Some ‘false flags’ are literally just that

APPROPRIATELY enough, the very expression ‘false flag’ — catnip in some of the more perfervid quarters of the internet — originated in the shipping industry.

Indeed, it was first used about 500 years ago to describe the way pirates, who probably bore very little resemblance to Johnny Depp, sneakily flew the ensigns of friendly nations, tricking hapless merchant vessels into allowing them to draw near.

In modern parlance, the term refers to deceptive covert action that allegedly seeks to conceal the actual source of responsibility and at least attempts to attribute blame to another party. And everybody and their dog is said to be at it.

The catch-all label is slapped willy nilly on all and any terrorist atrocities, political assassinations, school shootings, pandemic outbreaks, freak weather events or minor developments in international relations, however unlikely the contention.

But while the concept has been much devalued by the embrace of the massed ranks of online crazies, it remains true that bad people sometimes do bad things.

That brings us nicely to what appears to be happening in the open registries niche right now. The flags of a number of poor countries have been hijacked by sanctions busters.

That step is itself criminal. And while sanctions are not legally binding on countries that don’t sign up for them, the potential attractions of such a scheme for criminals and perhaps even terrorists should be only too obvious.

The latest victims are Malawi and Timor-Leste, two countries that have both seen progress towards democracy in recent decades.

Malawi has ostensibly recently established a ship registry, which has flagged at least four sanctioned tankers in recent weeks. One of these vessels has loaded at least five cargoes in Russia.

But the Malawian government has confirmed that the registry is a fraudulent venture. Or, to put it another way, it is quite literally a false flag operation, as the designation was initially intended.

The scam works differently in Timor-Leste, which does have a legitimate register of ships. But as Lloyd’s List reported yesterday, at least eight vessels are using it without any authorisation whatsoever.

These are two of the poorest places in the world. Neither has any meaningful scope to act against whoever is usurping their sovereign powers.

That task effectively falls to states with the capacity to police the seas, including those with the most self-interest in seeing sanctions against Russian crude exports stick.

That could entail a shake-up of existing mandatory ship reporting regimes, an issue which has resulted in minor diplomatic spats at the International Maritime Organization earlier this year, in which the International Chamber of Shipping found itself on the same side as Russia, China and North Korea.

We of course sympathise with the trade association of shipowners’ case, namely that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea already allows vessels to be challenged.

Beefing the requirements up to address the rise of the shadow fleet* risks a further destabilisation of the rules-based order on which shipping of all flags ultimately relies.

But the counterargument is that the new breed of false flag operations could devalue the entire purpose of flagging as we have known it for centuries, reducing a vessel’s flag to a meaningless piece of dyed cloth.

Moreover, if a ship is falsely flagged, the assumption has to be that it will not be punctilious in matters such as insurance and certification.

After multiple votes, and what counts for considerable controversy by the standards of Albert Embankment, the rules are set to be changed, but not until 2027. That is not soon enough.

It is one thing for the IMO to come to an agreement and something else entirely to make the revised dispensation stand up in real life.

Lloyd’s List understands that every shadow fleet voyage is already carefully tracked by Nato naval surveillance, and that Finland is now routinely asking vessels for documentation.

The trouble is what could happen where masters refuse to comply. Given the apparent Russian readiness to mount naval and fighter escorts in support of crude consignments, which the Kremlin obviously regards as a vital national interest.

A grouping calling itself the Nordic-Baltic 8++ — made up of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the UK — has promised joint coordinated action.

“Stateless vessels, including those falsely claiming to fly a flag, do not have a responsible flag state and are not entitled to rights under Unclos, including freedom of navigation,” a communique maintained.

This rightly summarises the nub of the matter. A false flag has no more legal validity than a forged passport and should be treated much the same way. At the very least, they should not be acceptable in any port.

Any shipowners tempted to use them should perhaps bear in mind the great enduring catchphrase of the conspiracy theory community; do your own research.

* Lloyd’s List defines a tanker as being part of the Shadow Fleet if it engages in one or more deceptive shipping practices indicating that it is involved in the facilitation of sanctioned oil cargoes from Iran, Russia or Venezuela. Or it is sanctioned for participation in sanctioned oil trades or is sanctioned for links to a company that is sanctioned for facilitating the export of sanctioned oil.