company said the issue isn't that simple. "Warehouses don't move and have the kind of diverse conditions we confront at sea. Warehouses can't maneuver. The environment involves thousands of contacts, some obviously bad, some a bit shady, some totally innocent and some all of the above depending on the day of the week." But, he added, "If our multibillion dollar Navy can't establish order in the region, then we are seriously evaluating armed security." Captain Phil M. Davies; director of the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) says his organization strongly supports the use of non-lethal defensive measures to avoid, deter or delay any pirate attack. Furthermore, he says that oil tankers and LNG ships do not provide a platform conducive for armed guards or gunfire. "OCIMF does not support the use of armed guards for a number of reasons, including a significantly increased risk of personnel injury, fire and explosion; risk of escalation of conflict (pirates will assume all vessels are armed and attack tempo will increase accordingly); difficulties of firing on a small boat as opposed to pirates who have a large target; dealing with pirates onboard after a successful attack is liable to lead to increased risk of harm to crew; armed guards are not supported by key international organizations; the consequences of injury to pirates due to gunfire; and the possibility of mistaken identity, as local fishermen are known to carry guns as self protection against pirates and sharks." Davies says the master has command of the vessel and is responsible for all personnel onboard. "Merchant vessels are not warships and it is very difficult for masters to control weapons teams." While the International Maritime Organization, in IMO-MSC Circular 623, suggests distress flares, evasive maneuvering, and the deployment of firefighting hoses and water cannons to repel boarders, the carrying and use of firearms for personal protection or protection of a ship is strongly and explicitly discouraged. Italian Navy Captain Massimo Annati, director of the Regional Bureau (North) for Defense Communication, IT and Advanced Technology and deputy chairman of the European Working Group-Non Lethal Weapons, says there are many reasons to agree with this recommendation. "Besides ethical-moral considerations, mariners and seafarers are not soldiers, and their contracts don't include the requirement for a sea battle; additionally they are not trained in the use of firearms and, as consequence, the outcomes of a wrongdoing could easily become dramatic," he says. "There are also legal problems." "This latter aspect is especially important. A merchant vessel is subject to the rules and the laws of its own flagstate when it is sailing in international waters (i.e. over the 12 nautical miles limit from the shore). When it is in port or in transit across national waters it becomes subject to the rules and the laws of the coastal state. Most of the states require that firearms are declared to Customs when the ship enters in territorial waters, and are kept in a safe. Other countries require that the weapons are entrusted to the Custom authorities, to be given back only when the ship leaves. There are still others are that are more liberal and allow the detention on board of specific arms, and some more restrictive and prescribe that specific permission should be asked in advance, even in case of weapons in transit.
(Continued on page 63) June 2009
They said it
"OCIMF does not support the use of armed guards for a number of reasons, including a significantly increased risk of personnel injury, fire and explosion; risk of escalation of conflict (pirates will assume all vessels are armed and attack tempo will increase accordingly); difficulties of firing on a small boat as opposed to pirates who have a large target; dealing with pirates onboard after a successful attack is liable to lead to increased risk of harm to crew; armed guards are not supported by key international organizations; the consequences of injury to pirates due to gunfire; and the possibility of mistaken identity, as local fishermen are known to carry guns as self protection against pirates and sharks." Captain Phil M. Davies; director of the Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) "My preference would be government protection forces. However, as long as they are adequately trained I would not be opposed to private security on board. Of course, I realize that very clear protocols would have to be established and followed. For example, as a captain, I am responsible for the vessel, cargo and crew at all times. And I am not comfortable giving up command authority to others... including the commander of a protection force. In the heat of an attack, there can be only one final decision maker. So command is only one of many issues that would have to be worked out for security forces to operate effectively." Capt. Richard Phillips, the master of Maersk Alabama, speaking before the Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. "We believe that every vessel should have the opportunity to shoot back. It is our opinion that these small boat pirates are not mentally equipped to deal with return fire. Qualified members of the crew should be permitted to man their `repel boarders stations' with guns." Ron Wahl of SeaSchool, a Floridabased training organization with satellite facilities in several locations
www.marinelink.com 39