SOS anti-piracy campaign missing a key component

You may have read our story on the SOS Save a Seafarers Campaign that was just launched by a six-member coalition of maritime groups including BIMCO, the ICS and the ITF. Please click here if you haven't read it yet.

The four Americans killed on their sailboat by their Somali captors last month emphasizes the growing ruthlessness and ever-changing tactics employed by these Indian Ocean thugs who have turned transiting the waters from Sri Lanka to Madagascar and all points in between into a mushrooming high risk area.

The SOS campaign contains "Six Specific Requests" of world governments to recognize the danger to seafarers and take necessary steps to protect them far more than the so-called systems in place now. They are:

1) Greatly diminish the effectiveness of motherships.

2) Empower naval forces to arrest pirates and hand them over for prosecution.

3) Complete criminalization of all piracy acts and intent to commit piracy.

4) Put more naval assets in the high risk area.

5) Increase protection and support of mariners.

6) Track and criminalize organizers and funders of the criminal enterprises.

As advocates for mariners worldwide, we of course support this platform. We support all reasonable efforts to protect their lives.

We are supportive of SOS and take its altruistic spirit at face value. That said, it's not inconceivable that the exclusion of key elements in the platform may mask a self-serving interest that precludes the platform from being as effective as it should be.

Why not add to the list:

7) Empower vessel crews with greater self defense indemnification.

More clearly stated, give masters a freer hand in the carriage of firearms for the expressed purposes of defending their crews without having to worry about a) the vessels or personnel being arrested for violating flag state rules on defense articles, and b) effectively being paralyzed from placing armed teams or approving rescue attempts out of the fear of being sued by victims, family members or even "innocent" pirates.

Case in point: The Republic of South Africa, which requires any vessel entering its waters with firearms to apply for permission at least 21 days in advance. This is problematic for a ship in Mombasa, Kenya that receives orders to take bunkers at anchor in Durban, which is less than one week's sail time.

Sometimes the vessel will just drop the legally registered firearms over the side rather than violate territorial law. Or they won't even bother to carry highly skilled armed guards rather than risk breaking the law so they sail through pirate infested waters unarmed with best management practices against live bullets.

The same coalition behind SOS can also advocate that the IMO bring all of the world's coastal states to the table and sign a treaty allowing commercial and private vessels the right to enter all territorial waters with legally registered firearms aboard. In order to mitigate fears of propagation of a black market arms trade, each nation should be able to limit vessel firearms to semi-automatics, mandate safety inspections, and lock and bond them when in port.

As to the point alluded to on the SOS self interest, the coalition behind the platform represents the "escalation of violence" mindset against the arming of vessels and they always cry out for the world's militaries to protect them rather than allocate their own resources and risk lawsuits.