SOMALI pirates can be persistent. They have attacked the Maersk Alabama, a container ship owned by an American subsidiary of Denmark’s Maersk Line, no fewer than five times, most recently in May. In the first attack, in 2009, the captain was held hostage until the US Navy rescued him. Then Maersk put private armed guards on the ship. Since then, it has successfully repelled all boarders.

Maersk says it is only arming a few ships plying the pirate-infested waters off East Africa. But the practice is spreading rapidly among shipping firms despite the cost, which can run to $100,000 per voyage for a four-man team. That is because the number of attacks, off Somalia and elsewhere, has kept growing despite the strengthening of naval patrols (see chart). The European Union’s NAVFOR task-force, NATO warships and other navies patrol the waters off Somalia, but this has only pushed the pirates out into the open ocean, extending their attack zone towards India’s coast and as far south as Mozambique’s. This has forced the shipping industry, its insurers, and the national and international authorities that oversee them to accept that private armed guards are a necessity.

On October 11th British and American navy ships rescued an Italian cargo vessel seized the previous day in the Indian Ocean, after, somewhat improbably, finding a message in a bottle that the hostages threw overboard. But, such are the millions to be made from ransoms and cargo theft, this success is most unlikely to deter the pirates. In the past month, according to NAVFOR, ransoms have had to be paid to free two Greek-owned ships, leaving a further ten large vessels (and countless smaller ones) still in the pirates’ hands, along with more than 250 hostages. A NATO commander has predicted that, with the end of the south-west monsoon season, pirate attacks will only increase in the coming months.

Until February the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents the world’s merchant shipowners, opposed the use of armed guards—even as some members were discreetly hiring them. Since the chamber changed its line, the number of owners tooling up has accelerated. Now, says Simon Bennett, its spokesman, perhaps 20% of all ships passing through the risky parts of the Indian Ocean have armed guards aboard—typically retired marines or the like.

In recruiting armed security men, some shipowners have defied the laws of the countries where their vessels are registered. But governments, unable to provide the naval cover the shipowners want, are one by one legalising the practice. Spain, one of the earliest to let its fishing-boats carry armed guards, said on September 27th that they would now be allowed to use machineguns and other heavy weapons against the pirates’ AK-47s.

Some countries, such as America and Denmark, have introduced licensing schemes for owners who want to arm their ships. Britain is among those still considering legalisation, and Greece’s shipping industry is pressing its government to do likewise. The UN’s International Maritime Organisation (IMO), while still not endorsing the practice, last month asked Somalia’s neighbours to let armed merchant ships call at their ports. The ICS says it understands Egypt is to lift its ban on armed merchant ships’ passage through the Suez canal. But the Indian government is still said to disapprove of armed merchant ships calling at its ports: their guards either have to go elsewhere or dump their weapons overboard.

An official inquiry in the Netherlands last month recommended that the government itself do the hiring of armed guards, enlisting them as temporary members of the armed forces. This is one potential way to ease worries about the spread of what would in effect be private navies on the high seas—something not seen since government-sponsored “privateers” were banned in the 19th century.

The IMO says armed guards should not be an alternative to using other defensive methods, such as knocking pirates into the sea with high-pressure hoses, or installing strengthened “citadels” on ships in which crews can take refuge from attacks. However, what is concentrating shipowners’ minds, says Neil Smith of the Lloyd’s Market Association (which represents underwriters on the London insurance market) is that no ship with armed guards has yet been taken by pirates. The question, he says, is whether as more ships arm themselves, the pirates will use more violent tactics.

Shipowners’ insurers are worried that ill-trained guards without insurance of their own might shoot someone and land them with huge claims. North of England P&I, a shipowners’ mutual-insurance club, is setting up a vetting scheme for security firms. Andrew Glen, one of its officials, says member companies have sometimes struggled to find suitable contractors, so it makes sense to compile a list of pre-approved ones for them to choose from. The scheme will ensure, among other things, that the security firms themselves have adequate indemnity cover.

There do not yet seem to have been any claims, or lawsuits, over the use of armed ship guards, says Tom Heinan of International Registries (which runs the Marshall Islands’ shipping register). But shipowners using them could face legal action in various places: their own country, the flag state of their ship, the home countries of injured crewmen, and so on. All the more reason to ensure that the guards are competent and well-insured.

Ketara wrote:I see room for mercenaries to operate an 'escort system' there.

WarOne wrote:The other thing to consider however is if you don't take security or cannot wait to train/afford your own. Companies lose millions while individuals lose their freedom. Further, a company that employs a shooter risks huge liabilities versus ones who are rented.

Do you think a Somali pirate who gets injured by a company owned marksmen could then sue the company for injuries?

Ketara wrote: ( A simple radio password or suchlike would ensure they could not be impersonated by pirates).

Ketara wrote:The problem with the US 'legalising' companies to do it, is that, believe it or not, US writ does not run worldwide. We're talking about a situation whereby we have shipping from all across the world traversing this one specific region, and the US is distant and relatively irrelevant.

Ketara wrote:Presumably, if the imaginary Security company in question owned a few small transfer boats, they could rendezvous with the ships out at sea a short way prior to entering the danger zone, meaning the shipping companies would not even have to go off route. ( A simple radio password or suchlike would ensure they could not be impersonated by pirates).

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote: ( A simple radio password or suchlike would ensure they could not be impersonated by pirates).

The problem is that, with pirates gaining more ties to terrorist organizations (according to articles I've read anyway, dunno how many ties though), they could become sophisticated enough to overcome this measure...

Ketara wrote:If your security can't prevent outwit a low tech Somalian pirate in a skiff trying to impersonate him, he shouldn't even be in that line of work.

biccat wrote:
From my understanding of maritime law, ships are required to abide by the laws of thier home country (the flag they fly under) and any country where they port (at the time of porting). So a ship flying an American flag is required to abide by U.S. law while in the open ocean.

Note that this is all occurring in international waters.

...and I wonder how long it would take for some enterprising Somalis to realize that they can make more as security guards defending against their countrymen than as pirates.

Melissia wrote:

Ketara wrote:If your security can't prevent outwit a low tech Somalian pirate in a skiff trying to impersonate him, he shouldn't even be in that line of work.

As I said, that may not actually be what they'll be facing off against if the pirates end up gaining terrorist support, especially funding. Even if they only use a specific model of boat manufactured only for them, that could still be captured and used against them-- perhaps only once before it's found out, but it's still a leak.

It's not a problem that locally based security professionals would have.

Heck, even just having the security professionals in, say, Saudi Arabia or another similar local developed country would be better than having them be close to the pirates' base.

Necroshea wrote:

I'm no expert regarding 3rd world counties, but isn't somali pretty poor?

schadenfreude wrote:Mercenaries are not the answer. The crew of most merchant ships is about 20 sailors. Arm and train the ship's crew. For $100,000 a ship can buy a dozen M16, a dozen shotguns, 2 dozen bullet proof vests, and a half dozen fixed 50 caliber machine guns, toss in a mortar, and still have money left over to train the crew. With a bit of formal training the ship's crew would actually be better marksmen than the pirates. If pirates attempt to board the ship the lead pirate skiff would be carrying a half dozen pirates with no cover within their skiff going up against a dozen sailors behind hard cover with their enemy in a superior elevation. Attacking uphill against an entrenched opponent while outnumbered 2:1 won't end well for the pirates.

Ketara wrote:
Let's be honest, if you pick up 'temporary sailors' on the way and leave them behind before you hit US territory, no-one is going to notice or care. I cannot see a Somalian pirate attempting to prosecute through the US courts (because they would be the only ones with an interest in prosecuting in this case), and how would you collect evidence for it? If the security company comes and leaves in the space of a few days on the voyage, and nobody but the crew of that ship knows, how would you ever even begin to build a case for that?

mattyrm wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Mercenaries are not the answer. The crew of most merchant ships is about 20 sailors. Arm and train the ship's crew. For $100,000 a ship can buy a dozen M16, a dozen shotguns, 2 dozen bullet proof vests, and a half dozen fixed 50 caliber machine guns, toss in a mortar, and still have money left over to train the crew. With a bit of formal training the ship's crew would actually be better marksmen than the pirates. If pirates attempt to board the ship the lead pirate skiff would be carrying a half dozen pirates with no cover within their skiff going up against a dozen sailors behind hard cover with their enemy in a superior elevation. Attacking uphill against an entrenched opponent while outnumbered 2:1 won't end well for the pirates.

I disagree with some of this, as not everyone can be a soldier, so the same applies here.

Not everyone would display an aptitude for weapons training, much less a willingness to shoot people. That's why basic training for decent soldiers is far longer than a week, it's 32 weeks for RM commando's, but even regular grunts such as the USMC have a basic 13 week boot, or basic army infantry is about 9. And for that reason, because its not merely showing you how to shoot and work a firearm and a doing a bit of running. Its methodically drilling a human until they become comfortable with the idea of killing another of their species, and not everyone can achieve this, that's why you have a training bleed (people opting out of training not due to injury)

Sure, some of the crew would display an aptitude for it, and could indeed become competent with a firearm after only a week or two of training, but not all of them, and this needs to be taken into account.