Monday, November 11, 2024

Repor: Israeli universities face unprecedented global boycott over Gaza genocide


November 11, 2024 
Middle East Monitor 

Pro-Palestinian banners are hanging on a fence during occupational strike in the yard of Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland on October 11, 2024. 
[Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto]


Israeli universities and academics have faced an unprecedented global boycott since the occupation state launched its devastating war on the besieged Gaza Strip, which has claimed the lives of at least 43,600 Palestinians, the vast majority women and children, Israel’s Channel 12 reported yesterday.

Citing data from the Association of Israeli University Heads, the channel said more than 300 cases of academic boycott of Israeli universities and academics have been recorded since 7 October 2023.

According to the data, Belgium recorded the highest number of boycotts, reaching more than 40, followed by the United States with more than 35, Britain with more than 20 and the Netherlands with more than 15. Meanwhile, Italy recorded more than ten cases of boycotts, following an initiative launched by the Union of Academics there.

The global boycott of Israeli academia is expressed in various forms, including 50 cases in which scientific articles written by Israeli scholars were rejected, 30 cancelled lectures by Israeli academics and 30 cases in which foreign academics refused to give lectures at scientific conferences and study days organised by Israeli universities.

The data shows that in 30 cases research cooperation between Israel and foreign universities and student exchange programmes have been suspended.

The global boycott of Israeli universities encompassed many disciplines including history, law, archaeology, Jewish studies, cultures, natural sciences and engineering.

The data indicated that “the situation is particularly serious” in Belgium, where about 15 academic scholarships have been cancelled in addition to refusal to issue recommendations and reports to Israeli researchers and ignoring written or verbal messages from them.

Former Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Emmanuel Nahshon, who is in charge of combating academic boycott on behalf of the Association of Israeli Universities said “academic boycott is one of the central challenges facing Israeli universities, since October 7, in the international arena.”

He added that academic boycott has significantly escalated following the war which threatens to target the status of Israeli academia, noting that the association has formed a working group which will use legal, international and other tools to “downsize” as much as possible the impact of the global boycott campaign facing Israeli institutions and researchers.

“Unfortunately, we estimate that this struggle will be long-term, and we are preparing for it through coordinated work among Israeli universities and with the help of our friends around the world,” he added.

Italy: University of Milan suspends cooperation with Israel’s Reichman University
Palestine president warns of second Nakba in Gaza


November 11, 2024
Middle East Monitor 




Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas gives a speech during the Extraordinary Meeting on Palestine at the Grand National Assembly of Turkiye in Ankara, Turkiye on August 15, 2024. [Harun Özalp – Anadolu Agency

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned yesterday that Gaza is enduring a second Nakba and facing an unprecedented war of annihilation, Anadolu reported.

Abbas emphasised that the forced displacement scheme orchestrated by Israel’s far-right government “will not succeed.”

“The Palestinian people are experiencing harsh and severe conditions. There is a second Nakba in Gaza. Our people are being subjected to a mass extermination unparalleled in history, with hundreds of thousands of martyrs and wounded, widespread destruction, displacement, hunger, diseases, and epidemics,” he said.

“The occupying state has rendered Gaza uninhabitable, and today’s events in northern Gaza are clear evidence of this.”

Abbas further commented, “The threat of forced displacement continues to loom over the people of Gaza, and we affirm with utmost clarity and determination that this scheme will not pass. We will not allow it to pass, relying on the resilience of our people and the support of our brothers and friends all over the world.”

Nakba survivor: ‘The current war on Gaza is crueller than the Nakba’
Netanyahu: ICJ is ‘anti-Semitic’

November 11, 2024 
Middle East Monitor – Latest news from the Middle East and North Africa

A view of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) logo amid a hearing at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as part of hearing in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the situation in Gaza begins, as ICJ begins delivering order on additional provisional measures in Israel ‘genocide’ case on May 24, 2024
 [Nikos Oikonomou/Anadolu Agency]

Efforts to hold Israel accountable for its crimes against Palestinians at the International Court of Justice in The Hague are ‘anti-Semitic’, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a cabinet meeting yesterday.

Commenting on the ICJ case against Tel Aviv brought forward by South Africa and Israeli football fans rampaging through the streets of Amsterdam

chanting racist slurs and attacking locals and their properties being met with resistance from locals, Netanyahu said: “In both cases, we are dealing with serious anti-Semitism aimed at rendering the Jewish people and their state powerless, stripping our nation of the right to self-defence, and depriving our citizens of the very right to life.”



He claimed that “in recent days, we have seen images reminiscent of Kristallnacht [the Nazi attacks on Jews in Germany]. In Amsterdam, anti-Semitic assailants targeted Jews simply because they are Jews.”

Netanyahu continued, saying: “Such attacks pose a threat not only to Israel but to the entire world. History has taught us a lesson: unbridled attacks against Jews never end with Jews alone. They spread throughout society, crossing borders and eventually endangering all of humanity. Therefore, I expect and urge all responsible governments to quash these attacks at their roots.”

The prime minister noted that he had recently spoken with US President-elect Donald Trump three times. “These were positive and important conversations focused on strengthening the strong alliance between Israel and the United States. We fully agree on the various aspects of the Iranian threat and the dangers it poses. Additionally, we see significant opportunities for Israel in terms of expanding peace and in other areas,” concluded Netanyahu.

Read: UK accepts ICJ ruling that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful

 

Ocean Issues Dominate at Three UN Climate Negotiation Summits

Cali COP16 meeting
Courtesy Cali COP16

Published Nov 10, 2024 4:21 PM by Dialogue Earth

 

 

[By Felipe Cárcamo Moreno]

Those who know how to surf understand that the rhythm of the waves changes. Clinging to the board, watching the ocean, you decide which wave to take or let go, calculating the direction. And suddenly you are already on your feet, gliding through the sea … aligned with the rhythm of the ocean. Looking at the horizon, you can clearly see what is coming. 

This year has been a decisive one in the management of the ecological crises that plague the ocean. We are currently surfing between three UN Conferences of the Parties (COPs), dedicated to three different UN conventions. Each has a different agenda, but also several elements in common. Among them, the ocean stands out as a cross-cutting and potentially unifying theme.

But despite its importance, there is a deficit of attention being paid to the ocean and its three crises. Climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss on the seas are already manifesting in rising sea levels, record water temperatures, changes in precipitation, ocean acidification and deoxygenation, and the decline of ecosystems.

Three UN gatherings dominate the end-of-year environmental agenda: the Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP16 in Colombia, the Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP29 in Azerbaijan, and the Convention to Combat Desertification’s COP16 in Saudi Arabia. Will the ocean command the attention it demands? Let’s dive in.

October | Biodiversity, COP16 | Cali

In 2022, the parties to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) set a milestone target of protecting 30% of terrestrial and marine areas by 2030. As they gathered in Cali last month, it became clear that global ocean protection languishes far short of this goal.

Another UN treaty will be a key building block in reaching this goal: the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction – otherwise known as the High Seas Treaty. Once it has been ratified by 60 countries (currently only 15 have done so, after France recently joined the list) it will enable the establishment of marine protected areas on the high seas, the two thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction. Protecting this will complement efforts to reach the KMGBF’s 30% target.

Ocean protection is further strengthened by other international instruments negotiated in recent years: the Port State Measures Agreement and the Fisheries Subsidies Agreement. Both are designed to combat illegal fishing and promote marine sustainability.

Funding, however, remained a central and outstanding challenge at Cali’s COP16. 

The Latin American and Caribbean Network for a Sustainable Financial System (REDFIS) says funding specifically allocated to biodiversity protection and conservation in each country must be established. The network says the current financial resources on the table are insufficient, and the critical situation of the debt markets in Global South countries is diverting funds that could combat climate change to pay off interest. REDFIS also says more effective mechanisms are needed to channel funds directly to those who protect nature. In particular, local communities, Indigenous peoples and African descendants who manage marine areas. 

November | Climate change, COP29 | Baku

A turning point for climate change discussions to sufficiently incorporate the ocean is hopefully indicated by a recent report. Compiled by the facilitators of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s “ocean dialogue”, the report emphasises the need for synergies between various UN multilateral frameworks. For example, between the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, and the Global Biodiversity Framework. The report stresses this collaboration is critical to the success of national policies on climate change, including adaptation and mitigation.

A central theme of COP29 will be how to implement climate pledges. The ocean dialogue report urges countries to unify their efforts to avoid duplication and strengthen collective action on oceans. How to fund the climate pledges of developing countries will feature prominently.

For Latin America, it is crucial to establish a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) defining a level of international support for climate finance that effectively supports developing countries in protecting their waters. In addition, countries should integrate oceans into their Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans by 2025 – both of which detail countries’ efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and adapt to climate change.

Technology is emerging as a controversial issue where ocean concerns meet climate change, particularly in two areas. The first is geoengineering for marine carbon sequestration, as supervised by the UN’s International Maritime Organization. The consequences of such technologies are yet to be decisively proven. They could enlarge the ocean’s absorption of carbon dioxide, but they could also fail to make a significant difference and further damage already battered ecosystems.

The second area is deep sea mining, supervised by the International Seabed Authority. Some experts worry this could disrupt carbon sequestration in the deep, while advocates say it is a vital source of elements needed for the green transition. Nations including several in Latin America are promoting a moratorium. That would allow for further scientific research on these little-understood deep-sea ecosystems, applying a precautionary principle in the face of possible environmental impacts. 

For significant progress to be made in protecting the oceans in Baku, agreement on concrete action is needed for all the above areas.

December | Desertification, COP16 | Riyadh

The connection between land and ocean is of particular relevance to the third COP of 2024: in Saudi Arabia, members of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification will gather for their 16th conference. 

In addressing the intensification of droughts, the convention stresses the need to align efforts with the findings of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The convention’s approach is holistic: it highlights the interrelationship of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and encourages development that strengthens their resilience. It also recognises that pressures on ocean ecosystems and water resources are intimately linked to the need to secure food and water for millions of people.

This year has been marked by devastating cyclones and unprecedented ocean warming, alerting the world to the fundamental need to protect the oceans to mitigate climate change and safeguard biodiversity.

It is encouraging to note that behind every political decision there is a relentless activist struggle. One shaped by local, Indigenous and African-descendant communities that are increasingly mobilised to protect the oceans. 

As surfers know, it takes balance to get on the board. Taming the waves of change, which are already crashing, demands a triple balance: being guided by scientific and local knowledge, taking permanent action that is forceful, and having high ambition in the work to mitigate climate change. Get it right and before we know it, we will be on our feet, gliding across the sea.

Felipe Cárcamo Moreno is a programme analyst for FIMA, a Chilean environmental NGO. He works on ocean issues, especially illegal fishing. He also has a master’s degree in sociology.

This article appears courtesy of Dialogue Earth and may be found in its original form here

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

Garrison Payne, the U.S. Navy's First Black Commissioned Officer

Fig. 1: USS SC 83 underway. Lieutenant (junior grade) Payne was awarded the Navy Cross for his service as commanding officer. (Photo credit: National WWI Museum collection 2012.98, via subchaser.org.)
USS SC 83 underway. Lt. j.g. Payne was awarded the Navy Cross for his service as commanding officer. (Photo: National WWI Museum via subchaser.org.)

Published Nov 10, 2024 7:40 PM by CIMSEC

 

 

[By Reuben Keith Green]

The hidden story of the U.S. Navy’s first Black commissioned officer spans five decades, three continents, two world wars, two wives from different countries, and one hell of a journey for an Indiana farm boy. For mutual convenience, both he and the United States Navy pretended that he wasn’t Black. This story had almost been erased from history until the determined efforts of one of his extended relatives, Jeff Giltz of Hobart, Indiana, brought it to light.1

From before World War I until after World War II, leaders in the U. S. government and Navy would make decisions affecting the composition of enlisted ranks for more than a century and that still echo in officer demographics today. Memories of maelstroms past reverberate in today’s discussions regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), affirmative action in the military academies, meritocracy over so-called “DEI Hires,” who is and is not Black, and in renaming – or not – bases and ships that honor relics of America’s discriminatory and exclusionary past.

Before Doris “Dorie” Miller received the Navy Cross for his actions on December 7th, 1941, and long before the Navy commissioned the Golden Thirteen in 1945, Lieutenant (junior grade) William Lloyd Garrison Payne was awarded the Navy Cross for the hazardous duty of commanding the submarine chaser USS SC-83 in 1918. While his Navy Cross citation is sparse, the hazards of hunting submarines from a 110-foot wooden ship were considerable. His personal and professional history, still emerging though it may be, reveals much about the nation and Navy he served and deserves to be revealed in full. Understanding the racial and political climate during which he received his commission is crucial to understanding the importance of his place in Navy history.Quietly Breaking Barriers

William Lloyd Garrison Payne was born on Christmas day in 1881 to a White Indiana woman and a Black man, and completed forty years of military service by 1940 – before volunteering for more service in World War II. Garrison Payne’s virtual anonymity, despite his groundbreaking status as the first Black naval officer and a Navy Cross recipient, stemmed from pervasive racial discrimination, manifested in political and public opposition (notably by white supremacist politicians like James K. Varner and John C. Stennis), and internal resistance within the Navy. His long anonymity exemplifies a failure to learn from the past.2

Fig. 02. Ensign Payne (seated), in command of USS SC-83. (Photo credit: subchasers.org.)

Garrison Payne, or W.G. Payne, served in or commanded several vessels and had multiple shore assignments during his five-decade career. His officer assignments include commanding the aforementioned USS SC-83 and serving aboard the minesweeper USS Teal (AD-23), the collier USS Neptune (AC-8), submarine chasers Eagle 19 and Eagle 31, which he may have also commanded, and troop ship USS Zeppelin. He had a lengthy record as a Chief Boatswain’s Mate (Chief Bos’n).

Fig. 03: 1917 North Carolina Service Card, thirty-three year-old Chief Boatswain’s Mate Garrison Payne was discharged from the Navy and immediately “Appointed Officer” (Commissioned) on 15 December 1917 while assigned to the USS Neptune (AC-8) at Naval Base, Plymouth, England. (Credit: Public record in the public domain.)

After his commissioning in Plymouth, he presumably stayed in England and later took command of the USS SC-83 after she transited from New London, Connecticut to Plymouth, England in May 1918.

Garrison Payne took Rosa Manning, a widow with a young daughter, as his first wife in 1916. The 1910 North Carolina Census records indicate that she was the daughter of Sami and Annie Hall, both listed as Black in the census records. Later census records list Rosa Payne as White, and using her mother’s maiden name (Manning), as she did on their 1916 marriage license. His race was also indicated as White on the license, and his parents listed as Jackson Payne and Ruth Myers (Payne), his maternal grandparents.

Fig. 04: Garrison Payne and an unidentified woman, possibly his second wife Mary Margaret Payne, presumably taken in the later 1920s, location unknown. Courtesy of Jeff Giltz.

In the photo above, Payne, wearing the rank of lieutenant, stands beside an unidentified Black woman, who may be his wife. He brought back Mary Margaret Duffy from duty in Plymouth, England on the USS Zeppelin, a troop transport, in 1919, listing her on ship documents as his wife. He used various first names and initials to apparently help obscure his identity.

Jeff Giltz of Hobart, Indiana is the great grandson of Gertrude “Gertie” Giltz, Garrison’s half-sister by the same mother, Mary Alice Payne. She was unmarried at the time of his birth in 1881. Her father, Jack Payne was the son of a Robert Henley Payne, who traveled first from Virginia to Kentucky, and then settled in Indiana, may have been mixed race. During the U.S. Census, census takers wrote down the race of household occupants as described by the head of the household. Many light-skinned Blacks thereby entered into White society by “turning White” during a census year. It is unknown when Garrison made his “transition” from Black or “Mulatto” to White.

None of Garrison’s half-siblings, who were born to his mother after she married Lemuel Ball, share his dark complexion. When she married, Garrison was sent to live nearby with his uncle, William C. Payne, whose wife was of mixed race. In the 1900 Census, Garrison is listed as a servant in his uncle’s household, not his nephew.

Taken together – Garrison Payne’s dark skin, the fact that the identity of his father was never publicly revealed and that he was born out of wedlock with no birth certificate issued, that he was named for a famous White Boston abolitionist and newspaper publisher,3 that his White mother gave him her last name instead of his father’s, that he was sent away after his mother married, and the oral history of his family – all point to the likelihood that Garrison Payne was Black.

In the turn of the century Navy, individuals were sometimes identified as “dark” or “dark complexion” with no racial category assigned. Payne self-identified as White on both of his known marriage licenses. According to Jeff Giltz, there are many references to Garrison Payne in online genealogy, military records and newspaper sites, but none appear on the Navy Historical and Heritage Command (NHHC) website. His military service likely began in 1900.

Rolling Back Racial Progress during Modernization

In his 1978 book Manning the Navy: The Development of a Modern Naval Enlisted Force, 1898-1940, former U.S. Naval Academy Associate Professor Frederick S. Harrod discusses several of the policies enacted during that period that helped shaped today’s Navy.4 He describes how the famously progressive Secretary of the Navy (1913-1919) Josephus Daniels, otherwise notorious for banning alcohol from ships, brought Jim Crow policies to a previously partially integrated Navy (enlisted ranks only) and banned the first term enlistment of Negro personnel in 1919, a ban that would last until 1933. No official announcement of the unofficial ban was made, but Prof. Harrod asserts that it was instituted by an internal Navy Memorandum from Commander Randall Jacobs, who later issued the Guide to Command of Negro Personnel, NAVPERS-15092, in 1945. President Woodrow Wilson and Daniels were both staunch segregationists and White supremacists. The Navy became more rather than less racially restrictive during the Progressive Era because of the lasting effects of both Secretary Daniels and President Wilson.

The number of Negro personnel dropped from a high of 5,668 in June of 1919 – 2.26% of the total enlisted force – to 411 in June of 1933, a total of 0.55% of the total force of 81,120 enlisted men. Most of the Black sailors were in the Stewards Branch, and most were low ranking with no authority over White sailors, despite their many years of service and experience. Those very few “old salts” outside that branch, like Payne, were difficult to assign, as the Navy did not want them supervising White sailors, despite their expertise and seniority.

Following his temporary promotion to the commissioned officer ranks – rising as far as lieutenant on 01 July 1919 – Garrison Payne was eventually reverted to Chief Bos’n, until he was given an honorific, or “tombstone”, promotion to the permanent grade of lieutenant in June of 1940, just before his retirement. Payne died on 14 October 1952 in a Naval Hospital in San Diego California, and was interred in nearby Fort Rosacrans National Cemetery on 20 October 1952, in Section P, Plot P 0 2765 – not in the Officer’s Sections A or B, despite being identified as a lieutenant on his headstone. Garrison Payne’s hometown newspaper’s death notice indicates that he was the grandson of Jack Payne, with no mention of his parents. A handwritten notation on his Internment Control Form indicates that he enlisted on 31 March 1943, making him a veteran of both world wars, as also reflected on his headstone. His service in World War II – as a volunteer 62-year-old retiree – deserves further investigation.

Fig. 05: Garrison Payne’s final resting place, in Section P, Plot P 0 2765 of Fort Rosacrans National Cemetery. Courtesy of U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Veteran’s Legacy Memorial.

The Navy reluctantly commissioned the Golden Thirteen in 1945 only because of political pressure from the White House and from civil rights organizations like the NAACP, led by Walter F. White, the light-skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed Atlanta Georgia native who embraced his Black heritage. Unlike Walter White, though, Garrison Payne likely hid his mixed-race heritage to protect his life, his family, and his career. When he married Mary Margaret Duffy in 1937, at the age of 54, he travelled more than 170 miles from San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona to do so. Why? His new wife, Mary Margaret Duffy, was 37, and an immigrant from Ireland. He had previously listed her as his wife when he transported her to America in 1919. Are there records of this marriage overseas? Would that interracial marriage have been recognized, given that interracial marriage would remain illegal in both states for years to come? On their marriage certificate, as with Payne’s first marriage certificate, both spouses are listed as White.

The Navy’s Circular Letter 48-46, dated 27 February 1946, officially lifted “all restrictions governing the types of assignments for which Negro naval personnel are eligible.” Despite that edict, and President Truman’s Executive Order desegregating the armed forces in 1948, it would be decades before the Navy’s officer ranks would include more than fifty Blacks.

The stories of several early Black chief petty officers are missing from the Navy’s Historical and Heritage Command’s website, though it does include the story of a contemporary of Payne’s, Chief Boatswain’s Mate John Henry “Dick” Turpin, a Black man. That Payne, a commissioned officer, is absent and unrecognized can be attributed to at least five possible reasons.

The first is that the Navy didn’t know of his existence, significance, or accomplishments. Table 5 in Professor Harrods’s book is titled “The Color of the Enlisted Forces, 1906 – 1940,” and is compiled from the Annual Reports of the Chief of Navigation for those years, with eleven different racial categories, including “other.” Where Garrison Payne fell in those figures during his enlisted service is uncertain, but he was present in the Navy for each of those year’s reports.

The second is that Payne had no direct survivors to tell his story, and no one may have asked him to tell it. He and his first wife Rosa likely divorced sometime after the death of their only child. It is unknown if his Irish-born wife Mary Margaret produced any children by Garrison.

The third reason could be that the Navy may have kept his story quiet for his own protection, and that of the Woodrow Wilson administration and the Indiana political leadership. Garrison Payne was commissioned by the same President Woodrow Wilson who screened the movie Birth of a Nation at the White House in 1915, re-segregated the federal government offices in Washington DC, refused to publicly condemn the racial violence and lynching during the “Red Summer” of 1919, and whose Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, was one of the masterminds behind the 1898 Wilmington Insurrection, which violently overthrew an elected integrated government in Wilmington, North Carolina. Acknowledging Payne as a decorated and successful Black naval officer would have been an embarrassment to Wilson, Daniels, and undercut their political and racist agendas.

Black veterans were specifically targeted after both world wars, by both civilians and military personnel, to reassert White supremacy. Payne was from Indiana, where the Ku Klux Klan was revived in 1915 and became a very powerful organization in the 1920s. Such organizations may have sought out and harassed Payne and his family, had they known that this Black Indiana farm boy, born to a White mother, had not only received a commission in the U.S. Navy but had commanded White men in combat.

The fourth reason is that the Navy may have wanted to hide his racial identity. His record of accomplishment as a Navy Cross recipient and ship’s C.O. would have undermined the widespread belief that Black men could not perform successfully as leaders, much less decorated military officers. He was not commissioned as part of some social experiment or social engineering, but because the Navy needed experienced, reliable men to man a rapidly-expanding fleet and train inexperienced crews. Garrison Payne did just that, during years of dangerous duty at sea.

The fifth reason may be that Payne recognized the benefits of passing for White to his life and career, which may have compelled him to do so. He was raised in a largely white society, by white-appearing relatives. Had he not successfully “passed,” he likely would not have been commissioned.

Regardless of the reasons in the past, it is now time to herald the brave naval service of Garrison Payne. The Navy Historical and Heritage Command, the Smithsonian Institution, the Indiana Historical Society, the Hampton Roads Navy Museum, and others should work together to bring his amazing story out of the shadows.

Why Garrison Payne’s Story Matters

For years, many Black naval officers have searched in vain for stories of their heroic forebearers. Actions taken by politicians regarding nominations to military academies for much of the 20th century helped ensure that Black military officers remained a rarity, particularly those hailing from Southern states.5 The life story of Lieutenant Garrison Payne needs to be thoroughly documented and publicized because representation matters.

On a personal note, knowing of his story while I was serving as one of the few Black officers in the Navy would have inspired me immensely. Garrison Payne served as likely the only Black officer in the Navy for his entire career. He showed what was possible. Heralding his trailblazing career can only positively impact the discussions about the future composition of the U.S. Navy’s officer corps as it inspires generations of sailors. Historians and researchers should continue the work of archival research to gain a fuller understanding of his story and significance. My hope is that veteran’s organizations and national institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution begin the effort to flesh out the story of Lieutenant Garrison Payne.

This article appears courtesy of CIMSEC and may be found in its original form here

Reuben Keith Green, Lieutenant Commander, USN (ret) served 22 years in the Atlantic Fleet (1975-1997). After nine years in the enlisted ranks as a Mineman, Yeoman, and Equal Opportunity Program Specialist, he graduated from Officer Candidate School in 1984 and then served four consecutive sea tours. Both a steam and gas turbine qualified engineer officer of the watch (EOOW), he served as a Tactical Action Officer (TAO) in the Persian Gulf, and as executive officer in a Navy hydrofoil, USS Gemini (PHM-6). He holds a Master’s degree from Webster University in Human Resources Development, and is the author of Black Officer, White Navy – A Memoir, recently published by University Press of Kentucky.

Endnotes

1. Except as otherwise cited, research in this article is based on documents in the author’s possession and oral history interviews with Mr. Jeff Giltz.

2. War and Race: The Black Officer in the American Military. 1915-1941, 1981, Gerald W. Patton, Greenwood Press

3. All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery, 2008, Henry Mayer, W. W. Norton and Company

4. Manning the New Navy: The Development of a Modern Naval Enlisted Force, 1899-1940, 1978, Frederick S. Harrod, Greenwood Press.

5. The Tragedy of the Lost Generation, Proceedings, August 2024, VOL 150/8/1458, John P. Cordle, Reuben Keith Green, U.S. Naval Institute.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

 

WWIII

China Angered by the Philippines' New Maritime Laws

In this low-resolution screen capture, a China Coast Guard servicemember threatens a Philippine soldier with an axe, June 17 (AFP)
In this low-resolution screen capture, a China Coast Guard servicemember threatens a Philippine soldier with an axe at Second Thomas Shoal, June 17 (AFP)

Published Nov 10, 2024 5:03 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

On Friday, the Philippine government enacted two long-awaited laws to reinforce its jurisdiction over its western exclusive economic zone, where China has been steadily encroaching for the last 10 years. The new legislation drew immediate pushback from Beijing, and China's foreign ministry summoned the Philippine ambassador to register its objections. 

"With these pieces of legislation, we align our domestic laws with international law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS, improve our capacity for governance, and reinforce our maritime policies for economic development and for national security," said Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. "Our people, especially our fisher folk, should be able to pursue their livelihood free from uncertainty and harassment." 

The new Maritime Zones Act formally designates the Philippines' economic zone boundaries, and the new Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act describes a set of designated sea lanes for merchant shipping. 

While the Philippines' EEZ is well-defined under UNCLOS, the new Maritime Zones Act reinforces the country's sovereign claim by enshrining it in national law. It also formalizes the government's preferred term for the contested area: for the purposes of Philippine law, the portion of the South China Sea that falls within the Philippine EEZ is now the "West Philippine Sea," removing the word "China" from the area. 

"There’s no space for doubt because it’s clear under international law and our domestic laws where our limits are," maritime law expert Jay Batongbacal explained to Rappler. "That’s the final step to make clear what is ours."

In addition, the new Archipelagic Sea Lanes Act will set out three new standard routes for navigation through Philippine waters, and Manila will submit these to the IMO for debate and approval. Indonesia is the only other nation to have gone through this consultative process. 

China's government summoned the Philippine ambassador immediately after the laws were signed, and Chinese officials delivered a vigorous and public protest. 

China claims sovereignty over almost all of the South China Sea, citing a history of Chinese navigation and activity in the region. Its claim area encompasses international waters and the EEZs of its neighbors, up to a thousand nautical miles away from the Chinese mainland. Beijing asserts that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea validates its historically-based claim, but the treaty is based on physical distances, and lacks text regarding historical events. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled against China's sweeping claims in 2016; however, the China Coast Guard continues to attempt to implement Chinese control over the Philippine EEZ using water-cannoning, ramming, boarding and vessel confiscation.   

"The so-called arbitral award on the South China Sea is illegal, null and void. China does not accept or recognize it. We oppose and do not accept any claim or action based on the award," explained Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning on Friday. "The Philippines seeks to justify its illegal claims and actions in the South China Sea by approving the so-called “Maritime Zones Act” in the name of implementing UNCLOS. This is illegal, null and void. . . . China will firmly oppose any infringement activities and provocations by the Philippines in the South China Sea based on the act." 

 

 

China Unveils a New Unmanned Warship, The "Killer Whale"

Drone ship
Via Chinese social media

Published Nov 10, 2024 6:25 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

An unusual trimaran drone ship was spotted at Guangzhou Shipyard earlier this year, and it has now made its first public appearance. On Friday, at the Zhuhai Airshow, the PLA Navy unveiled a new surface combatant called the "Killer Whale" - a miniature warship with an operating concept much like the U.S. Navy's Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship, but smaller and potentially without crew. 

According to Chinese media, the vessel has a length of 190 feet and displaces about 300-500 tonnes, with a maximum speed of 40 knots and a range of about 4,000 nautical miles. It is reportedly fitted to carry a wide array of weaponry - antiship missiles, antiaircraft missiles, torpedoes, and a drone helicopter on the rear deck. 

Its most notable feature might be the resuscitation of the "modular mission package" concept, which first entered full-scale service with the debut of the Littoral Combat Ship in the 2010s. The underlying concept was to field a multipurpose vessel that could carry "swappable" weapons packages for different missions - mine warfare, antisubmarine warfare and surface warfare. In practice, the U.S. Navy was not able to develop or operationalize the "swappable" concept aboard its two LCS classes, and each LCS vessel is now permanently fitted with specific equipment.

According to local media, the new Killer Whale's mission sets include surveillance patrols, surface warfare, anti-submarine operations, and air defense missions. It can be reconfigured for "sea battlefield environment surveys and rescue in distress," making it an "all-around warrior."

Though designed by CSSC's autonomous vessel specialists and designated as unmanned, the new USV also has a prominent wraparound bridge deck for human watchstanders. Naval analysts have noted that it bears a striking resemblance to Indonesia's manned Klewang-class fast attack craft: The carbon fiber Klewang-class is longer, narrower, and has less range and payload, but has a comparable top speed and a superficially similar appearance. 

Illustrations and scale models of the Killer Whale's design have appeared at Chinese defense trade shows over the past two years under the program name "JARI-USV-A." Open-source intelligence analysts first spotted the full-size prototype in satellite imagery at CSSC Guangzhou Shipyard last month.

 

Minesweeper Burns and Capsizes Off Japan

Courtesy Fukuoka Coast Guard
Courtesy Fukuoka Coast Guard

Published Nov 10, 2024 9:01 PM by The Maritime Executive

 


On Sunday, a Japanese minesweeper caught fire and capsized off Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan, leaving one crewmember injured and one missing. 

At about 1000 hours on Sunday, the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force minesweeper Ukushima departed the Shimonoseki Naval Base for a routine training cruise. At about 0940, a blaze broke out on board, initially reported as an engine room fire. Local television broadcasts from the scene showed smoke pouring from the ship's stacks and engine room vents. 

One crewmember, Petty Officer 3rd Class Tatsunori Koga, 33, was in the engine room at the time of the fire and remains missing. One additional crewmember suffered injuries from smoke inhalation and was evacuated for treatment.

 

/media/images/article/Photos/Wreckage_Salvage/Ukushima-Fukuoka-Coast-Guard-3.jpg

Initial firefighting efforts appeared successful and the smoke from the stacks was much reduced, above (Fukuoka Coast Guard)

With assistance from another nearby minesweeper, the Toyoshima, the crew put out the fire. However, it soon reignited, and when it became clear that it would be unsafe to remain aboard, the remaining 36 crewmembers ceased firefighting efforts and evacuated safely to the Toyoshima.  

The Ukushima burned throughout the day, and several explosions were heard onboard. At a press conference at about 2030 hours, JMSDF Chief of Staff Adm. Akira Saito said that the wooden-hulled vessel could potentially sink if the fire continued unabated. 

 

 

Just after midnight, the Ukushima capsized, extinguishing the fire. The ship continued to gradually slip lower in the water through the night, and by 0700 hours on Monday, just the bow was visible above the water, according to NHK. 

 

 

At a press conference Sunday, Adm. Saito said that a board of inquiry would be set up to determine the cause of the fire. 

Ukushima was a Sugashima-class minesweeper built in 2003. Japan ordered 12 of these small vessels in the 1990s-2000s to fill a need for shallow-water minesweeping operations. They were constructed out of wood to reduce their magnetic signature; non-metallic hulls are common for vessels of this type. 

 

Taiwan Drops Local-Content Rules, Smoothing the Path for Offshore Wind

Offshore wind farm
iStock / Bing-Jhen Hong

Published Nov 10, 2024 10:27 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

Taiwan has agreed to scrap its local content requirements in its recent offshore wind auction, marking the end of a trade dispute with the EU. Taiwan is now committed to introduce flexibility in its offshore wind tenders, starting with auction round 3.2 completed in August. This added flexibility will address supply chain difficulties faced by offshore wind developers, including those from Europe.

Taiwan introduced a localization policy in 2021, aiming to spur development of the domestic offshore wind supply chain. Per the local content rules, at least 60 percent of parts used in offshore wind farm development must be sourced locally, except for products and services that the Taiwanese supply chain cannot readily provide.

In July, the EU filed a formal challenge at the World Trade Organization (WTO) contesting Taiwan’s localization policy. The EU argued that by Taiwan implementing stringent local content rules, it discriminated against imported goods and services, which is inconsistent with WTO regulations.  

Last week, the European Commission revealed that its director-general for trade Sabine Weyand and Taiwan’s Minister of Economic Affairs Jyh-Huei Kuo exchanged letters, setting out new terms that saw the local content rules removed. This means that Taiwan can no longer include localization requirements in future allocation rounds, either as eligibility conditions or as award criteria.

“Provided that Taiwan follows through with the outlined commitments, the EU does not intend to pursue this matter further within the WTO. Addressing barriers in Taiwan’s offshore wind market is crucial for a sector of strategic importance to the EU,” said the European Commission.

In the recent 3.2 offshore wind auction round, Taiwan awarded 2.7 GW of capacity across five projects. During this round, local developers such as Synera and Shinfox appeared to have a head start, possibly due to local content compliance. A big surprise was the Danish energy multinational Orsted missing out on its 570 MW Greater Changhua 3 project. Analysts speculated that Orsted was likely edged out in the bid due to low local content compared to competitors.