This is funny. BIMCO was one of the signators of that letter on the request to use UN guards on boats. I guess that idea went out the window? Or maybe that was a political ploy to get governments to act on the legalities of armed guards on boats, because the alternative of using blue helmets was a bridge too far?
As to the idea of setting up some contract guidelines that covers all of the basis for armed guards on boats, is great. Anything that helps to alleviate the legal issues on these vessels and during transits, just so we can continue to get more guards on these vessels. Although I would highly suggest to BIMCO to not be biased towards purely using British security companies.
The reason why I say that is because of this quote:
Noakes estimates that between 6,000 and 7,000 personnel would be needed to deploy four-man armed teams on around 50% of vessels transiting the Indian Ocean or Gulf of Aden. But that number of professional operatives does not exist.
I disagree with Noakes on this matter. There are plenty of operatives to use, but that would require opening up the market to bring in US and/or other Nationalities. But for US companies specifically, the infrastructure, manpower, management, and most of all, experience in high threat operations is there. US companies have also been operating in two wars, and multiple other countries in this war for the last 10 years. Hell, just look at the last USCENTCOM report if you want an idea on the numbers of contractors, and our flexibility.
It is a ridiculous assumption to say that the industry cannot handle filling in these guard positions. Especially with today’s global mess of an economy, and especially with this massive pool of unemployed combat veterans. But yet again, in order to tap into this pool of resources, that would require being more inclusive towards this market of force.
Not everyone can be Royal Marines or SAS/SBS. Nor can everyone you hire be a Navy SEAL or CAG. But you can find plenty of veterans with tons of combat experience in these wars, that can certainly handle a weapon and pull guard duty on a boat. You can also find plenty of companies out there that can certainly answer the call and fill a contract.
On the other hand, you get what you pay for. If you want to attract the organized and experienced PSC’s and PMC’s that I am talking about, then you are going to have to pay a reasonable price to get them. If you want to go cheap, then of course you are going to have problems. But that can be alleviated as well, by just passing on the costs to your customers. You just have to look at your security as something that is as important and as vital as a mechanic or ship’s captain. Plus, 100 percent success rate for armed guards repelling pirate attacks is a hard statistic to argue against. If it works, then ramp it up and get armed guards on boats. -Matt
Guards Must Be Regulated, Says Bimco
November 4th, 2011
Bimco plans to introduce an armed-guard contract as fears grow that scores of second-rate companies are jumping on the piracy bandwagon.
The move comes as UK prime minister David Cameron confirmed that the UK is reversing its position and in future armed guards will be permitted on ships flying the Red Ensign.
Giles Noakes, Bimco’s chief maritime-security officer, says the new contract is to protect the interests of shipowners using privately contracted armed security personnel.
“We have been forced into a position where large numbers of owners and operators are using armed guards,” said Noakes.
“Unfortunately, growth is exponential and there are a large number of cowboys out there jumping on the bandwagon.”
The new contract will be aimed at ensuring that armed-guard companies follow the guidelines to owners in the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) MSC Circular 1405.
The circular is designed to provide “hoops” that security companies must jump through to prove they are capable of doing the job.
