Feral Jundi

Friday, November 11, 2011

Maritime Security: US Government Goes Public With Support For Armed Guards On Boats

Wow, big news here. Thanks to Somalia Report for breaking this story first, and a hat tip to David Isenberg for finding and posting DoS’s new official position on armed guards on boats.

The thing here is that Secretary of State Clinton has had to make a pretty significant public reversal on her ‘views’ on PSC’s. As a Senator and presidential candidate, she was pretty much opposed to PSC’s and even introduced legislation against the usage of them in the war. Of course that all happened during the aftermath of the Nisour Square deal, and we have come along way since then…. Here is a quote from Somalia Report:

It is a stunning reversal of opinion for Clinton, a well known opponent of the use of private security companies and a political appointee who has openly discussed taking steps to eliminate them. As a presidential candidate running against President Obama she sponsored legislation entitled H.R.4102 “Stop Outsourcing Security Act”. The suggested legislation was created in November of 2007 proposed banning the use of security contractors.

Although it should be noted that the DoS has been steadily using WPS contractors during her entire time as Secretary of State, and I am sure she has experienced the security services of quite a few WPS folks in places like Afghanistan. Security contractors really shined during the attack on the embassy in Kabul, and I am sure that has only enforced how important their contracted guard force really is. Not to mention that their security contractors will be incredibly important to the mission in Iraq as troops leave in mid-December.

So I want to applaud her and the DoS for promoting armed guards on boats. It makes sense, it works, and it is the right thing to do. I also hope that this will open the market a little for US security companies.  If anything, we should see more American guards protecting US flagged vessels. Plus, that would also help chip away at veteran unemployment to some degree. Every little bit helps.

But there is another issue though that the US government needs to address, and that is the cost that US flagged vessels must contend with.  The other day I came across a very interesting document at Marsec4 that talked about how much US flagged vessels pay to operate, versus the global market.

Operating a deep draft ocean going vessel under a US flag costs on average $20,000 per day, a much higher amount than the $7,000 daily average for vessels flying foreign flags.

With that said, if the DoS really wants to help, then reduce or eliminate the frivolous or costly rules and regulations that make it so expensive for US flagged vessels to operate. Get our fleet economically competitive, so at least American shipping can afford armed security and capture some of that global market share out there. –Matt

 

Remarks to the Defense Trade Advisory Group
Andrew J. Shapiro
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Washington, DC
November 9, 2011
……Finally, I want to provide a brief update on our efforts to counter piracy off the Horn of Africa. This is another area where we are working very closely with industry. Commercial shipping vessels transiting off the coast of Somalia are frequent targets for pirates. The lives of innocent seafarers have been lost and crews are often held hostage for many months in appalling conditions. The monetary total of ransoms demanded runs into hundreds of millions of dollars a year, with the total cost of piracy to the global economy estimated to be in the billions.
With so much water to patrol it is difficult for international naval forces in the region to protect every commercial vessel. Working with industry, we recently established a national policy encouraging countries to allow commercial ships transiting high-risk waters to have armed security teams on board. The reason for this is simple: to date no ship with an armed security team aboard has been successfully pirated. We believe that the expanded use of armed security teams by commercial vessels is a major reason why we have seen a decline in the number of successful pirate attacks this year. Therefore, we have recently demarched countries to permit the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on commercial vessels. And we are also working with industry and transit countries to make it less onerous for privately contracted security personnel to transit foreign ports with weapons intended for the self-defense of ships.

(more…)

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Maritime Security: JLT In The News–Private Navy To Start Within Five Months

The project, first discussed more than a year ago, experienced some delays in getting a state jurisdiction to register its vessels. Cyprus agreed to add the ships last month, following a U.S. State Department veto for registration in the Marshall Islands, Campbell said.

This is really the only quote I was interested in with this article. Of course JLT and these security contractors have been promising this private navy concept for awhile now, and it all revolves around getting backing from a country and from investors.

What I am interested in though, is Cyprus allowing these vessels to be state registered? That seems pretty close to issuing a Letter of Marque if you ask me? Especially if Cyprus registers these vessels, knowing full well that they will be purposely used for anti-piracy operations and escort duty. That they are endorsing a ‘private navy’.  Even if they have not issued a LoM, they might as well do so anyways, because in effect, Cyprus is blessing a privateer force. (mind you, historically speaking, LoM’s have been issued to early privateers to do exactly what these guys will be doing–escorting commerce through pirate infested waters)

The other thing to bring up here is that there just isn’t enough naval assets out there to cover all of the transits.  The reason for this is the poor economy and a reduction in naval forces and their missions. Especially missions protecting commerce in such a vast operational area. So enter private industry to fill in the void…..  But it is all still all talk, and when this private navy actually gets some investors, and we see video of them doing their thing, then I will truly be impressed. –Matt

 

Somalia Piracy Spurs Private Navy to Start Within Five Months
November 07, 2011
By Michelle Wiese Bockmann
The company behind the world’s first private navy to protect merchant ships against Somali pirates plans to start armed escorts through the Gulf of Aden within five months after attacks rose to a record this year.
Convoy Escort Programme Ltd., backed by the marine insurance industry, will initially deploy seven former naval patrol boats, each with armed security teams of eight people on board, Angus Campbell, chief executive officer, said by phone from Swarland, England today. The bullet-proofed boats will charge about $30,000 per ship traveling in a convoy of around four vessels over three to four days, he said.
“We are going to be a deterrent,” Campbell said. “We are not in the business of looking for trouble but if anybody tries to attack a vessel we are escorting, our security teams will deploy force if they have to act in self defence.”
Attacks reached a record this year and cost the global economy an estimated $7 billion to $12 billion annually, according to the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization. About 23,000 vessels carrying $1 trillion of trade pass through the Gulf of Aden every year, the U.K. government estimates.

(more…)

Friday, November 4, 2011

Maritime Security: Guards Must Be Regulated, Says BIMCO

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , — Matt @ 10:29 AM

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.

(more…)

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Maritime Security: Britain To Allow Armed Guards To Combat Sea Piracy

Outstanding news. Glad to see Britain taking the necessary steps to legalize armed guards on boats. It just makes sense, and seeing how most of the maritime security companies working right now are British, this will be an added boost.

Now the question I have is how will these new laws mix with Britain’s position on privateers or the Letter of Marque? They are a signatory to the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law. No telling what other treaties they have signed, and how these sanctioned armed guards fit into that bigger picture?

I would also be interested to see the firearms regulations on what the companies can actually use for protection duties. Remember, today’s pirates are using weapons of war, not firearms used for hunting. You must give these guards weapons that will give them advantage, or at least match the pirate’s fire power. Anything else is just unacceptable in my view. –Matt

 

Britain to allow armed guards to combat sea piracy
By DAVID STRINGER
October 30, 2011
Ships sailing under Britain’s flag will be permitted to carry armed guards on some perilous routes to combat the threat from pirates, the prime minister said Sunday.
David Cameron said Britain was reversing its opposition to the use of weapons aboard ships, amid mounting concern about the risks of vessels and crew being seized by pirates — particularly off Somalia’s coast.
Cameron’s office said the use of weapons on British-flagged ships is banned under firearms laws, but that new rules would be in place within a month.
Britain’s announcement follows the decision in February of the International Chamber of Shipping, the major trade association of ship owners, to support members hiring private security companies to provide protection.
“The evidence is that ships with armed guards don’t get attacked, don’t get taken for hostage or for ransom, and so we think this is a very important step forward,” Cameron told BBC television during a visit to a Commonwealth summit in Australia, where he discussed the issue with leaders from the Seychelles and Mauritius.

(more…)

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Maritime Security: Maersk Discusses Anti-piracy Issues In Interview

Filed under: Maritime Security — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 5:56 PM

This is a nice little interview with one of Maersk’s operations folks and it gives you a good idea as to their thought process and concerns. I really liked it when he mentioned that armed security has a 100 percent success ratio. Hard to argue with those kinds of statistics.

Reuters also posted some good graphics that showed a increase in ransom amounts over the years, but a decrease in the amount of hostages taken in the last year. So the more painful the ransom amounts, the more focus the shipping industry has had in not putting their crews into a position of being taken. Also, if the crews know that the company does not care about their well being, then that could lead to labor disputes. Meaning, striking crews can impact a shipping company’s pocket book.

So bottom line, armed guards on boats protect assets, diminish the possibility of paying more ransoms, protects goods so they make it to port on time and in one piece, and gives the crews the security they deserve during transits. –Matt

 

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress