Feral Jundi

Monday, May 23, 2011

Maritime Security: The UN Endorses Armed Guards On Ships

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.

(more…)

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Legal News: Britain To Give Legal Backing To Armed Guards On Vessels

This is interesting, and this will certainly be a legal nightmare to produce. The reason why is the UK is a signatory of the Paris Declaration and the Second Hague Conference in 1907. Not to mention their local laws that deal with citizens owning and using weapons.

Although there is precedence for Britain to ignore these treaties. During WW 1, they implemented a strategy against German U-boats called ‘Q Ships’.  Or basically they armed merchant vessels to attack the enemy at sea. What made this strategy interesting is that they actually wanted the vessel to look like a defenseless merchant vessel so German U-Boats would attack them. The point is, is this was a violation of these treaties, and that is precedence. (someone please correct me here if I am wrong, but Global Security identified this point as well)

Now is this a revival of a modern day version of Letter of Marque and Reprisal?  It could be, but they probably will not call it that. But it is a license to arm a merchant vessel, and that is significant. The article below also identified Denmark as seeking a similar path of creating an arming license.

It’s kind of like how the US licenses private companies to be armed or provide defense related services abroad via the ITAR and DSP 73. I guess the point is that states will work around the law and treaties, if it is within their best interest to do so. But as the Export Law blog has identified, there are many ‘technical’ obstacles to arming vessels.

My thoughts on the matter is that they might as well revive the Letter of Marque and Reprisal, just because the laws created continue to morph into exactly what the LoM is all about.  It will also give vessels more legal authority to sail and not get screwed with by other countries for being armed. The incident between India and the Danish flagged Danica Sunrise highlights the complexities of being armed on the open ocean, and these vessels need internationally recognized authority to be armed.

A LoM is essentially a license that ‘puts the flag of a country’ on that vessel to do what it is doing. A LoM is also signed by the highest authority of that country and there is law (admiralty law, prize courts) and history (hundreds of years of it’s usage) to support the concept. All other licenses pale in comparison.

The other interesting thought that came to mind is if a vessel had armed guards, could that vessel defend itself against a state sponsored act of piracy or outright attack?  Let’s say China or Iran wanted to detain an armed merchant vessel, seize the loot on the boat and imprison or even kill all the crew.  If the threat was imminent, would a vessel and it’s armed crew have the right to defend itself against such a naval assault?

Who knows, but as it stands now, a merchant vessel being attacked by a country could be viewed as a company versus a state, and less like an act of war. If that company has arming authority through a license, then how does that work in such an example presented? It is an interesting question, but as we allow shipping to be armed, these kinds of scenarios will present themselves. In this case, if ships are to be armed, then these possible scenarios should be covered by laws and licenses, and international treaties should be made or modified.  Hence why I go back to the LoM, because it has such historical precedence throughout the world.

The other point that needs to be addressed is the rules for capture or enemy prisoners. Because what if the guards on a vessel fire upon a skiff with pirates, and their boat starts sinking?  Or the pirates just give up and surrender to the vessel for some reason. Or a wounded pirate is the last survivor on a boat, and asks to be given care?  What about prisoners?  There should be a mechanism in place that allows for the detention of pirates, and the legal processes an armed merchant vessel must follow for that detention.  Perhaps video cameras on ships would be a good thing to have, just to legally protect the ship in a court of law when these pirates are detained and charged. The way I envision this is that video tape, witnesses, and GPS coordinates for where the incident took place, would be some excellent tools for a vessel to have in order to help protect themselves legally and to help in the prosecution of pirates. Without provisions like this, then in essence the whole ‘catch and release’ game continues.

And like with the early privateers, unless they have an incentive to detain prisoners, they will not be that enthused to take them. Do we want armed guards of a vessel to be in a position to ‘turn away’ pirates that are surrendering to them, just because it is not profitable or legal to do so? Or the ships insurance or budget does not provide for the care or detention of prisoners. For those of you who are students of ‘offense industry‘ you will recognize quickly what I am getting at here. At present, there is no offense industry in place to capture prisoners and reduce the number of pirates that continue to ravage the shipping industry. There is only ‘defense industry’, which only profits from the continuation of piracy. Reducing the number of pirates through culling or capture is not a main focus of defense industries.

Also, to be technical, the terms of the treaties signed have more significance between all the parties that ratified the thing. The main threat to shipping is pretty much from Somali pirates, so the LoM’s to be issued would be against folks who come from a failed state. (Somalia is not a signatory of these treaties either.) But of course I am simplifying this, and any legal eagle out there could probably find some portion of the treaties or international law that would still prevent the LoM being used against pirates. If any lawyers or readers have any legal input on where this will go, or what this will potentially look like if they create an arming license, let us know in the comments. –Matt

Edit: On a side note, JLT has been itching to fire up their private navy, and legal authority is what they have been seeking.

Britain To Give Legal Backing To Armed Guards On Vessels
May 16, 2011
Britain is preparing to give firm legal backing to the deployment of armed guards on UK-flag ships.
Legislation is being drawn up that will formally accept the use of private security personnel on ships sailing through waters where pirates are active.
Although many ships are known to have armed protection, including a considerable number operated by UK-based companies, the legal position remains uncertain. Both the shipowners who employ armed personnel and the guards themselves could, technically, be in breach of the law.
The UK is now poised to remedy that situation, changing the law where necessary to ensure shipowners whose vessels have firearms on board are not at risk of prosecution. The British government is thought to be one of the first to promise statutory changes. Denmark has taken similar action
“We have to accept [piracy] is happening, but if a UK-registered ship has armed security on board, I must make sure the legislation is fit for purpose,” UK shipping minister Mike Penning told Lloyd’s List.

(more…)

Monday, April 18, 2011

Maritime Security: Somali Pirates Keep Indian Hostages After Paid Ransom

Thanks to Matt for sending me this story.  You know, acts like this and the killings of four Americans only reinforce the idea that these pirates are ‘not rational’. Meaning, pirates have no code of conduct or laws governing how they operate. All they care about is protecting their business and making money.  So to them, keeping Indian hostages is a message to the Indian government and people to not threaten that business model with anti-piracy operations or having armed security on boats.

This also changes the game now.  For those companies thinking that ransoms are a surefire way of getting their people back, think again.  Pirates are irrational business partners, and as they continue to get pressure from anti-piracy forces, they will continue to get more irrational.  The point being, spend the money on security, and do not give a larger sum of money to a pirate industry. Fuel the Defense Industry, while starving the pirate’s Offense Industry. –Matt

Somali Pirates Keep Indian Hostages After Paid Ransom
April 15, 2011
A Somali pirate says pirates are holding on to Indian hostages even after a ransom was paid in retaliation for recent arrests by the Indian Navy.
The pirate, Hassan Farah, said the pirates in the stronghold of Haradhere have taken that collective decision.
A ransom was dropped Friday for the release of the ship Asphalt Venture and its crew. The non-Indian crew members were released. (more…)

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Maritime Security: Advanfort And ESCGS Providing Jobs For Estonians And Others

I love pointing out the agendas of reporters when they put together these articles.  If you notice the article below, their intent was to scare the audience into thinking that the evil PNC’s are poaching all of the navy folks.  Although they make no mention as to how many seamen the Estonian Navy has, and how a few of them leaving to go to work for these companies constitutes an ‘en masse’ crisis? lol It sounds scary though….

And even so, all I have to say to the Estonian Navy and leadership is that you should pay better than the companies, or treat your navy better, and then maybe they might stick around?  Just a thought. Or you can implement a draft and force these men to serve against their will?

Now for the sake of these Estonians seeking work with the companies, I certainly hope their government doesn’t play some kind of game with their careers.  These men will be making good money, and spending it in their country.  What we are talking about is jobs, and the rights of men to increase the quality of the lives by earning a decent salary.  And with a global economy highly dependent on shipping, these men are providing a service to the world by putting their lives on the line to protect that shipping. If shipping is attacked, the supply chain is impacted by the loss of those goods, and everyone, to include Estonians, suffer because of increased costs. So with that said, protecting shipping is within the best interest of a nation like this, as well as the world.

Of course their navy needs to be strong as well. But if you are not doing the things necessary to attract and hang on to good people, you will lose them. People, ideas, and hardware, and a nation must focus on the people part if they want to hang on to them.

I also posted a quick blurb about the companies mentioned in this article. Advanfort has been doing well. They have four hundred employees and “announced that for the month of March 2011, the company completed a record 108 security missions, covering 127,000 nautical miles—a 35% increase in monthly escort missions compared to February, and a new milestone for the Company.”  That indicates a dramatic increase in the maritime security market, and it goes along with the other increase of business that I have wrote about in the past.  A media group like the Economist, could definitely put together an article that shows this dramatic increase in business. Hell, I would put it on the cover, because this is news! -Matt

Navy Officers Quit En Masse to Join Private Companies
April 12, 2011
Enticed by the action and higher salaries offered by private security contractors, dozens of professional Navy officers are quitting the national force, leaving at least one ship unmanned.
“One of the main reasons that people leave is money,” said a Navy officer, who wished to remain anonymous, to ETV. “Maybe also the monotony of it. For example, people from the Scouts Batallion, who go on missions, come back and again begin learning how to pull a weapon apart and put it back together – that’s not suitable for them.”
The officer spent six years in the Defense Forces and was sent on two missions. Last month, he began looking for a job in the private industry, reported ETV. (more…)

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Maritime Security: The Maersk Alabama Drawing Pirates Like Flies, And Armed Security Saves The Day

     Actually, this story is factually incorrect. (check out the comments at gCaptain’s post) Boy, The Maersk Alabama has been attacked and/or approached by pirates multiple times since the first attack that put it on the news.  I don’t know if the pirates are all gunning for the ship to get some pay back or there are just more pirates now? I do know that armed security along with good strategy is doing an excellent job of defeating these thugs.

    From what I can gather, Nexus Consulting is the security company that the Maersk Alabama uses for protective services. Although I could be wrong here, because the Maersk line uses all sorts of different security companies. –Matt

Pirates Fail in Third Attempt to Seize Maersk Alabama

Peter T. Leach

Mar 9, 2011

Security team fires warning shots, discouraging suspicious skiff

Suspected Somali pirates tried to seize the Maersk Alabama again on Tuesday in the third attempt to hijack it in three years.

Four people suspected of being pirates approached the ship in a skiff in which a hook ladder could be seen. When the skiff came within half a nautical mile, the ship’s captain authorized the firing of warning shots.

“Maersk Alabama was approached by a suspicious skiff with four people and a ladder onboard,” said Kevin Speers a spokesman for Maersk Line Limited, the U.S.-flag subsidiary of Denmark’s Maersk Line.

“The captain followed the appropriate protocol and authorized an embarked security team to fire warning shots in order for the pirates to turn away. Shortly after, the small boat departed the area astern of the vessel,” Speers said in a statement.

Tuesday’s attempted hijacking was the third time pirates have tried to seize the U.S.-flag container ship. The first two attempts occurred in 2009.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress