|
A call to arms
It has long been argued that the provision of armed guards to protect ships from pirates or arming seafarers increases acts of violence against vessels and seafarers. Naval protection, non-payment of ransoms and the will to prosecute pirates in recognised courts of law are said to be the answer. Such is the view of the International Maritime Bureau. At the end of March, Director Capt Pottengal Mukundan said the concern on the part of ship owners to protect their vessels “was completely understandable but we don’t agree with armed teams being placed onboard. Ships are not the ideal place for a gun battle.” But ships will increasingly be stages for such battles as the number of incidents escalates. SMI reports on p68 that the number of piracy attacks virtually doubled to over 400 in 2009; these were the reported attacks. Moreover, pirates are increasingly travelling further out to sea, in the knowledge that the threat of starvation and death are better options than their circumstances ashore. They have no qualms about the force they use. France permits marines onboard its vessels and Spain allows its ships to carry armed private guards. In the perceived absence of strong international action others will follow and some owners may reflag tonnage to secure protection. EU Navfor spokesmen make the right noises and the industry is aware of the legal restraints on military action. Nowhere has this been seen with such sense of hopelessness than in the case of the elderly British sailing couple Paul and Rachel Chandler, who have been held for five months after being seized in full view of Royal Navy sailors. Kenya’s decision to sentence eight Somalis to 20 years in prison, with the promise of more trials to come is to be welcomed. But only Seychelles, among other nations, has actively started prosecuting pirates. It’s a drop in the ocean. Industry and the court of public opinion finds this unacceptable and inevitably, the use of private security companies will grow. There are many exmilitary servicemen around who know what they are talking about, how to converse with terrorists, react in times of hostage-taking and essentially, keep quiet after the event. But, as Securewest International’s Stan Ayscue says on p20, there is also great disparity in skill levels and experience of companies offering such services. Chillingly, he states: “Many firms that have specialised in security for land sites and shopping malls are now trying their hand at maritime security, not realising what a unique environment it is.” Then there are the less than professional outfits, one of whose number, likely to have been a Kenyan or Somali firm, is believed to have been involved when a pirate was shot dead by a private security guard onboard the 2,886 dwt, Panama flag Almezaan off the coast of east Africa at the end of March. The Panama flag vessel, by dint of size and speed, was said to have been a “classic candidate” for using security guards. In the absence of naval and/or top drawer security protection so are many others. Unless there is political will and unless the international community gets its collective act together and prosecutes the perpetrators, we can expect to see growing roll calls of dead seafarers. The insurance industry is not advocating the use of armed guards but wants, in the words of Jardine Lloyd Thompson’s Sean Woollerson, “to pull in one direction, with private security companies coming under the auspices of the military. There is little political appetite for handing out extra resource and no guarantee that navies will still be in areas of piracy in coming months. But, as Mr Woollerson says, if the critical mass of shipping pulls together, the risk can be mitigated. The alternative – inaction and more attacks, is unacceptable. Christopher Mayer
|
|
OPEN FORUM - FORUM OUVERT |
