratically and not by consensus. He was forced out in 2007—for reasons unrelated to BP’s Russian investment. Various unflattering portraits of him can be found on the Web. Four examples are:

• The Houston Chronicle - BP is the largest investor in US energy development. Most of that is in Texas.
• USA Today
• BusinessWeek
• Wikipedia about Lord Browne

I mentioned decision-making delusions that plague executives earlier. Click here for a link to a blog entry that discusses the subject. It’s based on a critical review of a book entitled The Halo Effect.

Click here for a link to a guide for making good decisions:.

Bottom line: The shareholders (among many other observers) probably held their collective breath for the first few years. They must have been pleased, even euphoric, at the results as reported by the 2007 Annual Report. The rapidity of successive setbacks that began in 2007 to the present day must be shocking them.

I suspect the board fulfilled its responsibilities—ethical and legal—to its shareholders and to the greater society. Fortunately for management, the results from the first few years validated their decision. I wonder if any activist shareholders plan to file a derivative suit or the equivalent in the UK. But what would the suit’s legal theory be based on?

A final note about Lord Browne: he was rewarded with a parachute (a very, very modest one by US standards—it was only $4 million!) when he retired.

THE ROCKY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE US AND RUSSIA

The relationship of the US with Russia has always been rocky. The US helped Russia beat back the Nazi onslaught. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that without the help of the US, Russia would’ve fallen.

After the USSR fell in 1991 and the US poured billions into assisting the former adversary, I wondered what the heck was going on. I could understand our assistance in so far as the USSR’s former nuclear arsenal was concerned; we certainly don't want any of those weapons to fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately the technology, i.e., the skills, is more difficult to control. Witness the rogue Pakistan physicist who shared his knowledge with countries whose relationship with US is currently on edge (North Korea, for example).

WHAT NEXT?

In retrospect, it appears that BP was reckless (or bold, depending upon how things would turn out) in investing in Russia. A capitalist-based economy is still new to them. The majority is not used to democracy or freedom. Their present system is merely a continuation of the corrupt system of Communism.

A badly skewed socio-economic system invites corruption on a massive scale. Russia’s entire wealth is concentrated in the hands of about 100 families. It has a population of almost 150 million and a GDP of about $2 trillion. There is a very thin middle class. In many ways, despite its imposing military, Russia is a third country. (National Geographic, 2008)

So returning to BP and its current predicament, it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the next 24 months.

MODERN DAY PIRACY

Several days ago, a Ukrainian freighter bound for Kenya was hijacked by modern-day sea pirates.

The latest criminal exploit of these thugs has now made front-page news. There is nothing romantic or movie-like about these sea-going terrorists.

Consider this. At sea, the dynamics of a group change. No longer does the group feel subjected to the rule of law. Instead real and perceived authority switch to the officers in command. The captain, the head honcho, is the ultimate authority. He can put offenders in the brig (jail). Or he can marry a couple.

Once pirates capture a boat, they become the authorities. Can you imagine how absolute their power becomes at that moment?

Curious, I did some Internet research about piracy and learned several interesting facts.

THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT-DAY US NAVY

The present US Navy came into being in order to fight the pirates operating in what was then called the Barbary Coast. There was a Continental Navy that was established during the American War of Independence against the Kingdom of Great Britain but it was disbanded after the US won its independence.

The US Congress passed the Naval Act of 1794 that formally created the present US Navy. It consisted of six frigates—one of which is still an active commissioned ship of today’s navy, the USS Constitution.

This is a photo of the USS Howard, the first US Navy ship that responded to the hijacking.

The US Navy fought two Barbary Wars. The first one—from 1801 to 1805—ended after the pirates seemed soundly defeated. The second one, in 1815, finally defeated the Barbary pirates for good. The US from the early 1790s had been paying tribute to the pirates—a tax, if you will—and it stopped doing so after 1815. The US paid taxes to pirates for nearly 25 years!

The Barbary wars also created the fighting reputation of the US Marine Corps.

THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT-DAY US MARINES

The nickname for the US Marines, “leathernecks,” originated from the battles that the marines fought against the pirates. To protect their necks, the marines wore uniforms that had a high and stiff leather collar. This collar was meant to protect their necks from cutlass blows delivered by the pirates in the one-on-one combat between the marines and the pirates.

The opening verse of the well-known Marines Hymn—From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli—makes reference to the First Barbary War.

Without words


Tripoli, the capital of Libya, is one of the modern-day nations that comprise the Barbary Coast. The other countries are Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia.

With words


THE CURRENT SITUATION (as of 0700 GMT, September 30, 2008)

Returning to the ongoing story, the Somalian pirates happened to seize a cargo ship that was carrying 33 Russian T-72 tanks and (literally) a boatload of ammunition.

This is another photo of the USS Howard.

The latest—from BBC News—states that the US Navy has surrounded the hijacked ship. Furthermore, reports now indicate that despite the Kenyan government’s claim, the ship was bound for Sudan. A Russian warship is part of the flotilla guarding the hijacked Ukrainian freighter.

What drama on the high seas…

APPEASING RUSSIA?

This is the same title of an excellent article that appeared in Newsweek two weeks ago. It was written immediately after Russia counterattacked Georgia.

The author, John Barry, carefully constructs his point using the lessons of history. He drew parallels with Hitler and Stalin's Soviet Union.

Nature abhors a vacuum and the United States has filled that void. Whether Americans like it or not, America, the most powerful country in the world, is also the world's top cop.

What if America does not live up to that role? Well, other powers will step into that void. Nature abhors a vacuum. This law of physics apparently applies to human affairs as well. Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. After you read excerpts of the article below, ask yourself how differently the future would have turned out if Hitler's early probing attempts were rebuffed strongly.

Let me quote the second, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of this article:

As those of a certain age will recall, "appeasement" encapsulated the determination of British governments of the 1930s to avoid war in Europe, even if it meant capitulating to the ever-increasing demands of Adolf Hitler. The nadir came in 1938, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain acceded to Hitler's demand to take over the western slice of Czechoslovakia—a dispute Chamberlain so derisively dismissed.

It is impossible to view the Russian onslaught against Georgia without these bloodstained memories rising to mind. In history, as the great French President Charles de Gaulle remarked—no doubt plagiarising someone else—the only constant is geography. And through centuries of European history the only constant has been that small countries, doomed by geography to lie between great powers, are destined to be the cockpit for their imperial ambitions. That's held true since the Low Countries' agony under Spanish power in the 1500s. And the lichen has not yet spread over the gravestones of Europe and America that mark the toll of the two European wars of the 20th century—both having their roots in struggles between rival empires to assert power over the luckless nations of central Europe.

This time, the cockpit lies further east. In the wake of the cold war, the West providentially summoned the nerve to push NATO eastward to incorporate the former Warsaw Pact vassals of the Soviet Union—presciently doing this while post-Soviet Russia was too weak to resist. But once Moscow got its breath back, anyone with historical wit could foresee a revived Russian push for influence in central Europe. Many argued against this NATO expansion, calling it "premature" and "sure to inflame Russia." The usual arguments. Those naysayers might now look at the Russian offensive in Georgia, and ponder how much greater this crisis would be had it involved, say, Poland or Hungary or the Czech Republic. At least central Europe is now under the umbrella of NATO Article 5 guarantees.

Instead, what we see are conflicts at the new margins of the West's sway: Ukraine, the Balkans, now Georgia. These conflicts have one common factor: a resurgent Russia determined to exploit local grievances to beat back Western influence—in shorthand, democracy—on its shrunken frontiers. Using, in all cases, precisely the argument (a Russian right to protect its citizens, in Serbia its co-religionists) that Hitler used in the 1930s. The Sudeten Czechs were Germans, after all. Just as the South Ossetians now are, well, sort of Russian—having at any rate been issued Russian passports.

Doesn't it make sense?

Click here to open a new web page or tab to read the original article.

The graphic came from here.

THE RED CROSS

The Red Cross is one of our world’s great humanitarian organizations. Unfortunately, little is known about it—especially in mainstream America.

Were you aware that it won the Nobel Peace Prize not once but thrice? It was awarded the prize twice for its work after the First and Second World Wars. In 1963, its 100th anniversary, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was awarded its third Nobel Prize. In addition, its founder, a Swiss businessman, was one of two individuals who were awarded the very first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.

THE GENEVA CONVENTION

You’ve probably have heard of the Geneva Convention—where a treaty was signed that for the first time, rules of combat were agreed upon. These rules were intended to protect the wounded and sick on the battlefield and to ensure that the people who cared for them were recognized as neutral and were not to be attacked. The Geneva Convention occurred directly because of the Red Cross.

The year before, in 1863, sixteen nations—the military powers of that era, all European countries, discussed their plans for treatment of wounded soldiers in war. At that meeting they decided that medical staff and volunteers should wear a distinctive emblem for their protection. This meeting—the precursor to the Geneva Convention—was held in Geneva, Switzerland. They settled on the distinctive simplicity of the Swiss flag—with its colors reversed. The result is the now-familiar Red Cross against a white background. The following year, in 1864, they finalized their plans in what is now known as the Geneva Convention. And best of all, each signatory started its own national Red Cross.

THE MUSLIM REACTION

In 1876, around the last Russo-Turkish War, religion, once again, changed history. The Turks—most of whom were Muslim—associated the red cross emblem with the red cross that was worn by the Crusaders of the Middle Ages. The Crusades were Christendom’s response to continuous Muslim invasions of Christian Europe. The First Crusade took place in the 11th century and the last one that was directed against the Muslims ended in the 13th century. Despite the intervening 600+ years, the Muslims took it upon themselves to attack and kill Red Cross volunteers.

The Turkish government—actually the Ottoman Empire—later apologized and announced that although they would respect the red cross emblem, they would create a new one for their own national volunteers. They reversed the Turkish flag’s colors and created the Red Crescent. Although it would last only another 45 years, the Ottoman Empire was the dominant force in the Muslim world. Consequently, other Muslim countries started following Turkey’s example. In 1929, the Red Crescent was formally adopted at the next Geneva Convention.

THE UNITED STATES JOINS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

The United States joined the movement through the efforts of a small number of activists. One of these activists was Clara Barton, a remarkable woman—an American Florence Nightingale. 

She was a government employee who was touched in the same way that the Swiss businessman was 25 years earlier. She played a leading role in helping the wounded of the American Civil War.  She continued her participation in Europe after the Civil War and returned to the US determined to form an American chapter. After eight years, the American Association of the Red Cross was established in 1882. The US became a signatory to the Geneva Convention the following year.

Clara Barton was immortalized with a postage stamp.

TODAY’S RED CROSS

Today’s Red Cross actually consists of two bodies. Both are based in Geneva, Switzerland. One is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the other is the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The ICRC focuses on the victims of armed conflict. The Federation, on the other hand, works with national societies in assisting victims of all other types of disasters, including epidemics.

The two organizations coordinate their efforts. After a conflict ends, the ICRC gradually withdraws from each area and hands it over to the Federation. The Federation’s job is to support the local Red Cross rebuild the lives of the people left by the conflict.

ISRAEL

Israel became independent or recognized internationally as a sovereign state in 1948. The following year, Israel tried to join. Unfortunately, Israel objected to using either the cross or the crescent. The Red Cross, on the other hand, refused to admit the Star of David.

This stalemate over emblems continued until two years ago, December 2005, when Israel’s modified emblem—a red crystal—was accepted over vociferous Muslim objections. The crystal may be displayed by any national society but it has not (yet) gained popular acceptance.

THE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

The Federation is popularly known as the “movement.” In 1965, the movement developed its seven fundamental principles to guide its mission.

Humanity

The movement aims to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found.

Impartiality

The movement does not discriminate between races, nationalities, religious beliefs, class, or political opinions.

Neutrality

The movement does not take sides in any conflict or dispute.

Independence

National societies maintain their independence so they can act according to the principles of the movement.

Voluntary Service

The movement is a voluntary relief organization that is not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.

Unity

There can only be one Red Cross or Red Crescent society in each country. Membership in this organization must be open to all.

Universality

The movement is global in scope.