Category Archives: Industry Jobs Oil Economics

On Iran, Reagan Delivered an Aggressive Response

Posted on by

Known as Operation Praying Mantis, President Reagan ordered an aggressive response to the Iranians. Given the capitulation today be the Obama administration, we have a reason to miss a real leader in the White House.

A Look Back at How U.S. Naval Forces Responded to Hostile Forces in the Arabian Gulf.

An engagement 25 years ago on April 14, 1988 sparked a determined and quick response four days later from the U.S., known as Operation Praying Mantis, which demonstrated the same priorities the Navy maintains today.

In early 1988, as part of Operation Earnest Will, the U.S. Navy was engaged in maintaining freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf as Iraq and Iran continued in a bloody war. The USS Enterprise (CVN 65) was operating in the region.

Little did anyone know that what would happen that day would draw naval forces into action and alter the course of history.

Watchstanders aboard USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG 58), Northeast of Qatar, sighted three mines floating approximately one-half mile from the ship. Twenty minutes after the first sighting, as Samuel B. Roberts was backing clear of the minefield, it struck a submerged mine. The blast injured 10 Sailors and tore a 21-foot hole in the hull, nearly ripping the warship in half. Quick and determined actions by the crew, who worked for seven hours to stabilize the ship, kept the vessel from sinking.

“We heard about it right away and very shortly thereafter I was told I was going to fly off to Bahrain to help put a plan together and command one of the Surface Action Groups (SAG),” said Vice Adm. (Ret.) James B Perkins, III, who was a Surface Action Group (SAG) commander during Operation Praying Mantis. “We spent the 17th of April flying from one side of the gulf to the other, briefing the SAG commanders as to what the plan was.”

Four days after the mine blast, forces, of the now-Joint Task Force Middle East, executed a response — Operation Praying Mantis. The operation called for the destruction of two oil platforms used by Iran to coordinate attacks on merchant shipping.

“The gas-oil platforms were huge structures,” said Perkins. “What I had in mind were the oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbra. But These were floating cities with berthing quarters and all that sort of stuff,” Perkins recalled.

“On the morning [of April 18] we called them up and told them, in Farsi and English, that we were getting ready to destroy them and to get off the platforms,” said Perkins. “There was a lot of running around looking for boats to leave the decks.”

By the end of that day the coalition air and surface units not only destroyed the two oil rigs but also Iranian units attempting to counter-attack U.S. forces.

Naval aircraft and the destroyer USS Joseph Strauss (DDG 16) sank the Iranian frigate Sahand (F 74) with harpoon missiles and laser-guided bombs. A laser-guided bomb, dropped from a Navy A-6 Intruder, disabled frigate Sabalan (F 73), and Standard missiles launched from the cruiser USS Wainwright (CG 28) and frigates USS Bagley (FF 1069) and USS Simpson (FFG 56) destroyed the 147-foot missile patrol boat Joshan (P 225). In further combat, A-6s sank one Bodghammer high-speed patrol boats and neutralized four more of the speedboats.

“The air wing from Enterprise did a superb job taking on the Bodghammers,” said Perkins.

By the end of the operation, U.S. air and surface units had sunk, or severely damaged, half of Iran’s operational fleet.

“This particular exercise, in my view, finished the Iranian Navy in the Arabian Gulf,” said Perkins. “They were still around – but after that operation, they didn’t have as active a stance.”

Operation Praying Mantis proved a milestone in naval history. For the first time since World War II, U.S. naval forces and supporting aircraft fought a major surface action against a determined enemy. The success of Praying Mantis and the broad-based allied naval cooperation during Operation Earnest Will proved the value of joint and combined operations in the Gulf and led the way for the massive joint coalition effort that occurred during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

The operation also demonstrated the importance of being ready to fight and win today, of providing offshore options to deter, influence and win in an era of uncertainty; and showcased the teamwork, talent and imagination of the Navy’s diverse, capable force.

It also proved the value of all the training the Navy had done.

“You have to be ready on a moment’s notice,” Perkins said. “You may not always have sufficient time to get prepared, so train hard and often. (In this case) it worked out very well.”

Timeline:

First light: The Roberts’ SH-60 helicopter, now flying from the USS Trenton (LPD 14), lifts from the deck of the amphibious transport dock. The aircraft, call sign Magnum 447, heads off to give the targets a final visual check, and to stand by to evacuate wounded troops.

8:00 a.m.: A few minutes after delivering a radio warning, the destroyers of Surface Action Group Bravo open fire on the Sassan oil platform, which was being used by Iranian forces as a command-and-control center for attacks on Gulf shipping.

8:05 a.m.: The ships of Surface Action Group Charlie open fire on the Sirri oil platform, which is being used to control Iranian maritime attacks.

9:25 a.m.: Twin-rotor CH-46 helicopters deliver U.S. Marines to the Sassan platform, where they collect intelligence and set demolition charges. Plans are scratched to send Navy SEALs to the Sirri platform, which was set afire by the bombardment.

11:30 a.m.: The Iranian patrol boat Joshan ignores radio warnings and approaches SAG Charlie. About 45 minutes later, Joshan fires a U.S.-made Harpoon missile — the remnant of a pre-Revolutionary arms purchase by the Iranian shah. Some 13 miles away, the U.S. ships fire chaff and dodge the incoming weapon. They return fire with Harpoons and Standard missiles, sinking Joshan in the world’s first missile duel between warships.

12:50 p.m.: A pair of Iranian F-4 fighters approach the cruiser Wainwright, which chases them off with a pair of Standard missiles.

1:30 p.m.: Iranian Boghammar speedboats attack the Scan Bay, a Panamanian jack-up barge with 15 American workers in the Mubarak oil field off the United Arab Emirates. Through a lengthy commo hookup, President Reagan himself authorizes a strike against the boats — the first time U.S. forces had intervened to stop an attack on a non-U.S. flagged vessel in the Gulf, and a harbinger of a formal policy to come. Two A-6E Intruders and an F-14 Tomcat are dispatched to attack; SAG Bravo provides a vector.

2:25 p.m.: The A-6s sink the lead Boghammar with Rockeye cluster bombs. Four other boats flee to the Iranian-controlled Abu Musa island and beach themselves.

3:30 p.m.: U.S. A-6s and warships attack the Iranian frigate Sahand with coordinated bombs and missiles. The frigate will sink several hours later.

5:15 p.m.: The Iranian frigate Sabalan fires at an A-6, which dodges the missile and returns to drop a 500-pound bomb down the ship’s exhaust stack, leaving it dead in the water. Top U.S. defense officials in Washington, who are monitoring the fight, decide not to sink a third Iranian warship. They tell U.S. ships and aircraft to lay off Sabalan, and Iranian tugs eventually tow the damaged frigate back to the Bandar Abbas naval base.

Teaching Immigrants to Unionize, Chicago

Posted on by

The National Labor Relations Board is signing agreements with Mexico, Ecuador and other countries. Of note: Lafe Soloman being investigated for violating ethics. Richard Griffin is devoted to big labor.

August 26, 2013 the Chicago Office of the NLRB and the Mexican Consulate in Chicago will sign a local agreement to strengthen cooperation and collaboration between the NLRB and the Consulate and improve access to information and education regarding rights and responsibilities for Mexican workers, their employers, and Mexican business owners in the United States.

On July 23, 2013 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States signed a national letter of agreement in Washington D.C.  The NLRB is the independent government agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law governing relations between employers and employees in the private sector. The Act guarantees workers the right to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions, or to refrain from such activities. Employers and employees alike are protected from unfair labor practices.

Under the framework, the NLRB and the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C., as well as NLRB Regional Offices and Mexican Consulates nationwide, will cooperate to provide outreach, education, and training, and to develop best practices. The Agreement is an outgrowth of initial negotiations between the NLRB’s Chicago office and the Mexican Consulate in Chicago. The framework has been used by other federal labor agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which have similar agreements with the Mexican Embassy and its consulates.

“With coordination from the consulates, we expect to meet with Mexican workers around the country to help forge innovative solutions to issues specific to their needs,” Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon said. He noted the letter of agreement will also increase the NLRB’s ability to provide employers, including Mexican business owners in the United States, with resources directly available to them, including access to education and training resources regarding rights and responsibilities under the Act.

*** There is more:

U.S. signed agreement with Mexico to teach immigrants to unionize

The federal government has signed agreements with three foreign countries — Mexico, Ecuador and the Philippines — to establish outreach programs to teach immigrants their rights to engage in labor organizing in the U.S.

The agreements do not distinguish between those who entered legally or illegally. They are part of a broader effort by the National Labor Relations Board to get immigrants involved in union activism.

The five-member board is the agency that enforces the National Labor Relations Act, the main federal law covering unions. In 2013, Lafe Solomon, the board’s then-acting general counsel, signed a “memorandum of understanding” with Mexico’s U.S. ambassador. The current general counsel, Richard Griffin, signed additional agreements with the ambassadors of Ecuador and the Philippines last year.

“Those are the only countries that the NLRB has MOUs with,” said spokeswoman Jessica Kahanek.

The agreements are substantially similar, with several sections repeated verbatim in each one. All three documents state that the No. 1 outreach goal is “to educate those who may not be aware of the Act, including those employees just entering the work force, by providing information designed to clearly inform [that nation’s] workers in the United States of America their rights under the Act and to develop ways of communicating such information (e.g., via print and electronic media, electronic assistance tools, mobile device applications, and links to the NLRB’s web site from the [country’s] web sites) to the … workers residing in the United States of America and their employers.”

The board has said the law’s protections for workers engaged in union organizing extend even to people who are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. An employer who fires an illegal immigrant worker — which is required under federal immigration law — can be sanctioned by the board if it decides the worker’s union activism was the real reason for the dismissal.

In the documents, the countries’ foreign consulates agree to help locate foreign nationals living in the U.S. “who might aid the NLRB in investigations, trials or compliance matters” involving businesses and to develop a system for the consulates to refer complaints from foreign workers to the board’s regional offices.

The documents also call for systems to inform foreign businesses operating in the U.S. of their responsibilities to their employees under federal labor law. In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on March 24, Griffin characterized that as the principal focus of the agreements.

“We have executed letters of agreement with foreign ministries designed to strengthen collaborative efforts to provide foreign business owners doing business in the United States, as well as workers from those countries, with education, guidance and access to information regarding their rights and responsibilities under our statute,” he told lawmakers.

Griffin, formerly a top lawyer for the International Union of Operating Engineers, testified that the agreements save taxpayer money because they would “pay dividends as employers will be able to avoid unintentionally violating our statute and workers will be educated about their statutory rights to engage with one another to improve their conditions of employment, both of which benefits taxpayers, and the country as a whole, through increased economic growth.”

If the main intention is to provide legal information to foreign employers, it is not clear why the board pursued agreements with those countries, which represent a relatively small portion of businesses operating the in the U.S.

A November study by the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that Mexican businesses operating in the U.S. employ slightly less than 69,000 people total. The numbers employed by Ecuadorian and Philippine businesses operating in the U.S. are so small, the bureau doesn’t publish a measurement for either one.

By comparison, Canadian businesses employ well over a half-million people in the U.S. British businesses employ nearly a million, Japanese nearly 720,000 and German 620,000.

Mexico and the Philippines, one the other hand, represent two of the countries providing the most immigrants to the U.S. Mexico accounts for 11.6 million immigrants living in the U.S., the most from any single country, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The Philippines is fourth overall, accounting for 1.8 million.

A 2013 board press release stated the Mexican agreement was “an outgrowth of initial negotiations between the NLRB’s Chicago office and the Mexican Consulate in Chicago. The framework has been used by other federal labor agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which have similar agreements with the Mexican Embassy and its consulates.”

The release quoted Solomon saying, “With coordination from the consulates, we expect to meet with Mexican workers around the country to help forge innovative solutions to issues specific to their needs.”

Last month, Griffin instituted a new policy in which the board will “facilitate” obtaining visas for illegal immigrants if their status impedes it from pursuing a labor violation case against a business. The policy gives illegal immigrants living in the U.S. a strong incentive to engage in labor activism, because doing so will make employers reluctant to fire them and potentially get them a visa, and therefore legal status, if they are fired.

Remember that Senate Immigration Bill? Background…

Posted on by

Barack Obama pushed hard for the House to pass the Senate immigration bill. It was dead on arrival and with good reason. But there is a lil bit of history that somehow was never fully revealed.

The Senate immigration bill: Here’s what you need to know Months after their Jan. 28 announcement of a tentative compromise on immigration reform, the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” has finally unveiled its bill, or at least a summary of the proposal. It includes sweeping changes in treatment of both existing undocumented workers and aspiring immigrants.

Here are the key points, culled from summaries in the Post and Politico as well as the actual bill summary, posted by Talking Points Memo here. A good cheat sheet  is here.

There are several key items in this bill which has stalled however, there is a danger in coming months that new lifelines may be provided. Here is a disturbing sample inside the bill.

Six months after the bill’s passage, the Department of Homeland Security would have to submit two plans, one outlining a strategy for reducing traffic over high-risk areas on the Mexican border, and another for increasing fencing. The bill appropriates $3 billion for the department to carry out the first plan (through better drone surveillance and more border patrol officers, among other things) and $1.5 billion for it to carry out the latter. The National Guard would be allowed to be deployed to the border, and 3,300 new customs agents hired. If, by the fifth year the bill is in effect, 90 percent of crossers aren’t being apprehended and 100 percent of the border isn’t being surveilled, the bill would establish a commission of four border-state governors and add another $2 billion in security funding. The bill also requires the establishment of an electronic exit checking system at airports and sea ports in order to track the movements of visa holders. The real kicker on the influence of items in this bill must be noted. Put your seat belt on….Ask some hard questions of these names as you read below.

October 29, 2013

The Soros-funded National Immigration Forum (NIF) organized today’s “fly-in” of some 600 people to lobby House Republicans to pass the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bill (which Senator Rubio himself has now disavowed).
It started with a two-hour teach-in at the U.S Chamber of Commerce, with the usual suspects saying the usual things. (Watch it here.) I couldn’t stomach the whole thing, but there were some amusing bits: Al Cardenas, head of the American Conservative Union, said that we need immigration because our population is declining (in fact, even with zero immigration — zero — our population would continue to increase for generations, beyond which projections are meaningless).
Also, Tony Massif, lobbyist for California agribusiness, said that if we we don’t import more stoop labor from abroad, then we’ll have to import more food, meaning our enemies would “control our food supply.” (You know, because all that corn and wheat in the Midwest is being hand-harvested by Guatemalan peasants.)
Speakers were also pretending that amnesty and increased immigration were conservative initiatives by claiming that environmentalists and labor unions are responsible for the opposition to the Schumer-Rubio bill when, obviously, they’re among the bill’s chief backers. Anyway, that’s all boilerplate and hardly worth commenting on, as much as it might irk me. But I got to thinking about the groups hosting this thing and thought it’d be interesting to match up their principals and supporters with the Forbes 400 list.
Turns out that “Billionaires for Open Borders” isn’t just a catchy name — it’s the reality. Joining Soros (#19 on the Forbes 400) in backing today’s lobbying effort are a broad collection of his fellow billionaires. One of the co-hosts was Partnership for a New American Economy. Among the group’s co-chairmen: Michael Bloomberg (#10 on the Forbes 400), Steve Ballmer (#21), Rupert Murdoch (#30), Douglas M. Baker Jr. (#161), and Bill Marriott (#296). Another co-host was Fwd.us, founded by Mark Zuckerberg (#20) and including among its supporters Bill Gates (#1), Eric Schmidt (#49), Reid Hoffman (#103), John Doerr (#184), Stanley Druckenmiller (#184), John Fisher (#193), Barry Diller (#260), Sean Parker (#273), Jim Bryer (#352), Mark Pincus (was #212 in 2011, but fallen off since), Matt Cohler (worth a measly $400 million, but on the Forbes Future 400 list), Fred Wilson (#16 on Forbes Midas List of top tech investors), Ron Conway (#41 on the Midas List), and Richard Kramlich (#73 on the Midas List). That’s not to mention a whole list of mere multi-millionaires and even billionaires who didn’t make the cut. To adapt WFB’s famous quip, I’d rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone directory than the Forbes 400 List. JUST DAMN….

Yemen’s Revolution in 1961and Today

Posted on by

With the mud and fog of Yemen’s winter came a lull in the fighting between royalist guerrillas and the rebels who overthrew Imam Mohamed el Badr three months ago. But the danger remained that the distant little struggle could bring bloody conflict to other parts of the Middle East. In the hopes of isolating the feud, President Kennedy rushed off notes to Egypt’s Nasser, Crown Prince Feisal of Saudi Arabia, Jordan’s King Hussein and Rebel Leader Abdullah al Sallal, who now calls himself President of Yemen.

*** Ever since, Yemen has been smoldering and countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan have had thousands of troops on the ready and in some cases active as hostilities in the streets and countryside continued. Today is no different. Nothing was ever resolved much less pledges and agreements were unfinished. Yemeni conditions were ripe for Iran.

The power shift is clearly underway in the Middle East and at last it has gained the attention, albeit perhaps too late of Gulf States. The Saudi Kingdom finally began to take the lead in fending off the fall of Yemen soliciting the assistance of near countries. The Saudis had to no choice as the Shiite Crescent is emerging. Beyond the typical airstrikes on key targets, warships are part of the operation.

Saudi and Egyptian warships deployed to Bab al-Mandab, the strategic strait off Yemen at the entrance of the Red Sea, Egyptian military officials said. The strait gives the only access to Egypt’s Suez Canal from the Arabian Sea and is a vital passage for shipping between Europe and Asia.

*** With Yemen’s president out of the country and its army fractured, al Qaeda is trying to define itself as the most capable force to protect the Sunni majority and gain support in what it calls a holy war against a Shiite rebel movement backed by Iran. Western diplomats have warned that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, could take advantage of the power vacuum to expand. “We’re watching very carefully at the moment, with all the security failures in Yemen, that the opportunity AQAP has right now may allow them to expand and will enable their activities,” said a senior State Department official. *** The United States has not been a reliable force in recent months except with barely sharing intelligence, evacuation operations for possible downed aircraft and signals intelligence. The Middle East has sidelined America with varied reasons including lack of leadership and strategy. Rather than Obama bowing to the Saudi royalty, Obama just bowed out.

(Reuters) – Saudi Arabia kept some key details of its military action in Yemen from Washington until the last moment, U.S. officials said, as the kingdom takes a more assertive regional role to compensate for perceived U.S. disengagement. The Middle East’s top oil power told the United States weeks ago it was weighing action in Yemen but only informed Washington of the exact details just before Thursday’s unprecedented air strikes against Iran-allied Houthi rebels, the officials said. U.S. President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy increasingly relies on surrogates rather than direct U.S. military involvement. He is training Syrian rebels to take on the government of President Bashar Assad and this week launched air strikes to back up Iraqi forces trying to retain the city of Tikrit. To Obama’s Republican critics, he is ceding the traditional U.S. leadership role. The White House denies it is disengaging from the region and says it has been in close contact with the Saudis over their plans in recent days. Although the Saudis spoke with top U.S. officials as they debated an air assault in support of embattled Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, U.S. officials acknowledged gaps in their knowledge of the kingdom’s battle plans and objectives. Asked when he was told by Saudi Arabia that it would take military action in Yemen, General Lloyd Austin, the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, told a Senate hearing on Thursday he spoke with Saudi Arabia’s chief of defense “right before they took action.” He added that he couldn’t assess the likelihood of the campaign succeeding because he didn’t know the “specific goals and objectives.” Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, said Riyadh consulted closely with Washington on Yemen – but ultimately decided it had to act quickly as Houthi rebels moved toward Hadi’s last redoubt in the southern city of Aden. “The concern was, if Aden falls, then what do you do?” al-Jubeir told a small group of reporters on Thursday. “The concern was that the situation was so dire you had to move.” Saudi Arabia’s air strikes point toward an aspiration to defend its regional interests with less reliance on the U.S. security umbrella that has long been the main thrust of Washington’s relations with the oil-rich kingdom.

MORE ASSERTIVE Riyadh has been growing increasingly assertive since early 2011, when Washington’s reluctance to back former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak in the face of mass protests led the Saudis to doubt its commitment to traditional Arab allies. Obama’s decision in summer 2013 not to bomb Syria after the use of poison gas there, coupled with its sudden announcement it had conducted secret nuclear talks with Riyadh’s nemesis Iran, further alarmed the Saudis. “If the operation is successful, I think we will see a major turn in Saudi foreign policy. It’s going to be assertive, become more aggressive in dealing with the Iranian expansionism,” said Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi security analyst with ties to the Saudi Interior Ministry. The Obama administration is reluctant to get drawn into direct military action in another Arab conflict when it is already facing daunting challenges in Syria and Iraq. The worsening Yemen conflict forced Washington to evacuate all remaining U.S. special forces from the country, further undermining the U.S. campaign of drone strikes against the most lethal branch of al Qaeda based there. Sunni Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen is the latest front in a growing regional contest for power with Iran that is also playing out in Syria, where Tehran backs Assad’s government, and Iraq, where Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias are playing a major role in fighting. While U.S. officials have downplayed the scope of the relationship between Iran and Yemen’s Houthis, al-Jubeir said that members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iranian-backed Hezbollah are on the ground advising the Houthis. One senior U.S. official described Riyadh’s operation as a “panic response” to the fast-deteriorating situation in Yemen that the Saudis feared could spill over its border. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, suggested that the 10-nation Saudi-led coalition had been patched together so quickly that its effectiveness was in doubt. The White House says it will not join directly in military operations in Yemen, but has set up a cell to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support to the operation. But U.S. officials said they were sharing intelligence information on a limited basis so far. U.S. officials said they discussed the deteriorating situation in Yemen with Saudi Arabia over the course of recent weeks. Secretary of State John Kerry discussed Yemen at length during a March 5 visit to Riyadh, but it was “not clear (the Saudis) had made any decisions about potential action at that point,” said a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “We had been talking with the Saudis throughout the course of the last several days about what they were thinking and what type of support we could render with regards to their actions in Yemen,” U.S. National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said.

Widespread Refugees from Middle East to Europe

Posted on by

From hundreds of thousands to millions of refugees from one country to another speaks to failed policy, failed government and failed control. There is Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya. An examination of Libya speaks to a global problem and the costs to Europe. Not only is Europe failing in a duty, but the United States and the United Nations fail equally. I had a little communications exchange with the journalist from the WSJ to gain more insight.

When there is mass evacuation, humanitarian conditions take a nose dive. Can there be integration? What about housing, education or healthcare?

Where does the money come from and what about the country of origin, does it get classified as a failed nation with no solution?

Immigrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean to seek asylum in Europe have disrupted shipping. Above, the Italian navy rescued shipwrecked immigrants off the coast of Africa in June.

Europe’s Cargo Ships Diverted to Sea Rescues

Commercial vessels on busy Mediterranean routes asked to assist with waves of migrants

By: Liam Moloney

ROME—In September, Italian authorities ordered oil tankers owned by Mediterranea di Navigazione SpA to help in five operations to rescue 600 boat people trying to cross from Libya to Italy in flimsy vessels.

The rescue operations cost the group €100,000 ($109,473) in extra costs, such as fuel and personnel. Now, managing director Paolo Cagnoni is considering changing his vessels’ routes to avoid the flow of migrant boats that is likely to surge this spring.

“We’ve been drawn into this human exile, but our crews aren’t equipped,” Mr. Cagnoni said. “It’s a disaster.”

The waves of African and Middle Eastern seaborne migrants attempting to reach Europe—218,000 tried to get to Greece and Italy last year—are causing a little-noticed but serious problem for the mercantile ships that ply the Mediterranean.

Last year, Italian authorities called on 700 mercantile vessels to help rescue about 40,000 migrants. One ship supplying the oil platforms off the Libyan coast participated in 62 operations. Many of the ships are Italian, but Greek vessels, as well as ships of other nationalities, are also involved in rescues of migrants trying to reach the Greek coast.

The busy maritime traffic around the world’s biggest seaborne migration route leaves private vessels on the front line of a major problem. Mercantile traffic in the Mediterranean accounts for about a fifth of the world’s total. And the area between North Africa and Italy—which has the highest flow of migrants—represents about a third of total Mediterranean traffic.

As a result, the rescue operations have placed a heavy burden on private vessels, which typically have crews of fewer than 20 and lack the training, medical support and life jackets to help several hundred migrants at a time. Crews often ransack their own food and clothing supplies to help the migrants once they get on board.

The ships—which must, according to maritime law, come to the aid of a boat in distress—have also been drawn into dangerous situations. In February, the Italian coast guard ordered one ship to act as a barrier to help pull scores of migrants from an inflatable dinghy in gale-force winds. Coast guard officials from the command center in Rome often have to guide crews on very large vessels to assist flimsy boats and dozens of migrants who often don’t know how to swim.

For instance, last year vessels owned by Denmark’s Maersk Line, which move huge cargoes of electronics, clothing and food and can be 1,312 feet long, rescued 1,100 refugees in four separate operations and played a supporting role in an additional six incidents. A couple of weeks ago, a Maersk ship helped rescue 150 migrants near the Libyan coast, it had to divert its course and sail some 150 miles to bring them to a Sicilian port.

“Container ships are big vessels that don’t maneuver easily” and are packed with containers, leaving limited space for migrants, says Steffen Conradsen, Maersk Line’s head of incident and crisis management. “We are not equipped for such operations.”

The diverted ships lose as much as a week disembarking the migrants, cleaning the vessel and resupplying, at an extra cost of up to $500,000. Insurance covers only part of the extra costs, and appeals from owners for government compensation have had little impact.

Now, shipping groups fear the problem will explode this year. Last year, Italian Navy ships patrolled close to the Libyan coast to help migrant boats as part of an operation dubbed Mare Nostrum. But the Italian patrols were replaced a few months ago by EU patrols whose mandate is to venture no farther than 30 miles from the Italian coast.

Meanwhile, the number of boat people continues to soar, up 43% in the first two months of 2015 compared with a year earlier. The head of EU border control agency Frontex recently said that hundreds of thousands of people in Libya could be ready to make the passage.

The EU’s limited patrols and the expected surge in boat people when the weather improves in the spring mean that coast guard authorities are likely to call on mercantile vessels more often. Shipping owners’ appeals for countries to mount large-scale sea patrols to deal with the problem—akin to the international response to piracy around the Horn of Africa—have fallen on deaf ears.

“We have become part of a rent-a-vessel program because countries can’t get their act together,” says Luca Sisto, a senior official at the Italian shipping lobby Confitarma.

Mr. Sisto says that concern about the safety of their vessels and crew—particularly when oil and natural-gas tankers are involved—may push some captains to refuse calls for help.

Big players such as Maersk Line, the world’s biggest container operator and a unit of shipping and oil giant A.P. Moeller-Maersk A/S, can absorb the extra costs resulting from the rescue operations. But smaller ones more dependent on the central Mediterranean corridor grumble that the rescues could result in serious financial problems.

“The flow of refugees has reached a size where we can no longer cope,” says Thomas Rehder, president of the European Community Shipowners’ Associations. “This is the responsibility of governments, not merchant ships.”

Frontex Joint Operation Triton

Concerted efforts for managing migrator flows in the Central Mediterranean

What is Triton?

Triton is a Frontex coordinated joint operation, requested by the Italian authorities that will start its activity as from 1 November 2014 in the Central Mediterranean to support Italy.

How have the details of the operation been defined?

The details of Triton, including the operational area and the necessary assets, have been agreed between Frontex and Italy as the host state on the basis of the requests for assistance made by the Italian authorities. The final setting of the operation fully matches the requests made by the Italian authorities. Triton will rely on human and technical resources made available by the participating Member States.

How many Member States have made available technical and human resources and what?

Today 21 Member States have indicated their willingness to participate with human (65 guest officers in total) and technical resources (12 technical assets) at the start of the joint operation Triton; others might follow in the coming months. Technical equipment: 4 Fixed Wing Aircrafts, 1 Helicopter, 4 Open Shore vessels, 1 coastal Patrol Vessel, 2 Coastal patrol boats. Human Resources: 65 men/months in total.

What is Triton’s budget?

Its monthly budget is estimated at €2.9 million per month. In order to finance the launch and the first phase of the operation, funds have been reallocated from the Internal Security Fund and from within the Frontex budget. An increase of the Frontex 2015 budget has to be agreed by the European Parliament and the Council in order to finance the operation with the same intensity in the year 2015 and in the longer run.

Which rules will apply to the Frontex coordinated operation when it comes to migrants’ rights?

As for all Frontex operation, Triton will be operating in full respect of international and EU law, including respect of fundamental rights and of the principle of non-refoulement.

Will Triton also be participating in search and rescue activities?

The role of Frontex is key to support Member States towards effective border control in the Mediterranean region, and at the same time to provide assistance to persons or vessels in distress during these operations. Frontex is entrusted with assisting Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical assistance at the external borders, taking into account that some situations may involve humanitarian emergencies and rescue at sea. Although Frontex is neither a search and rescue body nor does it take up the functions of a Rescue Coordination Centre, it assists Member States to fulfil their obligation under international maritime law to render assistance to persons in distress.

Will Triton replace Mare Nostrum?

Joint operation Triton is intended to support the Italian efforts at their request, and does not replace or substitute Italian obligations in monitoring and surveying the Schengen external borders and in guaranteeing full respect of EU and international obligations1 in particular when it comes to search and rescue at sea. It implies that Italy will have to continue making continued substantial efforts using national means, fully coordinated with the Frontex operation, in order to manage the situation at the external borders.

Background on Frontex assistance to Italy

Weeks after the tragic drowning of over 300 persons around the Island of Lampedusa in October 2013, Italy launched a major search and rescue operation called ‘Mare Nostrum’ operated by the Italian Navy.

The Mare Nostrum operation is on-going close to the Libyan coast with Italian naval assets. The EU has supported the operation financially with €1.8 million from the emergency actions under the External Borders Fund.

Frontex has also provided assistance to Italy through the two coordinated joint operations Hermes and Aeneas. Both these operations will be replaced by Triton.

The joint operation Hermes coordinated by Frontex has, in one form or the other and with few interruptions, been going on for several years. Italy has acted as the sole host state.

This joint operation has been on-going close to the Italian coast to control the EU external borders in line with the mandate of the Frontex Agency with a yearly budget for 2014 of around €5 million. In accordance with the host state’s request, sea borne assets in the joint operation come from Italy (Coast Guard and/or Guardia di Finanza); other Member States have contributed with one surveillance aircraft and guest officers on land to help with screening/debriefing.

Frontex also coordinated joint operation Aeneas with Italy as host state. This operation mainly focussed on migratory flows from Egypt and Turkey (via Greece) to Italy.

Among others, the obligations stemming from the Schengen Borders Code and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the International convention for the safety of life at sea (SOLAS), the International convention on maritime search and rescue (SAR) as well as resolutions from the International maritime organisation (IMO).