'The need for armed guards proves governments have failed to tackle piracy'

28 February 2012

The increased success of armed guards reflects poorly on the international governments which should be protecting shipping off the coast of Somalia, Justin Stares writes

Rather than protecting international trade, European governments have simply outsourced security to the private sector. How can we explain the sharp drop in pirate hijackings off the coast of Somalia? The latest figures from EU Navfor, the European Union's pirate hunters, claim the number of vessels held by pirates in Somalia has dropped to just seven. The estimated number of hostages, according to figures released on February 21, is down to 191. This compares with 33 ships and 733 hostages - mostly Asian seafarers - held in the same month last year.

These statistics are not universally accepted. Non-governmental organisation Ecoterra – the Global Society for Ecology and sound Economy - says Navfor deliberately underreports hijackings by counting only "high-value, often British-insured vessels". But even Ecoterra's count is on the way down: from "at least" 35 larger vessels and 18 smaller vessels in July 2011, to 26 large and 18 small ships in January of this year. Both EU Navfor and the London-based International Maritime Organization say the decline is proof of the success of their hard work. The piracy scourge is being "contained", an EU Navfor commander told a European Parliament seminar last year. The IMO hailed "relatively good progress" in a recent missive. European Commission president Jose Barroso said last month that EU Navfor "had proven successful".

But attacks by pirates on merchant shipping have by no means disappeared. Indeed, they were running at historically high levels in January. What has changed is the pirates' success rate: it has fallen from 20 percent at the beginning of 2011 to a low single-digit figure. Why is this? The combined maritime forces of EU Navfor, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United States no doubt make a difference. But the real reason is more disturbing: vessels transiting the pirate-infested waters of the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean now routinely carry mercenaries. Commonly referred to by the politically correct term "armed guards", these mercenaries come at a cost of around $1,000 a day each. While they have on occasion been accused of shooting innocent fishermen, mercenaries have until now successfully scared off all pirates. Armed guards work.

Despite this, the maritime industry is understandably furious. By allocating insufficient resources to patrolling the high seas, the international community has outsourced the problem to the private sector. "We have now reached the point where we need to arm the ships; the international community has failed," said chief executive of Clipper Ferries Per Gullestrup, a Danish ship owner. "We are deeply frustrated and angry," Gullestrup told an industry publication. "It is totally unfair that we must arm our ships and expose our seafarers to a group of criminal elements in order to conduct international trade and transport. It's madness."

Is there any alternative? Some governments, such as the Netherlands, still believe the use of force should remain exclusively in the hands of the state. It is illegal to place mercenaries on ships flying the Dutch flag. Instead, the government offers ship owners vessel protection teams of military men. The cost? Some €400,000 per voyage, half of which must be borne by the ship owner. Given that this is ten times the cost of the private sector solution, Dutch ship owners have decided to simply break the law and hire mercenaries. While the Dutch government is for the moment refusing to budge, the majority of European governments have reluctantly agreed to legalise armed guards.

The result is a burgeoning industry made up of both professionals and trigger-happy cowboys. It is totally unregulated. The liabilities of those involved in a fire fight, and indeed the master of the vessel, are unclear. By outsourcing the use of force, the international community has set a dangerous precedent. Can governments no longer afford to police international trade? Where will mercenaries next take over from the forces of law and order? We can only hope it is not a trend with unstoppable momentum.

This article first appeared on sister site PublicServiceEurope.com.

HAVE YOUR SAY

28 February 2012

I think you need to do a bit of research and find out the definition of a Mercenary. It is absolutely offensive to all of us protecting vessels to be called this when you obviously do not know what the term means
Michael Murrell - ISSG Holdings, Ltd

28 February 2012

Those involved in the provision of armed guards to merchant vessels transiting through piracy-risk waters have spoken in the past of a need to regulate the industry. While many of them are disciplined fmr military personnel, there will of course be some just out to shoot at things. Usually a bad apple in every bunch etc...

(Interesting that the most recent instance of armed guards shooting innocent fishermen was actually committed by Italian service personnel posted on an Italian flagged vessel.)

I suspect that the most tricky part of the argument will come when the pirates, as they appear to be starting to do more and more, decide to fire back and go for a make or break hijacking.

In that scenario, how much leeway would you give armed guards to do the necessary? Is the owner of the merchant vessel willing to risk a bunch of dead sailor, and a badly damaged ship it has to pay ransom for?

Also, the issue of armed men entering ports, and the storage of weapons in host countries, is also another interesting point.

Finally, you talk about the armed guards being stationed on merchant vessels, well there are actually small patrol craft being operated by private firms already providing convoy-esque cover for groups of vessels. Rather than just men, these are private mini-navies at work...
Anon - Abroad

28 February 2012

Michael Murrell -ISSG Holdings

I understand your ire, but the OED defines a mercenary as 'one who works purely for money - usually a hired soldier'. Guess that could apply to 90% of employed folks (myself included) as I don't work for the love of it!

However, I believe your reaction is being included with the unprofessional (Cowboy) element as I am reasonably certain your company has a code of practice that all it's contractors are required to follow. They also positively vet all prospective contractors to ensure rogue elements or unstable/unsuitable characters are identified and not employed. This is the aspect of regulation that has yet to be formally agreed, but needs to be universally adopted if the industry is to gain proper acceptance and accreditation.

The use of private armed guards on any ship is highly emotive and in an ideal world, should not be required. The sad fact is that they are needed, have an important role to play and should be protected by International Law provided they are part of an officially accredited company.

It is also worthwhile noting that International Maritime Law mandates the master of a vessel to take "all reasonable measures necessary to protect his vessel and ensure the safety of the crew and cargo". Don't read anything in those words that exclude weapons/armed guards.

Like in most illegal activities, as long as the potential cost is worse than the potential prize, the majority of pirates will give ships with armed escorts a wide berth.
AW Employee - Yeovil

28 February 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

My cousin is about to leave the Marines and is seriously thinking about doing it, the money on offer is good, better than he will get in Civvy street, I had to take an £18,000 a year pay cut when I got out last year (though my pension does top it up a bit). The forces resettlement process is rubbish, a grant of £575 after 24 years service, no wonder ex-servicemen take these kind of jobs,how did you find it when you came out of the Navy?
Rob - Telford

28 February 2012

Britain is a liberal democracy with rule of law. We cannot blast anything for the hell of it, but we should see what legal means we have to toughen up the rules of engagement when the RN comes across pirates. At the least, we should change the law so asylum applies only to the innocent. It should not apply to war criminals,pirates, terrorists, murderers, rapists or drug dealers.
Armed guards are going to be needed when the RN has been cut from 50 to 19 escorts & the RAF lacks an ocean patrol aircraft.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

29 February 2012

Rob - Telford

In a nutshell - crap! Had to take a pay cut of 33% (and I didn't have a pension to supplement it). Took over 5 years and 3 job changes to get back to parity. It wasn't until 7 years ago that I seriously exceeded the then current rate. Plenty of my peers who left with me in '89/90 went the Saudi/Abu Dhabi/Bahrain route in order to keep earnings up. The good thing with civvy st is the ability to leave the job behind once you walk out of the factory gate and if company wants you to work overseas, weekends or holidays, then it costs them extra!

Very surprised that your Terminal Grant was only £575 - maybe due to you having your pension. Mine was over £4k after 13 years service, which I get again when I'm 60 and can draw my 12/37s pension. Woo hoo!

I happen to think that putting private security on vessels is a cop-out for successive UK Govts slashing the capability of the Armed Forces. However, recognising that nothing is going to be done soon to rectify that situation, it is probably the only practical solution. My fear is when the lead starts flying and people (pirates) are killed or injured, will these armed guards be held accountable? In my opinion they shouldn't as nations have abrogated their responsibility for vessel, crew and cargo safety to the owners by not providing sufficient security in the area (if it was adequate, we wouldn't have pirates!). Time will tell.

As for your cousin, provided he joins a reputable company (G4S, Armacor etc), he will likely enjoy it as he will be with familiar people doing a familiar job - just wearing a different uniform and not required to salute! My eldest daughter's boyfriend is a marine reserve and his dad was a regular. He now works for a private security firm operating in Iraq and Afghan and he loves it (he's rarely home)!
AW Employee - Yeovil

29 February 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

Sorry I wasn't clear, my Terminal Grant was much higher, I'm not grumbling about that at all, it was the resettlement grant (£575), money available to use for training courses which is laughable, you can (for certain coures use Enhanced Learning Credits) but after completing 24 years the money available for gaining civilian qualifications is just a joke. The point I was trying to make is you can't blame certain forces trade groups for taking the "easy" option by becoming Private Security in Iraq / Afghanistan or on merchant ships, the money is good, you are working with like minded people, without trying to explain to a new Civvy employer how your military skills and qualifications are transferable to civvy street.
Rob - Telford