By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Guyana Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) has condemned the illegal use of the country’s flag after a U.S. seizure of an oil tanker falsely claiming Guyanese registration. The U.S. authorities informed Guyana about the interception of the Motor Tanker SKIPPER, which was operating under Guyana’s flag despite not being registered there. MARAD is collaborating with international partners to address the unauthorized use of its flag, noting the concerning trend of vessels fraudulently operating under it. The U.S. seized the sanctioned tanker for its involvement in an illicit oil-shipping network, while Venezuela has condemned the action as theft.
Read the original article here
Guyana says oil tanker seized by the US was illegally flying its flag, and that sets the stage for a complex situation, doesn’t it? It seems this whole incident throws a spotlight on the often shadowy world of maritime regulations, sanctions evasion, and international relations. Let’s break down what’s really happening.
It appears Guyana is making it crystal clear that the tanker, which the US authorities seized, was not authorized to fly its flag. This is a significant claim, as it immediately raises questions about the ship’s true ownership, its intended activities, and the reasons behind the false flag. When a vessel operates under a flag it’s not entitled to, it’s a serious violation of international maritime law. It can render the ship essentially stateless and vulnerable to inspection and seizure by any country.
The situation suggests the tanker was likely trying to circumvent US sanctions on Venezuela. The article confirms the ship was owned by a Ukrainian national, and under previous names was involved in evading sanctions. Venezuela, facing economic restrictions, is a prime target for such schemes. Flying the Guyanese flag could have been a deliberate attempt to disguise the vessel’s origins, destination, and the nature of its cargo. The proximity of Guyana to Venezuela makes it a plausible choice for this kind of deception, allowing the vessel to travel closer to its destination before arousing suspicion. The fact that the vessel was engaged in smuggling Iranian oil overseas, further strengthens the case.
However, Guyana, being geographically close to Venezuela, is unlikely to be in on the smuggling of oil, which is why it would be likely that Guyana did not approve the false flag.
This incident also brings the “flags of convenience” system into sharp focus. This practice involves registering ships in countries with less stringent regulations, potentially lower labor costs, and sometimes, a more lenient approach to environmental concerns. While the article notes that flags of convenience are not always about lax regulations, it can facilitate a lack of scrutiny and allows ships to operate outside of the normal bounds of international law. The absence of strict oversight makes it easier for ships to engage in illicit activities.
It’s worth mentioning that the US Coast Guard was the lead for the operation.
Moreover, the US Navy and Coast Guard are on the forefront in addressing these kinds of operations. The military has the right to board and inspect the vessel if they are not compliant with international law.
This case has highlighted the fact that countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, all operate and use the “shadow fleets” and flags of convenience to avoid sanctions, smuggle, traffic, and conduct clandestine operations.
The narrative surrounding this incident also touches on a broader context of international relationships. The article suggests that Venezuela’s relationship with its neighbors, including Guyana, is not always easy. The fact that Guyana is willing to distance itself from this incident indicates a degree of caution.
The article clearly suggests a history of “Orange man did bad thing”. The narrative is also that this story should be regarded with suspicion.
However, the key is the claim of a false flag. A vessel flying a false flag loses the protections it would normally have under international maritime law and becomes vulnerable to actions like the one taken by the US.