Bob notes that a home made submarine loaded with narcotics was intercepted off the coast of Costa Rica by the United States Coast Guard. He wonders what the heck is going on, with our Coast Guard operating in a foreign country's territory.
Costa Rica is an important ally of ours down in South America, and we provide a great deal of support so far as law enforcement efforts are concerned. As was noted by PJK in Bob's comments, little Costa Rica also doesn't have a military. (We protect them, in case you are wondering.) Giving the green light to our Coast Guard so they can chase some smugglers is probably something they are all too happy to grant.
Bob is also wondering if the USCG just picks on small and unarmed boats. Obviously, he is way behind the times.
The United States Coast Guard is very heavily involved in a variety of force projection roles. Law enforcement is just one of the many vital jobs they perform. Most of their cutters are armed, and the Hamilton class needs only a vertical launch missile system to upgrade their firepower to that of a world class warship.
Elements of the US Coast Guard have most recently been deployed to Iraq in order to provide needed support for the Navy, as well as to safeguard neutral shipping that was moving through the area. They have even lost one of their own.
I certainly don't want to be too harsh with one of my regular readers, particularly someone for whom I hold such high esteem. But it appears to me that Bob was being a bit too flippant. The Coast Guard always gets the short end of the stick so far as recognition is concerned, something that is not deserved. They perform virtually impossible feats every week, saving lives and enforcing the law of the sea. I don't think that Bob was taking this into account when he wrote his post.
Comments (2)
Hey James --
Lots of Navy types joke about the Coast Guard ("the puddle-jumpin' Coast Guard"); but I keep watching the news articles and documentaries and those little boats heaving around in heavy seas... and then there are the little boats specifically designed to right themselves when they capsize -- what kind of crazy person would go out in weather like that? Well, the heroic (and iron-stomached) person going out to rescue the idiots who went out in that weather would need those boats, and the Coast Guard has them. Plus they do a lot of really tedious (but necessary) work like maintaining shipping-lane buoys and charting harbors to determine if the channels need to be dredged. I would not, in a million years, want to do anything like that, so those that do it have my respect.
We (that is, the McFaul) did guard duty on the oil platforms when we were Over There, and we did it with Coast Guard ships. When the dhows got squirrely and wanted to "test" someone, they'd always make a fake run at the Coasties, 'cause their boats are smaller and aren't as festooned with weapons as, say, an Arleigh-Burke destroyer. So, in essence, they were point. And they did a great job.
-- Kat
Posted by Kat Prentice | November 22, 2006 3:37 AM
Posted on November 22, 2006 03:37
I was more fascinated by the submarine aspect of the story than anything else and wanted a quick post on it, but I was surprised that the arrest was within costa rica's territorial waters. I had fresh in my mind the uproar in canada (last fall) over us warships merely transiting disputed water. Granted, PJK's knowledge of Costa Rican politics cleared that up immediately: we obviously have a deal with the CR government.
I certainly wasn't trying to attack the Coast Guard whatsoever, and have no issue with their drug intradiction efforts. The point about small unarmed boats was mostly curiosity as to how the UN treaty gets enforced against entities that haven't signed. Rather sloppy on my part to pick Cuba, since they're actually a signatory to the treaty, but there's plenty of Caribbean states that haven't signed it. I'd be very curious as to if the USCG can search any of their vessels outside US territorial water, barring a separate agreement with the country in question. Or, if they DO search a vessel in international water, finding piles of narcotics, but the vessel is from a non-signing party, do they just send them on their way?
At least as I understand the UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea), in international waters, ships are only subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state, and the only acceptable boarding if there's reasonable grounds to suspect that the vessel is engaged in piracy or isn't registered to a flag state at all. At least to my understanding, piracy here is literally piracy, not a catchall for any activity of questionable legality.
Which begs the question as to why, if your a Columbian drug lord, why not register your vessels in some country that hasn't signed the 1988 Drug Convention, and is covered by the UNCLOS?
As a side note, the USCG has, at least in some aspects, much better small arms than the rest of the military. They're transitioning to the SIG p229 DAK in .40, and I believe they have 870's instead of mossbergs.
Posted by Bob | November 22, 2006 5:07 AM
Posted on November 22, 2006 05:07