United States Vessel Fights Off Pirate Attack

Last spring the world became aware of the growing piracy problem in the Indian Ocean. In April the first American flagged merchant ship (Maersk Alabama) was seized by pirates. After they took the captain captive, the United States Navy got involved. Millions watched as United States Navy Seals killed the pirates and freed the captain. Not only did this provide only minimal determent, it seems the pirates are escalating their attacks.

Pirates are flaunting their activities in front of the United States military again. Cowell reported pirates tried, "on Wednesday to commandeer the Maersk Alabama, the first American-flag ship seized by pirates last April, the United States Navy said."

It is obvious where these pirates are coming from. The Maersk Alabama was 600 miles off the northeast coast of Somalia when it was approached by a skiff. The skiff contained pirates from Somalia. The Maersk Alabama was headed toward the Kenyan port of Mombasa.

This time the Maersk Alabama's fate was much different. Since the attack in April, the Maersk Alabama has taken many steps to prevent another attack. The Maersk Alabama has added on-board security teams, machines to produce ear splitting acoustical sounds, and evasive maneuvers. For this attack, it proved that these actions were enough. The Maersk Alabama was able to thwart the pirate's boarding attempt.

This thwarted attack may lead to a settlement in a maritime argument, "Should merchant ships arm themselves?" After the Maersk Alabama first attack, this argument moved to the forefront. Both sides produced good arguments for and against arming merchant ships including:

The United Nations International Maritime Organization was strongly opposed to arming merchant ships. United States Naval Institute reported:

"The MSC agreed that flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship.

Seafarers, it was agreed, are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training ahim thend aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.

Carriage of firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods. - IMO guidance statement via EagleSpeak"

The United States Congress was given a very different picture of arming merchant ships. Burns described testimony in front of Congress, "Earlier this week Philip Shapiro, the CEO of Liberty Maritime, testified before the Senate subcommittee with oversight over merchant marine infrastructure and argued that Congress should take action to permit merchant ships to arm themselves either by arming their crews or by hiring armed security guards for the voyage."

Both sides are very passionate about their position. You easily could argue that the United Nations has reasons to protect the pirates. Another argument highlighted the fact that the pirates are not well armed. Smith wrote, "They have AK-47s and RPGs mostly, it sounds like. A half dozen former SEALs with some shoulder fired rockets, such as Stingers perhaps, and some .50 caliber machine guns would keep off the bad guys in speed boats nicely."

This light armament would lead one to believe that lightly armed ships could thwart off an attack. The recent attack on the Maersk Alabama would seem to uphold this statement. The Maersk Alabama was not carrying United States Navy Seals or even Army, they were carrying a small private security force.

While you want security to be able to repel threats, the real point of security is to deter further attacks. It is not obvious if these security forces will deter the pirates. In a separate attack, the pirates attacked a North Korean vessel. There were 28 crew members aboard. During the attack the pirates killed the ship's captain. Security forces are only part of the potential solution.

Governments must agree on and stand by a single front. If one government suggests that ships arm themselves while another gives in to them then the pirates have the hope of getting rewarded. Currently, this is exactly the situation that is occurring. Cowell reported, "On Tuesday, Somali pirates released 36 crew members and their Spanish fishing vessel on Tuesday, but Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero declined to comment on reports that a ransom of nearly $3.5 million had been paid for the Alakrana and its crew. "The government did what it had to do," he said."

The solution is not evident. The Maersk Alabama proved that private security forces can repel a pirate attack. Yet, Spain's actions prove that piracy can be very rewarding. Somalia is a very depressed country. Many of Somalia's citizens live in deep poverty. Which is the bigger motivator, the potential of losing one's life or the potential of a very large payday? The answer seems very obvious. Until governments stop paying the ransom the pirate will continue to attack.

References
Cowell, Alan. Pirate attack Maersk Alabama Again. November 2009. New York Times. Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/world/africa/19pirates.html
Armed Merchant Ship Crews Will Not Escalate The Pirate Problem. July 2009. United States Naval Institute. Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from http://blog.usni.org/?p=3679
Smith, Tom. Ship should arm themselves. November 2008. The right Coast. A retrieved on November 18, 2009 from http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/11/ships-should-arm-themselves-tom-smith-/comments/page/2/
Burns, Cliff. To arm or not to arm? May 2009. Export Law Blog. Retrieved November 18, 2009 from http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/499