Global Piracy, A Private Military Solution?

[manberries]

Global Piracy, and the subsequent kidnapping, is a daily increasing issue. The International Governments have been incapable of seriously stemming this issue, the reasons for this reality being many. Not to debate that point, but rather to debate a possible solution. Safety contractors currently protect truck drivers in Iraq, and likewise scenarios, from danger. The point of this thread is the debate the feasibility of armed contractors, bodyguards, etc in defending international shipping. By this I only mean the use of them on the actual ships, not any sort of wide deployment. The questions regarding this include, "What does International Law state about it?", "How do the nation specific laws about armed people in ports affect this idea?, "How feasible, cost wise, is the hiring of so many armed people in terms of business cost?". Other questions may also be applicable, but the idea is to keep it to the specific situation of armed contractors on a ship fighting incoming pirates.

[TheKiwi]

Privateering or private navies were outlawed back in the 19th century.

[manberries]

You misunderstand. I mean armed guards on a private merchant ship. I know for certain that personally armed shipmates is entirely legal as many ship captains keep pistols. The idea of having a private marine force starts the blur that line though. The line is also quite blurred by the fact that merchant ships were armed with anti naval guns in WW2. Most would consider this a specific circumstance, but it could be used as basis for arming ships with marines today. Also, you may want to edit your post to say private military navies. Finally, there is little in the way of an international court to try or make a decision regarding what becomes a private military navy. The lack of law on international waters is quite a gray zone. The only true authority on the high seas is that of the military navies of individual nations. Noting that despite some of these ships being in a UN task force, those navies in no way fall under the control of the UN in terms of laws, rules, or command. This means the UN is incapable of settings ROE for US Navy ships (our ROE is one of the reasons US Navy ships are FAR more effective against piracy than any other). In that same way the UN is incapable of forcing anyone to enforce a no armed ship law.

[seraosha]

Quit ****ing around and embargo Somalian ports...that's where they are docking.

[Clockwinder]

Quit ****ing around and embargo Somalian ports...that's where they are docking.

A recent attempt was thwarted by armed crew with rifles and acoustic cannons.

[seraosha]

A recent attempt was thwarted by armed crew with rifles and acoustic cannons.

MADRID — The Spanish crew members of a tuna trawler who spent 47 days as hostages of Somali pirates before they were freed for a reported $3.3 million ransom returned home to emotional reunions at their home port Saturday.

link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576165,00.html)

As long as they can make a buck doing it, the pirates will continue to hijack ships. Nuke Somalia, watch me shed a tear.
Not.

[TheKiwi]

The Hague Convention of 1907 declared that no merchant ship transformed into a war vessel can have the rights and obligations attaching to this condition unless it is placed under the direct authority, the immediate control and the responsibility of the power whose flag it carries. That means that unless a ship is under direct control of the flag's authority, it may not become a warship. So no 30mm Gatling guns, no Harpoon SSM's and in general, no weapons full stop. The weapons carried by the ships masters are for keeping control and discipline of their crew.

If the world was serious about stopping the pirates as opposed to inconveniencing them, then we'd implement convoy's for the affected areas. Make the pirates come to where the defenders already are. As it stands, unless the pirates are caught in the act, there's very little the navy's patrolling the area can do.

[manberries]

Exactly, therefore that convention does not address people armed with small arms defending a ship. Also, that convention is not enforceable unless some nation took it upon themselves to enforce it. Either way, the debate is narrowed to just the idea of armed guards upon a ship.

[TheKiwi]

The convention was signed off by all the maritime powers of the day including the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia. And you only have to look at the lack of armed merchant vessels to see that it is enforced. And that is the legal problem with having armed guards. I'm not saying that it won't help, but if they fail, it would probably make things worse for the crew. Most of the worlds merchant shipping is flagged in Panama, Liberia and other convenience locations. They're not about to go and p'off the big boys by breaking the rules.

[Clockwinder]

The convention was signed off by all the maritime powers of the day including the US, UK, France, Germany and Russia. And you only have to look at the lack of armed merchant vessels to see that it is enforced. And that is the legal problem with having armed guards. I'm not saying that it won't help, but if they fail, it would probably make things worse for the crew. Most of the worlds merchant shipping is flagged in Panama, Liberia and other convenience locations. They're not about to go and p'off the big boys by breaking the rules.

Armed international navy vessels in international waters interdicting piracy is legal, but armed Merchant Marine crews is inviting escalation. Even at the height of WWII, gun crews on armed merchantmen were Naval ratings.

It becomes just a cost of business, like corruption in ports by customs officials, for shipping companies and insurance carriers. The flags of convenience governments have no skin in the game.

[manberries]

This idea that we do not wish to escalate things is just illogical. You do not respond to someone breaking a law by paying them cash. That is not enforcing the law, or helping the situation. Armed guards on a ship may increase the violence of the pirates in the short term, but as more and more pirates die (meaning less and less cash inflow) it will cease to be a profitable industry. Poorly armed and untrained men attempting to board a large ship from a raft is in no way a good tactical situation for the pirates. Even if the pirates board the ship they do not have the home advantage. Boarding a ship and taking it militarily is one of the most difficult and casualty inducing things a military can do. A decently trained and armed force on a merchant vessel would inflict extreme amounts of casualties on any boarding party. The failure rate of these groups would be so low that attempted piracy becomes a death sentence. I know the arguments regarding starvation, but people will not attempt to board a ship if they know it is next to impossible to succeed. People are far more likely to go farm, or steal cattle, than to put themselves in a death trap. Finally, if pirates being killing hostages then their ability to make money is gone. The number one income of pirates is ransom, because they do not have the ability to unload a merchant ship and sell the actual goods. Pirates cannot opt to begin killing hostages because their profit would disappear. If the current pirate situation has proven anything, violent action is the only way to stop piracy. After the US attacked pirates holding one of our captains, the pirates have only attacked a US ship once more. In fact, it was the same exact ship that was attacked. The attackers were thwarted once again. How you ask? The armed crew shot at them. However, with other governments totally unwilling to consider the military option, it makes easy pickings for the pirates. Paying the pirates is no solution, but killing them sure is.

[Clockwinder]

You still don't get it. The ship owners and insurance companies don't care!!! It's cheaper to pay the ransom than to pay the increased liability insurance for armed crew. The crews are secondary to the owners, and zero to the insurance companies.

[TheKiwi]

Try not to think of this in terms of capability. Yes it is possible to put armed guards on merchant ships to protect them.

Think in terms of legal liability instead. When a naval vessel takes action, whether firing on a pirate scow or shooting down an Airbus, there is a chain of command and liability. Governmental responsibility if you wish. If there is a screw up, someone will be held liable and subject to a court marshal.

Now imagine if your armed guards shoot/sink an innocent (and there are innocents out there). Who is liable? The guard for manslaughter/murder depending upon how competent they were? The shipping company? The shipping company's CEO?

Shipping companies don't want that grief. They certainly don't want to spent money on lawyers while the dead pirates mum sits in the witness box in New York or London telling the jury what a good god-fearing boy their son was.

[TheSteve]

Hiring private guns to fight piracy worked in the past, it can work now too.

But, its just economical to pay the pirates at this point. Although there has been increased piracy off Somalia, in general, piracy isn't really a huge problem.

[Ayub -al -Somal]

Quit ****ing around and embargo Somalian ports...that's where they are docking.
You think you know what you're talking about , but you really don't!

[seraosha]

You think you know what you're talking about , but you really don't!

Enlighten me, or stfu.
Let's hear your pet theory...

[Ayub -al -Somal]

Enlighten me, or stfu.
Let's hear your pet theory...
I am afraid that's not either the way it goes in the real world .

[seraosha]

I am afraid that's not either the way it goes in the real world .

Thanks for stopping by Yoda.

[Ayub -al -Somal]

rofl
Alright !


Quit ****ing around and embargo Somalian ports...that's where they are docking.
You can't "embargo somalian ports " .
First of all they do not operate out of "ports" in which they "dock " okay ? They live in tiny fishermen villages where the pirates are not even FROM that village .
By that I mean they can move anywhere they want and they have been doing so .
And lastly it has be demonstrated that they also use bigger ships {mothership} which allows them to reach as far as the Seychelles .
So all in all you don't know what you're talking about , nothing personal :)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

rofl
Alright !


You can't "embargo somalian ports " .
First of all they do not operate out of "ports" in which they "dock " okay ? They live in tiny fishermen villages where the pirates are not even FROM that village .
By that I mean they can move anywhere they want and they have been doing so .
And lastly it has be demonstrated that they also use bigger ships {mothership} which allows them to reach as far as the Seychelles .
So all in all you don't know what you're talking about , nothing personal :)An embargo of the nations ports would have an effect as many of the captured ships end up in Somalia it would not stop piracy altogether but it may help. The only real and economical solution is to kill pirates.

[MichaelF]

The Hague Convention of 1907 declared that no merchant ship transformed into a war vessel can have the rights and obligations attaching to this condition unless it is placed under the direct authority, the immediate control and the responsibility of the power whose flag it carries. That means that unless a ship is under direct control of the flag's authority, it may not become a warship. So no 30mm Gatling guns, no Harpoon SSM's and in general, no weapons full stop. The weapons carried by the ships masters are for keeping control and discipline of their crew.

The flipside of that was that they could go ahead and do that (disarm merchantmen) because there were a dozen or so massive navies floating around just looking for an excuse to blast someone naughty. The RN and the MN, for instance. The USN effectively suppressed the Pirates of the Celebes Sea for several decades (they started a huge comeback in the 1960's, due to the folks fleeing SE Asia making nice targets).

Once we started back into the Piracy Suppression business, we decided to treat it like a Law Enforcement problem (custody, Miranda, trials, penal systems) rather than a pest problem ("Pirate? Hang him.") as was the previous method.

[seraosha]

rofl
Alright !


You can't "embargo somalian ports " .
First of all they do not operate out of "ports" in which they "dock " okay ? They live in tiny fishermen villages where the pirates are not even FROM that village .
By that I mean they can move anywhere they want and they have been doing so .
And lastly it has be demonstrated that they also use bigger ships {mothership} which allows them to reach as far as the Seychelles .
So all in all you don't know what you're talking about , nothing personal :)

No offense taken. Thanks for the info...see, if you actually share information, it's kind of what a "forum" is for, everyone wins.

[deagle]

some deterrent should be implemented. there are laws with penalties, but that still doesn't deter crime/criminals. an aggressive stance may or may not work also.

[Kuno]

Interresting thread.

I did not think that there is a legal issue, if a vessel has weapons / defenders on board. But such is obviously the case.

So, this means that I am not allowed to keep my vessel by defending i with weapons even in the case I am attacked by pirates - who do not really care about such laws (ok, I know that this is the nature of a pirate p-)).

Is it the case that I can conclude am insurance "against" piracy? If this is the case, then I, as the owner of a vessel. do not have to worry too much. Such insurance would only increase the cost for transport... which naturally is still cheaper than to drive the vessel "outside around". The additional cost will be paid at the end by the consumer of the goods in the shop.

What worries me more is the fact, that the so called "Western Countries" have sent a considerable number of Navy ships into the region off Somalia. Although I cannot say, how the piracy there would have developped, if those ships would not be ther -it remains fact that thy could not at all stop the piracy. The subject might be "blown up" by our media. But the signal - at least to me- is clear: The big forces are helpless / cannot enforce their power / have no real advantage of their superior technology...

...such may encourage others!