08 May 2009
Commercial Fleet Owners Ask U.S. Congress for Solutions on Piracy
Some in shipping industry warm to idea of armed guards
Washington — Piracy in waters off the coast of Somalia has increased so much in 2008 and 2009 that some elements of the U.S. commercial shipping industry are now saying they want armed protection on vessels.
More than 150 attacks and 55 successful hijackings have occurred in 2008 and 2009 in the seas off the Horn of Africa, according to James Caponiti of the U.S. Maritime Administration.
At hearings in April, several specialists told Congress that arming ship crews was not the solution to warding off attacks by pirates. (See “Global Coordination Can Stop Pirates.”)
But by May 5, the president of a commercial carrier company, speaking before a Senate subcommittee, was less sure.
“Our ships need protection now,” Philip Shapiro, president of Liberty Maritime Corporation, told the Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security. Congress has been soliciting input from various parties affected by piracy.
The shipping industry, by and large, has been against arming crews or hiring private security guards, fearing escalating violence on board, Shapiro said. But, he added, executives in the industry increasingly see a deterrence value in such measures.
Pirates are using more sophisticated and unpredictable methods of attack and are willing to use deadly weapons like rocket-propelled grenades, according to Michael Perry, chief engineer of the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama, which was attacked April 8 in waters 500 kilometers off Somalia.
Implementing a policy of armed protection would take months, a fact that prompted Shapiro to ask senators to find a way to authorize U.S. Navy escorts or on-board government security forces for U.S.-flagged vessels traveling on “high-risk transits.”
Senator John Rockefeller said providing protection for U.S. ships from pirates should be the responsibility of the U.S. military. Arming ship crew members “is not an option,” he said, disagreeing with several of those testifying.
But in a different hearing May 5, two senior Defense Department officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee that countering piracy cannot be allowed to detract from the military’s other critical missions. In a joint statement, Michele Flournoy, under secretary of defense for policy, and Vice Admiral James Winnefeld of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the department is working with industry and other agencies to see if security contractors might offer sufficient protection to the most vulnerable ships, those sailing at reduced speeds or traveling low in the water.
Given limited military resources, the Maritime Administration’s Caponiti said, more companies are considering hiring private armed security to protect their vessels traveling seas off Somalia. But before companies can hire armed security personnel, he said, standards need to be developed to comply with restrictions that ports have on weapons and to limit the potential for gunfights among personnel on ships. He said questions about where to house security guards and how to address insurance and liability issues need to be addressed before allowing weapons on ships.
Rear Admiral Brian Salerno, an assistant commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, cited a publication that says ships that take a longer route around the Cape of South Africa to avoid pirates, while possibly saving on insurance costs, incur another $250,000 in fuel costs and seven to 10 days of additional transit time.
See also “Anti-Piracy Efforts Along Africa Coast Show Some Success.”
