Piracy and how to deal with it.

[Emil Miller]

The growing number of ships being raided by armed groups and held for ransom is a flagrant challenge to nations going about their legitimate maritime business. What are the opinions of forum members on how to deal with this unwarranted flouting of international law.

[Lokasenna]

Piracy is nothing new. My father was in the Merchant Navy during the late 50s and through until the mid 60s, and his ships were regularly attacked by pirates, particularly in the seas off China and Indonesia.

He said the solution to the problem was to have all the ship's floodlights illuminating the sea all around for half-a-mile or so; that way you could see them coming. At which point, when a pirate speed-boat (their usual transport) appeared, they just readied a load of hoses to pump high-pressure sea water, and would give any boat that came near a blasting. Unsurprisingly, its very hard to board a ship that is considerably larger than your own, while being blasted off with water delivered from a high, tactical location.

Suffice it to say, my dad's ships were never once boarded during his service, nor can he remember hearing of any other ships getting boarded.

Of course, modern pirates are better armed - dad's enemies may have had machineguns, but these modern ones have RPGs. Still, if a crew is vigilant, they do have a massive advantage over the pirates. The only gun, a simple pistol, aboard a merchant vessel (by British law, at least) is the property of the captain, and must be kept in a safe; ostensibly, it is to discourage mutiny. It has, to my knowledge, never been used to fend off pirates...

[Sapphire]

Sounds like a good consept Lokasenna. I can not say I know of any boats doing it today though (but what do I know) - I am not sure whether every merchant boat is capable of pumping high-pressure sea water like that. Plus, the pirates can board anywhere they want and with big ships it's difficult to cover every area of the ship. How do you aim those hoses, while keeping your crew safe? Where would you have that "high, tactical location"? Might it be an idea to keep this in mind when designing a ship that will sail in those waters?

The only thing I know about, is that they completely shut the living quarters, locking themselves in as you may say - and when it's dark they dim all the lights. And then it's just a case of waiting and hoping none of the pirates will find their way inside before the military/customs arrives.

I really doubt whether shooting back would do any good - you would need to train the crew and well... I do not think a shooting on board of an oil tanker is a great idea for any one involved

As they're mostly about kidnapping now, not even sailing boats are safe (I know, not merchant fleet). Keeping away from those waters won't do any good either, as the problem will just move and keep on moving.

The point is, that those countries really profit by it. The government is corrupt, pirates are looked up to ... They're gangsters, but they have it made. What they do, is taking the money from the rich(er countries) and giving it to the poor(er countries), though that is of course just a fairytale look at it. The only way to stop it, is by making it unprofitable. And I have absolutely no idea how to do that. How do you stop kidnapping? By never giving in? That would cost a lot of lives...

I am really curious with the ideas people might come up with here. The only solution I see, is by increasing the possibilities to earn an honest living in the countries where the pirates live. Though I do see that even then, it might for some minds be easier to board a ship for 1 million dollar instead of working hard all their lives and "just" have a normal life instead of richness...

As for the marine business and an "immediate" solution - sailing in convey and with military guidance 24/7 ?!? That is surely gonna cost...

Piracy is nothing new indeed. It seems to increase though - or is it just the media coverage of the events? Events at the coast of Somalia that is (mostly), but there is lots of other dangerous water around the world where it has been unsafe for ages...

[Lokasenna]

Sounds like a good consept Lokasenna. I can not say I know of any boats doing it today though (but what do I know) - I am not sure whether every merchant boat is capable of pumping high-pressure sea water like that. Plus, the pirates can board anywhere they want and with big ships it's difficult to cover every area of the ship. How do you aim those hoses, while keeping your crew safe? Where would you have that "high, tactical location"? Might it be an idea to keep this in mind when designing a ship that will sail in those waters?

I'm assuming its still a requirement (it certainly used to be!) for all ships to be able to pump up sea-water - the idea is so that any on-board fire can be dealt with quickly. As for the crew, they man the hoses in much the same way that fire-men do - one to aim, and maybe three or four to steady it.

The high location simply comes from the fact that a large merchant vessel is much higher above the sealine than a small boat - the pirates have to climb up (grappling hooks are still the norm, so I understand), while the crew merely have to fire downwards with the hoses.

True, the ships are big, but if a decent watch is being kept while in pirate-infested waters, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. If you can see them coming for a half-a-mile or so, you should be able to defend...

At least, that's going by dad's stories!

[Sapphire]

Oh, I do not doubt they have the fascilities. It's more that I do not really see how they can make the decision to put 5 men out into the open like that - on a big ship like an oil tanker you need a bicycle to go from one side to the other (or at least it's easier). I just wonder what the range of those sea water pumps is in regard to the machinery of the pirates. If the guns out range the pumps they'll just shoot the guys down who are trying to aim it ... maybe that's the difference with the '50/'60s - that the pirates are better armed? Not sure, just speculating.

Is the ship hull enough of an army pantser for the crew to just hang the hose over the edge and let it blow down on the pirates? Maybe, but then there's still the problem that if you put that kind of pressure on a hose, you need to put quite some force on it to let it blow downwards - the pressure of the water tries to straighten the hose out...

Ow, and there is also the point that nowdays there is much less crew aboard of ships than in the 50s/60s. Optimization, industralisation etc - they're being designed to be handled by as less people as possible (so "decent watches" with 6 men on deck all the time might become a problem).

Maybe ships in those areas should be obliged to take soldiers on board? Or special trained men who know how to use hoses on pirates ...

And I do believe your dad his stories I am glad it worked out for him. I just wonder a bit about the practical use of it (nowdays).

[Chava]

Maybe the best way of dealing with it, is to deal with why they are committing piracy. Not exactly like Somaila and the like have a hell of a lot of other free-time alternatives. Seriously though, Piracy is a horrible thing, but I don't think it can be stopped by force of arms. There will always be more pirates, so long as it is possible to get away, and for the most part, they do, since the marines in the area take time to arrive.
While arms on arms may seem the best short term alternative, I've no doubt that more efforts should be put into helping the situation on land. Pirates steal for the same reason most people steal, out of need. Need doesn't go away at gunpoint.

[JBI]

Growing number is a misconception. Growing amount of news coverage more like.

[TheFifthElement]

Lokasenna and JBI said it already. Piracy is not new or increasing, just increasingly in the news. Read Lloyds list. It really is quite common.

You can't stop piracy any more than you can stop any other crime.

That being said, the potential costs involved in dealing with an act of piracy are considered a General Average event, which means that the majority of the cost will be bourne by the Insurance Companies. We now have Health and Safety inspectors moving into Somalia to compulsorily insure them into submission. Don't worry, it'll all be over soon

[Sapphire]

which means that the majority of the cost will be bourne by the Insurance Companies

If the insurance companies can not "earn" from an insurance, they will just refuse to insure it. Or the premium will become way too high for any company to bear. One already thinks many attacks are not claimed by the insurance companies to keep the premiums from going up into the air.

I also think that that piracy is "any other crime", but as we do try to fight the other crimes and have ideas on what would be the best way to deal with it, the question what to do with/against piracy remains.

As mentioned before, to stop "crime from poverty" one should make sure the people get the chance to earn their living in a more honest way. That might diminish piracy, but I believe there are also people who do it for the thrill and quick/easy money. It will become harder though, as without poverty (there's a long shot...) a country might be more stable and the police/coast guard might go harder on the pirates.

I myself am quite interested in the means now, at this moment - for a company that has ships sailing there (a "solution" within a short period of time). Anybody who has an idea on what to do when a potential treat of pirates is spotted by a merchant vessel? What could be changed in its design, or crew, or entourage to make the pirates say "no thanks, we'll find ourselves a different job"? Besides for the ships to change their course?
I do see that solution is just a solution for one side of the parties. I also see it's dealing with a problem after it occurs, instead of solving the problem. I just wonder about that too, despite the question of how to solve the inequality in this world and the crime following from such inequality.

I think Brian means it in a more broader sense than I look at it though (do correct me if I read this wrong) - as he asks rather what nations or international law might be able to do about it.

[Emil Miller]

Growing number is a misconception. Growing amount of news coverage more like.

I'm afraid you are wrong. In 2005 there were two acts of piracy off the Somali coast. In 2006 there was one. In 2007 there were six. In 2008 there were fifty-one. So far this year there have been twenty-nine, including the most recent in which US warships managed to free an American hostage.
Figures pre 2005 were not available but since 2006, it has obviously become an increasing problem for cargo and other non-naval vessels in those waters.

[Sapphire]

I'm afraid you are wrong. In 2005 there were two acts of piracy off the Somali coast. In 2006 there was one. In 2007 there were six. In 2008 there were fifty-one. So far this year there have been twenty-nine, including the most recent in which US warships managed to free an American hostage.
Figures pre 2005 were not available but since 2006, it has obviously become an increasing problem for cargo and other non-naval vessels in those waters.

In those waters, YES. But piracy in the world at large, NO. Though, again - it's hard to say how the reported incidents compare to the real numbers.

[TheFifthElement]

If the insurance companies can not "earn" from an insurance, they will just refuse to insure it. Or the premium will become way too high for any company to bear. One already thinks many attacks are not claimed by the insurance companies to keep the premiums from going up into the air.

No, proportionally the number of attacks by pirates comparative to the amount of ship/freight at sea is still incredibly low. General Average events (groundings/engine failure/collision/etc) are anticipated as part of the cost of the insurance and unless piracy becomes a significant factor then the cost will continue to be absorbed as part of a standard Marine Insurance policy. General Average events have been covered for as long as Marine Insurance has been in existence (I think they traced it back to the Phoenicians) and this is not likely to change just because the number of pirate attacks around Somalia have increased.

I think Brian means it in a more broader sense than I look at it though (do correct me if I read this wrong) - as he asks rather what nations or international law might be able to do about it.

But that was my point, little if anything more will be done. An Internationally Recognised Transit Corridor has already been set up around the Gulf of Aden, involving the deployment of military assets to protect shipping. But if this succeeds the piracy will simply move elsewhere (before they were reporting Somalia so openly the piracy attacks were and still are occurring around Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia (more specifically South China Sea), Brazil). In 2007 there were 263 pirate attacks on vessels. In 2008 there were 293. These are very, very insignificant numbers. Taking 9th April as a sample day there were 32 shipping casualties, none of which related to piracy. Whilst there are certainly perils at sea which need to be addressed/countered/minimised piracy isn't the top priority. Looking at it from the bald numbers point of view, the potential cost of any protective measures will significantly outweigh the current financial cost of piracy. It is rare that pirates are interested in either the vessel or cargo - the main issue seems to be around hostage taking and ransom collection. No matter how canny the pirates are there's little chance they can make off with a container vessel stocked with, say, 200+ containers, dispose of the vessel and the cargo and not get caught; though there is traffic in containers (not the cargo - containers can and are used as 'homes' in certain countries) and rare theft of vessels - though often these are 'tramp' vessels which can be repainted and re-registered under a different name. But again, these instances are so rare as to be considered insignificant against the cost of the normal hazards of shipping.

[Sapphire]

Thank you for explaining the insurance policies FifthElement. I wonder though - is it not a bit like car insurance? If you have damage, the premium increases? So if you sail in Somalian waters (=high risk), you will need to pay an additional amount? That would make sense to me: make ships pay more when they are more in danger of getting "damaged"?
But wait, now I cloud my own reasoning, for if the water is already a high risk and thus the highest premium - it would be no use to keep the damage a secret anymore ... It is just that I read in most accounts that people expect that a big amount of attacks is still kept a secret. Maybe it's more a kidnapping/security thing than an insurance thing then?

And indeed, in that I said "Brian means it in a broader sense" I was regarding to my own narrowing - as I myself am so curious about how companies deal with it right now as I mentioned in the alinea above it. But that's probably not the prime interest of this thread I did not mean to say you were straying from the subject - not at all! You seem to really know what you're talking about while I am just guessing.

Yes - the problem is hostage. But that is the frighting thing about it: it is not "just" theft, it's the selling of human beings. And yes, the (sex) slave trade is much bigger than this small hostage taking on the water part. It would be a logical choice to focus more on that? Maybe - it might be a bit like people being afraid of flying after a couple of airplanes crash in a short period of time, forgetting the huge amount of car crashes that happen every day. Though that might be a wrong comparison, as those are accidents and we're not talking ship accidents here (which probably kill much more humans than piracy).
It is would still be nice though if some solution could be found - even if on the total of negative events it is just a small, small part....

[JBI]

I'm afraid you are wrong. In 2005 there were two acts of piracy off the Somali coast. In 2006 there was one. In 2007 there were six. In 2008 there were fifty-one. So far this year there have been twenty-nine, including the most recent in which US warships managed to free an American hostage.
Figures pre 2005 were not available but since 2006, it has obviously become an increasing problem for cargo and other non-naval vessels in those waters.

I don't want to get into an argument, because last one didn't go well, so I'll be brief.

The American conception of piracy has increased, because perhaps America is being more affected directly, or perhaps because of some other agenda'd issue. Piracy, in the sea sense, has been dying out for a while, and rates are low, though they have dipped slightly since 2007 according to Wikipedia, if they can be trusted.

It's a sense one gets from reading the news - if one reads certain papers, one is made to feel unsafe. If one reads another paper, one is made to feel economically cheated, etc. What is reported, in terms of what gets coverage, affects how one sees the world. In that sense, it can be said that powers up above, such as corporations, are at work to make piracy seem a bigger problem, or perhaps a bigger problem than most things going on in the world today that they could report on. This is the way things are in virtually every media outlet, though some media companies provide better coverage than others. Al Jezeerah for instance, is an excellent reporter on Issues dealing with the Middle East, and because of the nature of the media, manage to create a much better representation of the news than what was available in the past. In that sense, if one turned, for instance, to Somalian media coverage of the event, it would offer a completely different perspective.

Of course though, the taking of a relief ship is completely uncalled for, but I guess they thought it an oil tanker.

Keep in mind, I don't support terrorism or piracy in any way, it just makes you think about perspective, and what Globalization really means.

[Emil Miller]

We now have Health and Safety inspectors moving into Somalia to compulsorily insure them into submission. Don't worry, it'll all be over soon

I take it that you mean that ironically. That bunch of jobsworths would put a stop to everything if they could.