If they want to steal, pillage and plunder – we should let them! Right? Well that seems to be the attitude that shipping companies and governments around the world are taking.
Only until it comes to a situation where a hostage is being held in an enclosed capsule did the US Navy decide to do something. Now, let it be known that the 3 shots fired that took out these modern-day swashbucklers will go down in history as 3 of the most accurately placed bullets ever to be fired from a weapon. But, should we really take it to this point of uncertainty and risk before some sort of lethal action is taken? We think not.
All of us know of Blackwater (now called Xe) and similar private security contractors. Certainly, such forces have been shrouded in controversy ever since their heavy involvement in the Iraq conflict, but THIS is the exact sort of situation that they were designed for. Private security contractors were misused in our wars in the Middle East because they were employed as a method of subverting Geneva Convention rules and general laws of war. As a “private security force,” however, they would prove to be entirely useful on the open seas. As a security force contracted to guard a shipping vessel, private contractors would have no opportunity to engage in hostile action without the threat of a pirate attack. Yet such hostile (and lethal) force is exactly what these shipping companies need. In fact, the costs of such forces (which are often cited by shipping companies) would likely be negated not only by the number of deterred attacks that they would result in, but significant drops in insurance costs. Surely the knowledge that one of its ships is occupied by an armed security detail would make an insurance company less weary about contracting a commercial vessel.
Currently, ships employ the use of “evasive maneuvers, water canons and barbed wire” to repel pirate attacks. We can assure you, though, that a water canon – although fun on a hot day – will not come close to standing up against a .39mm AK-47 automatic rifle. This is why merchant ships operating in hostile waters must. be. armed.
Period.
Here is a map of every piracy and armed robbery incident reported to the IMB Piracy Reporting Center in the year of 2008. If you take the time to view each one of these reports (which you can), you will notice that a common theme arises: nearly every vessel that was successfully boarded had absolutely no means of defending itself.
Yet at the same time, all of these pirate boardings are conducted with tiny, 15-foot speedboats. A 500-foot merchant vessel being approached by a 15-foot speedboat is like an mouse attempting to force a small child into captivity. All it takes is a small team of armed security guards to deter such an attempt by firing a series of warning shots and, if necessary, delivering lethal force to deflect a potentially more lethal boarding.
This is not a difficult problem to resolve. Maritime laws dictate that commercial vessels shall not be armed and Somali (and other) pirates take advantage of that restriction. Simply providing such vessels with the appropriate measures to deter piracy in advance would likely lead to the cessation of piracy altogether. Arming the crews of a commercial vessel does not necessarily mean that sea battles and shootouts are going to occur, but it means that years and years of complacency will come to an end and pirates will now have a reason not to unlawfully board vessels.
And that is really what it comes down to. At present, there is really no reason why pirates shouldn’t board commercial vessels. Pirates are poor, desperate and uneducated and their targets are unarmed and docile. Why not board and loot them? Well, we certainly know how to answer that question over here at Painefully Honest, but until the White House as well as the various doctrines concerning international water laws wake up and smell the saltwater, prepare to hear about more and more standoffs and hostage situations on CNN.
Just because we give them a gun does not mean they need to use it – so long as their enemy knows it is there is sufficient use itself.
I agree that these merchant ships need a way to defend themselves, but getting rid of all the laws that govern fire arms on these ships seems like a slippery slope to me. All of a sudden a ship could be acting under a pretense of “self defense” to cover a mission that is really military in nature. And why is violence the only way to solve a problem? Obviously we need defense but there should be a way to do this without having to brandish a weapon. If Obama is also talking about working towards nuclear disarment, it seems to me that arming these merchant ships would be a step in the wrong direction.
‘Maritime laws dictate that commercial vessels shall not be armed’
I believe I remember hearing somewhere that the purpose of such maritime laws had become antiquated – as they were originally intended to prevent inter-merchant warfare of a sort, with little or no regard to potential pirate attacks. If this is indeed true, legislators at an international level may want to consider reformulating these laws taking into account both these facets.
Additionally, I do agree that capable self-defense (other than the use of water canons) is probably one of the best solutions for deterrence of crimes of this nature. Surely, if you carry a means to defend yourself, and a potential antagonist is well-aware of this situation, then the antagonist will think twice about engaging offensively. However, potential negative consequences must also be taken into consideration for an accurately assessed outcome. One can only hope it would not be the case that arming merchant ships would lead to an increase in the acquisition of weapons of a more destructive nature on the part of pirates or other potential offenders.
It is my guess that soon the US, with the help of companies like Blackwater, will figure out a way to keep our commercial vessel safe from piracy. I think arming commercial vessels is a simple solution and an easy one. In the end, too many important American companies are at risk to piracy and their insurance will rise dramatically unless the problem is solved (unlikely) or they can pay for better security.
This post made a lot of sense to me. These days pirates aren’t the clumsy drunks like Disney’s Captain Jack Sparrow. Today’s pirates can be heavily armed and very aggressive. And when one of our commercial ships is out in international waters, they can’t rely on US coastguard as a safety net. These crews should not only be armed (too a certain degree) but also trained. The Somali Pirate situation is just another reason why Americans should embrace the 2nd Amendment. In fact, the suggestion of private military contractors is interesting because it gives these contractors a legitimate occupation rather than one that requires the deceptive circumvention of Geneva Convention laws. Besides, Blackwater could use some positive support.