Somalian Pirates Seize US Crew -- Is It On?

[Princhester]

@Lemur866

And so perhaps we force the shippers to eat the cost of a few sunken ships and a few crews massacred. Remove the choice to pay the ransom and you’ll find fewer people lining up to demand a ransom.

A “shipper” is a person who sends goods. You mean shipowner.

But terminology aside, and humanity aside [and I have colleagues who work on these ships, so I won’t say what I really think], how the heck is this actually going to happen? I’ve been working in the regulatory and commercial side of the maritime industry for 20 years. You’ve heard of the expression “like herding cats?” Well regulating shipping is like regulating a herd of cats spread over a hundred different nations and every continent except Antarctica.

[XT]

@Mighty_Girl

Most normal people care about not killing, or provoking the death of innocent people. For which I am glad.

I agree…from both a pragmatic and from a moral perspective it’s a really bad idea and is not likely to help much. The idea is to intercept the pirates BEFORE they take the ships…not to be party to a bunch of civilian massacres which will have little or no positive benefit on the situation.

Also, even if companies were callous enough to write off the crews (which I don’t think most of the companies are…at least not as far as the highly trained personnel such as your husband), they are hardly likely to do so with the ships or the cargo…even if we are simply talking about the small fishing ships. Some of those ships that have been captured are worth hundreds of millions in ship and cargo (such as the one last year with all the Russian tanks on it)…paying 3 million for such vessels (and their crews) is a bargain. Which of course is why the pirates are pricing things as they are and why they have thus far treated the crews so well, by and large.
I ask again…why all this hostility from folks in this thread about this? I really don’t get the amount of blood thirstiness happening here on this subject. It would be one thing if these guys were taking the crews and killing or torturing them…but while I agree the current situation should probably be dealt with I’m not seeing where all this testosterone is coming from here.

-XT

[flickster]

@xtisme

It would be too expensive is my guess…much more expensive than simply letting the pirates capture an occasional ship and then ransom it. Also, while I think you could get around it, modern naval navigation tends to slot ships into distinct and widely separated lanes…and commercial vessels are supposed to travel in those discrete lanes. It would probably take tweaking the software to reorganize traffic…and also you’d need to ensure ships rendezvous, which would mean possible lengthy wait times while things got organized, etc etc.

While I don’t think there are any show stoppers I don’t think anyone would be willing to foot the bill or would be too keen on all of the inconveniences and such to make it worth while to do a full blown convoy system at this point.

-XT

Hmmm Let’s see. Put up with a slight inconvenience of sailing under a convoy schedule or go it on your own and run the risk of losing your crew’s lives, your cargo, your vessel AND/OR pay a handsome ransom. I think I would pick the convoy schedule. After all, it seemed to work OK during WWII.

As for the cost of the escort…not sure that there is any. We are talking naval vessels and crews that are already in service. Why would it cost more for doing this than floating around on some endless training mission?

[XT]

There is literally no comparison to the current situation and WWII…both from a risk perspective or from a logistics perspective. It’s not even an apples to oranges comparison…more like apples to field mice.

-XT

[flickster]

@xtisme

I ask again…why all this hostility from folks in this thread about this? I really don’t get the amount of blood thirstiness happening here on this subject. It would be one thing if these guys were taking the crews and killing or torturing them…but while I agree the current situation should probably be dealt with I’m not seeing where all this testosterone is coming from here.

-XT

Ahhh, but you’re ignoring the activities and programs the ransom money funds and the death & destruction caused.

[flickster]

@xtisme

There is literally no comparison to the current situation and WWII…both from a risk perspective or from a logistics perspective. It’s not even an apples to oranges comparison…more like apples to field mice.

-XT

While the need and circumstances may be different, the results would be the same. Are you claiming an escorted convoy would not stop the problem from occurring?

[Magiver]

@Mighty_Girl

You mean the small fishing vessels that they sometimes hijack? I have no idea what the “release” rate is on those. I mostly read news on hijacked cargo ships.

I know transponders can be disabled, but the large ships are difficult to maneuver, expensive to run and hard to hide. They don’t make for good disguise. The consensus is that “mother ships” disguise as innocent fishing boats, it’s hard to pull that off when you are riding a large container ship, one with no identification. I suppose those are only useful to get a ransom.

The largest suspected “mother ship” I’ve seen on the net was a Russian trawler. I wanted to ask you what you meant when you said small boats were always coming up to your husband’s boat. Did you mean out in the ocean or along intercoastal waterways?

[Mighty_Girl]

They do not so much as “come up to” as “cross path with”. It does not happen much far away from land.

I tried to tell my daughter where daddy is using Google earth (it’s hard to tell as it is not real time), but if you do you’ll see how many ships there are around Africa, and you can’t see the small boats, at least I couldn’t.

@Princhester

A “shipper” is a person who sends goods. You mean shipowner.

To complicate things, a shipowner does not always operate a ship. And may not even be responsible for the crew. It’s a very complicated business (I met my husband when I was working in a shipping company (shipowner and operator).

[Mighty_Girl]

@flickster

Hmmm Let’s see. Put up with a slight inconvenience of sailing under a convoy schedule or go it on your own and run the risk of losing your crew’s lives, your cargo, your vessel AND/OR pay a handsome ransom.

Bolding mine.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

[Princhester]

@Mighty_Girl

To complicate things, a shipowner does not always operate a ship. And may not even be responsible for the crew. It’s a very complicated business (I met my husband when I was working in a shipping company (shipowner and operator).

Ya think? I’m simplifying for laypeople, MG. I’m a maritime lawyer. I worked in London doing nothing but charterparty disputes for a number of years.

My grandma is right over there, and needs a lesson on egg sucking, while you’re at it.

[Frostillicus]

Hmmm. I don’t know diddly about maritime security, but I think I am going to accept the judgement of any poster named “sailor”, as well as any poster whose husband happens to be the captain of a freighter (Mighty Girl.) Very cogent points. Kudos.

[JThunder]

The situation hasn’t been resolved yet, right?

Where is Jack Bauer when you need him?

[Grumman]

@Mighty_Girl

Most normal people care about not killing, or provoking the death of innocent people. For which I am glad.

Most normal people do not blame the victim for “provoking” a criminal by not funding his future criminal acts.

[Snnipe_70E]

@Mighty_Girl

Again, and this time with gusto: these are people you are talking about, with loved ones, and that appreciate their lives. Their lives are more valuable than containers and ships. These people who were not hired to risk their lives to teach anyone a lesson. If they had wanted to do so they’d be in the military and not the merchant marine.

I would not like to have my husband slaughtered to teach some Somali scumbag a lesson. I am confident when I say that the family of crew members, and most normal people, round the world feel the same way.

A long time ago my wife would have agreed with you. Not a problem now I am working stationary. But I still have friends out there.

[Alessan]

@xtisme

I ask again…why all this hostility from folks in this thread about this? I really don’t get the amount of blood thirstiness happening here on this subject. It would be one thing if these guys were taking the crews and killing or torturing them…but while I agree the current situation should probably be dealt with I’m not seeing where all this testosterone is coming from here.

-XT

I guess there’s something primal about piracy - it predates modern sensibilities. Terrorism, wars of ideology, nationalism and the like all require a 21st century approach. But keeping the shipping lanes clear? That hasn’t changed since the Phoenicians.

It’s a simple problem in a complex world.

[sailor]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I know, I don’t make sense, but there HAS to be a solution. Inspired minds in the US Navy and the collective interested parties of global commerce have certainly taken notice. Something has to give.

This is part of the problem. Americans who think that every problem has to have an easy and obvious solution which can be found in 30 minutes and that includes time for commercials.

Real life is not like that. In real life sometimes the doctor says it is best to leave the problem as it is because anything you do is going to make it worse. So you learn to live with a persistent cough.

The stupidity shown in some of the posts here is just astounding. Sink the hijacked ship killing pirates and hostages? That’s just retarded. Most ships are not American property, the cargo is not American property, the lives are not American lives. How can America unilaterally decide to go and sink a ship. The huge stupidity of the proposal is immediately evident. You would have the entire world up in arms against America for trying to resolve in a cowboy manner a problem which is not really America’s problem. These proposals are only excusable in ten year-old boys in the school yard.

A convoy system would be voluntarily implemented if the risk was huge, like it was in WWII but that is not the case. It would be extremely difficult to implement and coordinate. Countries would have to supply the naval ships and a command and coordination structure would be set up. Ships would have to be coordinated as well. They would have to gather and wait at gathering areas. Waiting costs a lot. Time is money and when you are talking about a big container ship it means a lot of money, probably more than the pirates are getting away with. Then you have a huge convoy get underway. Ships need to keep station and learn to maneuver as a whole, even in fog or rain. In WWII you could gather all the captains of a convoy in a room and plan. Now you have ships coming that way from all over the world. The possibility of messing up is just too big. Keeping station while the convoy is maneuvering as a whole can be done but shit happens and its better if you don’t have to do it. Chances are you are going to have a few collissions and collisions cost money and sometimes lives.

A convoy would be tens of miles wide. I doubt it would be viable to maneuver a convoy in the Gulf of Aden which narrows down to nothing. You’d have to set up an internationally agreed scheme. If America proposed any of all this most nations would laugh and say “why don’t you go home and mind your own business?” The problem just does not warrant extreme measures like this.

The entire convoy is limited in speed by the slowest ship. I can see the big guys saying "Oh, he’s coming with us? At nine knots? Fuck that. I’m going on my own. "

Some people here would see a patient with a cough and would think it would surely solve the problem if we just extirpated the lungs and trachea. So what if the patient dies? That’s just a price you pay for getting rid of the cough which is what we want to do over everything else.

So, again, we have a problem of which the victims are the shipping companies. Are they asking to be bombed if hijacked? Are they asking for convoys? No, they are not. So how exactly would it be helping them to impose things which they do not want? How would it be helping them to impose things which would cost more than the ocassional ransom?

Another observation is that most people in advanced countries have more regard for human life than many Americans do. When there is a hostage situation the Russians and the Chinese have little problem using force even if many of the hostages die. So what if we went into a school and hundreds of kids died? Many Americans are right up there. Human life is of little concern when these people need to make a point that you don’t mess with Jack. Even if you weren’t messing with Jack at all. You just don’t mess with Jack and if you do we will kill you. Talk about being world policeman.

Many people fail to see the problem for what it is and see only an opportunity for America to wave its dick around in a situation which hardly concerns America in the first place. This problem has been going on for a long time and now just because an American ship was involved some people want to start WWIII over the incident. Let us not lose a sense of proportion.

[sailor]

@flickster

While the need and circumstances may be different, the results would be the same. Are you claiming an escorted convoy would not stop the problem from occurring?

Well, let’s see. In WWII the risk was the ship would be sunk losing ship, cargo and lives. Now the risk is paying a fine to the Somalis. Seems like different risk to me.

In WWII the convoys operated in the open ocean where they had plenty of room to maneuver. No one would get within miles of a convoy unless it was an enemy submarine and these did manage to get inside the convoys and sink ships. Today you would be sailing these convoys in busy waters. Are you going to prohibit all boats from getting within a certain distance of any ship in the convoy? With what authority? Is it even practically possible? People navigate those waters in smaller boats fishing or carrying cargo or whatever. People who maybe can hardly read. Are you now going to say they need to have an authorization to go out there just to make sure they will not be in an area where a convoy will be passing? This is just not practical. You might as well tell them they can no longer do what they were doing. And it would not only affect Somalis but also a few neighboring countries. Good luck with that.

So what do you do when a boat gets too close to a ship? Fire and sink it? Well, American vehicles in Iraq have followed that tactic and the result has been the loss of many innocent civilian lives. Do you think it is a good idea or even possible to just destroy any vessel which comes within a certain distance?

I just cannot see how the circumstances of WWII are even remotely similar in any way to what we are talking about.

Again, have the victims themselves asked for any of this? Or would they oppose it? Because I think trying to save the victims against their own will is kind of messianic. Where would America get the authority to do any of this? Because I can absolutelyfuckingguarantee that the rest of the world will not go along with America in this.

I am not saying that some ships might not decide voluntarily to sail in proximity under protection from some naval vessel who can protect them but a compulsory universal mandate that all ships need to sail in convoys? That’s just nuts.

What are you going to do with the smaller vessels? I suppose you could just prohibit them altogether.

It would be a joke if I was forced to sail my small sailboat in a convoy. Will America supply the necessary wind? Again, are you going to prohibit all small boats from the area, whether fishing, cargo or pleasure? With what authority could America do that? You think the countries in the area would have somethig to say about it?

You know , some posts here should carry the disclaimer you hear in the Daily Show: “Our opinions are not fully thought through”. Maybe also add the part about it being a parody.

[Mighty_Girl]

@Frostillicus

Hmmm. I don’t know diddly about maritime security, but I think I am going to accept the judgement of any poster named “sailor”, as well as any poster whose husband happens to be the captain of a freighter (Mighty Girl.) Very cogent points. Kudos.

I also worked as a logistics manager for a couple of logistics/shipping companies for over 10 years. I abandoned my career 5 years ago (I was burned out). Sailing is not my thing, but I always ask my husband about his work, and at least I have a limited understanding of the situation, and know the appropriate terminology.

@Grumman

Most normal people do not blame the victim for “provoking” a criminal by not funding his future criminal acts.

Huh?

I sent my husband this thread, this is his comment (not a member, won’t join):

Funny how this became world news as soon as an American ship was hijacked. So far nothing regarding the Indians, Thais, Filipinos and other inferior people being held hostage on the 10+ ships hijacked at the moment. We sailors are glad for the exposure though. Maybe something will happen now. Oh, there was the oil tanker that was hijacked last year carrying 300.000 tons of oil for the US consumers. That was mentioned, sorry.

Anyway, there already is an established corridor through the Gulf of Aden where the bulk of warships are stationed. The Danish war ship ‘Absalon’ was actually the leader of the task force until a few weeks ago when it left. The Danish government had spent this years budget for international missions but they hope we’ll be back next year. The corridor leads ships from the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea/Suez Canal and is already on the route of the main portion of merchant vessels. It’s to the north in the Gulf of Aden and thus as far away from Somalia north coast as possible.

However ‘Maersk Alabama’ was hijacked off the east coast of Somalia in the middle of the Indian Ocean. They were trading between Mombasa, Kenya and Salalah, Oman and the straight line between those two ports leads them right by that east coast of Somalia. Since there are very few ships, probably 1 in several 1000 compared to the Gulf of Aden, on exactly that line a convoy is not feasible.

I can’t say they should have known better and taken another route straight east from Mombasa getting far out into the Indian Ocean before turning north to Oman because I also heard of hijackings as far south as Dar es Salaam so that wouldn’t have helped them.

You remember the chief engineer on ‘Nysted Mærsk’*? They are now trading Salalah to South Africa and he told me they go all the way to the west coast of India before turning south.

A convoy from Salalah or Gulf of Aden to South Africa is not a bad idea and I’m positive ships would join to be safe and they could use some/all of the fuel savings to help pay for the escort. But since there are few American ships/interests involved in world shipping there is nobody to pay to run the convoy. The EU can’t agree on anything like this (it’s better to sit down determining how much a cucumber is allowed to bend and as I said DK already spent their allocated budget).

And of the 10 largest merchant fleets probably 75% are b-flag registries. Cheap countries like Liberia, Panama, etc. where you can register your ship and get your certificates for a fraction of the price compared to DK and at the same time escape taxes, union wages and scrutiny from government agencies. These countries have no means to run a convoy.

IMO (International Maritime Organization) is a UN charter and just as helpless as the EU.

After the release of a small Danish ship last year (‘Danica White’ I think it was. It was held for 2 months. The owners are not part of the shipping elite in DK, to put it nicely) the Danish secretary of state was asked how the piracy could be stopped. He said: “Only by improving the life of the people ashore in Somalia.”

Good luck with that!

I don’t think the convoy will happen.

*The ship I sailed in when I was pregnant.

[Mighty_Girl]

@Princhester

Ya think? I’m simplifying for laypeople, MG. I’m a maritime lawyer. I worked in London doing nothing but charterparty disputes for a number of years.

My grandma is right over there, and needs a lesson on egg sucking, while you’re at it.

I bow before you sir. I studied maritime law as a one year-course when I was working my first logistics job. It’s all a haze. That’s some complicated %#$&.

[Mighty_Girl]

BTW, Princhester, my course did not include chartering agreements, only the rights and obligations of the carrier. It was basically a year course so I could read the back of the B/L. Our company retained an actual lawyer for the lawyering stuff. He made real good money.