Comments on: Thoughts on the Somali Pirates

By: gdp

gdp — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:07:10 +0000

The arming of merchant ships is strictly forbidden under International Law — specifically, the 1856 “Declaration of Paris,” which among other things declared the practice of arming merchant vessels and of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to “Privateers” to be themselves the moral equivalent of sanctioning piracy.
Subsequent to the Declaration of Paris, only military vessels are allowed to mount deadly weapons of any type, and only military officers are allowed to be armed at sea.
While no President of the U.S. Federal Government has ever signed the “Declaration of Paris” treaty, it has remained the policy of every President of the U.S. Government since 1861 that the owners, masters, and crews of all merchant ships flying the U.S. Flag must nevertheless abide by its terms.

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:11:20 +0000

Davi,
I believe that the losses are substantial and could be allocated more efficiently.
David, there’s no reason to stand on top of the oil. You could have escort ships at a substantial distance, of say, a mile or two from an oil tanker.

By: Alice Marshall

Alice Marshall — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:35:08 +0000

Somali Pirates to acquire Illinois Senate Seat http://optionarmageddon.ml-implode.com/2008/12/11/somali-pirates-to-acquire-senate-seat/

By: David Brodbeck

David Brodbeck — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:53:46 +0000

Another problem is that some of the most valuable cargos are impractical to protect with firearms. It would be suicidal to engage in a firefight while standing on top of two million barrels of crude oil.

By: Davi Ottenheimer

Davi Ottenheimer — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:25:16 +0000

You do not bring up the economics of shipping security at all in this post…
The merchant boats could be armed, but a tight-fisted risk management model in an unregulated market led to sketchy calculations that did not properly anticipate threat. That’s not a fault of the state. Insurance companies treat arms now as liability, whereas they used to see them as controls. It’s a loophole game to make bigger margins.
We know that a huge percentage of the world’s crude comes through this water, and many concerned statements have been made ad nausea about the impact to oil. Yet the companies were too busy looking at their bottom line to want to spend on security. So they have cut back without hesitation. State actors will be required to put some balance back into the model for two reasons:
- Shipping companies claim insufficient capital to impact security on their own. This is not a monopolization model of security, but rather a function of thin margins and competition driving security out of the merchant marine and leaving them woefully unprepared for reality.
- America’s policy of destabilization in Somalia is purposeful. They undermine sovereign states to keep borders open for special ops and avoid legal hurdles. So you could argue that the US had created the rise in threat, believing it to be an acceptable trade-off. The shipping companies would not mind so much, I bet, if the insurance companies were not so clever at avoiding liability and Navy ships would not be so trigger-happy.
The Indian engagement was a disaster. They killed civilians and destroyed civilian property without netting a single pirate. The fact anyone could ever cheer this is sad.

By: LukeG

LukeG — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:42:07 +0000

I’ve heard that Somali pirates have been treating their captives very well, including providing entertainment. Might actually be safest for crews to not travel armed…