This is a stunner from the folks that brought you The UN Working Group on the use of Mercenaries. What’s next, the UN issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to companies? lol You know, I am starting to see a pattern of hypocrisy here. They bash private industry with this working group, but then turn around and declare that private armed guards on boats is a good and necessary thing. Or they bash the use of armed guards in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Africa, when at the same time they contract with private armed guards to protect them.
And it was private armed guards that laid down their lives for UN workers in Afghanistan. Oh, and don’t forget that one of the Working Group’s members was a Libyan, which if anyone has been paying attention, Ghaddafi has certainly made good use of contract soldiers in his war. (might I add that the west is using contract soldiers in Libya as well, like with Secopex for example)
So hey, this is a great move by the UN to actually support the shipping industry’s right to use armed guards. It is the right thing to do, and it supports the idea that a shipping company has the right to defend their vessels and crew. It also signifies how desperate things really are. In the second article posted below, this is the quote that blew me away. Basically, the navies of the world have not been able to stop this scourge, and in fact, it has gotten worse!
The number of acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships reported to the Organization and which occurred in 2010 was 489, against 406 during the previous year, an increase of 20.4% from the figure for 2009. The areas most affected (i.e. five incidents reported or more) in 2010 were East Africa and the Indian Ocean followed by the Far East and, in particular, the South China Sea, West Africa, South America and the Caribbean. During the year, it was reported that two crew members were killed and 30 crew members were reportedly injured/assaulted, while 1,027 crew members were reportedly taken hostage or kidnapped. Fifty-seven vessels were reportedly hijacked, with one vessel reportedly still unaccounted for.
In the first four months of 2011, 214 incidents were reported to the Organization.
I now feel somewhat justified in the promotion of armed guards on boats, and I really think that we are seeing the tipping point of thought when it comes to maritime security. From all of my sources and research, I believe that the maritime security industry will be a thriving market. At this time, 1 in 10 boats have security on them off the coast of Somalia. I believe we will see that number change significantly, and hopefully trade groups like Security Association for the Maritime Industry (SAMI), can keep track of this and report it correctly. (Which by the way, this is a crew to follow if you want another source for maritime security information and industry news–so definitely put them on your RSS reader.)
With that said, I wanted to cover a new angle on this scourge. At this time, guards on boats will not make the problem go away. If anything, what is being created here is a ‘Defense Industry’ and not an ‘Offense Industry’. In the past, I have talked about these two types of industries and the results of each. Defense Industries profits from the continuation of conflict, and there is no incentive to destroy the enemy. Armed guards on boats is a defense industry.
The definition of an Offense Industry is one in which industry profits from the destruction of enemy combatants. It is an industry that works itself out of a job, because there are only so many enemy combatants out there for that industry to destroy. At this time, we do not have anything that resembles this kind of an industry, and nor will you see any company that provides security services promoting such a thing. Offense Industry is definitely not a long term deal if done properly, and that is why serious companies will never promote such a thing. Why would they? Providing defense services can continue indefinitely and be extremely profitable, just as long as government sponsored forces do a poor job of eradicating pirates on water or on land.
The other thing to point out is that how does the UN get away with promoting policies that certainly conflict with the Hague? Armed guards on boats, armed with weaponry that can not only kill pirates but sink and/or disable boats, could easily classify a vessel as a warship. And yet that vessel is a merchant ship. You can see where I am going with this, and I have talked about this moral hazard and legal hurdle in the past. So does the UN trump the Hague, or do we continue to follow a treaty that is outdated and certainly does not help things when it comes to armed guards on boats.(or bringing back the LoM as a tool of Offense Industry)
I also think that the idea of creating a hybrid Defense/Offense Industry might be in order here. If guards are licensed to protect vessels and are authorized to shoot pirates, then that brings up all types of ‘what if’ scenarios. What if the pirate or pirates surrender to the vessel after being fired upon, or their boat sinks after being fired upon and they plea to be rescued? Do the armed guards of a vessel have ‘interest’ in detaining those pirates? Do they have the legal authority to do so, do they have the funds and proper detention facilities to hold captives, do they have the necessary protocols to help in the future prosecution of pirates, and most of all, do they have the financial incentive to put forth the risk and effort to capture and detain pirates. Because as it stands now, there isn’t anything out there that provides guidelines or the legality for such a thing. There isn’t even funds to help subsidize the act of detaining pirates.
What I am really getting at here, is that with each engagement with pirates that these armed guards are having, there is an opportunity for a capture or killing of a pirate. It is odd to me that everyone that promotes the use of armed guards (whom have the potential to kill) has yet to really grapple with the capture of pirates by these armed guards. There is an opportunity here to create an offense industry, and I believe there is enough modern legal tools and technologies to support that kind of mechanism. The US alone has the concept of Letter of Marque and Reprisal built within it’s constitution, and the congress also could stipulate the rules for capture.
And there is precedence of the US paying bounties for captures by privateers. Back during the War of 1812, we had plenty of privateers seizing British prizes, but there was no incentive for privateers to take prisoners. Although the British Navy certainly took American privateers as prisoners, and their prisons were filled with these captives. So our congress back then authorized the payment of 100 dollars per prisoner captured by American privateers. What cost $100 in 1812 would cost $1265.89 in 2010, according to an inflation calculator. Of course I would probably increase that bounty to truly make it profitable for shipping companies and the security forces they hire. I would also provide some stipulation that if a pirate was imprisoned, and they actually had some assets that could be seized by the courts, that the licensed company that made the effort to capture and detain that prisoner should get a cut.
Just some ideas for the readership, and I am sure there are folks out there reading this right now just wanting to rip these ideas apart. I would imagine those who continue to rely on government to solve all the conflicts and problems of the world would be one class of individual that would despise Offense Industry. I am sure there are those in the military or navy that would brush off such ideas. But for those of you looking for another way, I think this is an idea worth thinking about.
What I want to leave the readership with is the idea that Offense Industries could be a way to Expulsis Piratus/Restituta Commerica.( Woodes Roger’s latin slogan for “Piracy Expelled/Commerce Restored”) There are a number of ways to create incentive for the destruction of an enemy, and I am only scratching the surface here. It takes some serious ‘Building Snowmobiles’ action to really create an effective Offense Industry, and I believe all the parts necessary to assemble such a machine is out there right now. It is just a matter of morally, mentally, and physically putting together all of those parts and making such a machine. –Matt
Piracy: IMO guidelines on armed guards on ships
21 May 2011
The UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) is issuing guidelines on the use of private armed guards to protect ships from piracy.
This comes after a meeting in London which discussed the use of guards on board ships in areas of high risk, including in the Indian Ocean.
About one in 10 ships off the Somali coast already carry armed guards.
But observers say this number is now likely to rise.
The IMO says there were 489 reports of piracy and armed robbery against ships in 2010 – up more then 20% on 2009.
The areas worst affected were the Indian Ocean, East Africa and the Far East including the South China Sea, South America and the Caribbean.
So far this year more than 200 cases have been reported.
Correspondents say piracy in the Indian Ocean is getting more lucrative and more violent, despite an anti-piracy EU naval force patrolling the area.
Torture
The IMO’s new recommendations are backed by the independent trade body for security companies operating at sea, the Security Association for the Maritime Industry (SAMI), launched last year.
Peter Cook, co-founder of Sami, told the BBC: “The pirates have been killing – they have been torturing and doing fake executions and the level of violence is increasing.
“It is clear that something has got to be done in order for free trade to be able to continue and it is for that reason that the IMO have decided to go down this very unusual route.”
The IMO insists that the guidelines are not intended to institutionalise the use of armed, privately contracted security staff on ships and that they do not address all the legal issues that could be linked to their use.
