Are Guns the Answer to Attacks on Vessels?

Stuart Flynn, vice president business development at global maritime security service provider, Securewest International, weighs in on the all-important question of how to best combat piracy and further protect vulnerable commercial maritime assets.

* * *

Not only is piracy at an all time high but, during recent weeks we have seen the perpetrators widening their targets, seizing workboats, super tankers and even vessels carrying arms. Attacks off Somalia this year alone have more than doubled and yielded as much as $30 million in ransom payments, and seafarers from numerous countries taken hostage in the process. It may appear puzzling that the authorities appear to be doing very little to stem, or control, the ‘epidemic’. The (modern day) practice of piracy has been with us for some time now, as have calls for nations to actively take part in the fight against piracy through the deployment of naval vessels to combat crime at sea.

The fact is that the coalition forces have had a task force in the area of the Indian Ocean, including the Gulf of Aden, since 2002. The task force is made up from various countries and their area of operations is almost 2 million square miles. In November 2002 a voluntary reporting scheme was set up so that merchant vessels could report, on a daily basis, their position, and, most importantly, any suspicious activity or attack. The authorities would then alert the task force. Recently, additional measures have been taken to set up Maritime Security Patrol Areas for all merchant vessels, which are encouraged to transit along security corridors. The EU and individual countries have also set up security initiatives, some of which will be introduced later this year.

Yes, the cavalry are there and will spring into action, but they might not be able to come to the rescue because they continue to hampered by outdated legislation, UN Mandates and international laws of the sea. Furthermore, it is worth bearing in mind their role. In addition to deterring piracy, it includes the war on terrorism, trafficking of drugs and humans, and smuggling, and not necessarily in that order. The Combined Maritime Forces commander, U.S. vice admiral Bill Gortney was quite right when he said that ‘the coalition does not have the resources to provide 24-hour protection for the vast number of merchant vessels in the region.’

On the other hand, the international shipping industry (represented by BIMCO, ICS/ISF, INTERCARGO and INTERTANKO and the International Transport Workers’ Federation) remain dismayed by such comments, but should not be surprised. It is only by lobbying governments that any change to military resources can be accomplished.

Notwithstanding the limitations of coalition resources, some confusion reigns, with regard to the arming of vessels. Mixed messages have emerged from those specific regional governments and organisations who advocate armed response on the one hand, senior naval officers who acknowledge that commercial shippers are very much on their own and should source help elsewhere, and others in the sector who see the danger of any potential arms escalation as a risky option.

There is also the worrying spectre of ‘hired guns’ moving into this arena unchecked.

Not only does all of this highlight the continuing risk facing crews, but also the continuing need for guidance, advice and support for Masters and crew on how best to prepare and deal with such situations should they arise.

The increase in piracy and its more sophisticated mode of operation (including the use of small, fast raiding parties and mother ships) has brought increases in pay for some crews who transit the hot spots of the world’s oceans. But this often provides little added protection and does nothing to prevent the likelihood of attack.

The International Maritime Bureau has always advocated against the call for arms for very good reasons, namely that there is always the fear of escalation, and also accidents – particularly on board chemical or gas tankers. The carriage of weapons will ‘up the stakes’, which could result in loss of life. The current crisis has incurred 3 deaths, two by natural causes, and one by the negligent discharge of a weapon. The IMB has also stated recently that it has concerns over those security companies that are offering their services with relatively little commercial maritime sector security experience. The IMB’s Cyrus Mody is quite right when he talks of the Bureau’s worries that not all of these companies have clear rules of engagement or have sought legal advice about the consequences of opening fire.

As a well established, experienced and responsible maritime security services provider, Securewest International does not rule out the use of weapons on board ships, but this should be a final and very carefully thought out measure, and only considered with the use of professional security personnel. Often the expense does not justify this particular course of action, and there are plenty of options available before resorting to firearms.
The use of arms is a grey area. There is no set of clear legal rules laid down by the UN regarding protection against pirates and so the experience that any private maritime security company can draw on when providing protection is paramount.

But how does a shipping company know who they are employing to protect vessel, cargo and crew? At Securewest we have previously called for a ‘gold standard’ regarding maritime security provision – it should establish codes of conduct and set boundaries, and at the same time give those commercial shipping companies and ports a clearer idea of who the experienced maritime security providers are, as opposed to those who spot a window of opportunity and pop up in times like these to make a quick buck. The maritime sector is both complex and unique. Its interests are not best served by knee-jerk responses such as hiring armed men in fast patrol boats, which often raises anxiety levels regarding the legality and legitimacy of a private security company actively hunting down criminals. Furthermore, by raising the stakes, the pirate’s response is obvious.

Essentially, what we should be looking for here is ‘best practice’. Experienced maritime security companies have a pivotal role to play in providing the backbone to legislative compliance. Appropriate experience, transparency, and high standards of training are definitely part of the answer in the battle against attacks on vessels.

But, when it comes to meeting force with force the answers are not so clear cut.

Firstly, perhaps we should all take a deep breath. There is always a certain amount of hysteria that comes with any discussion on this subject matter. The world of maritime security itself does not necessarily mean the provision of security teams. It can also include vessel security assessments, which would compliment the Ship’s Security Plan, crew training, security vulnerability assessments and briefing. Vessels can have a huge defence and deterrent resource, but not know how to use or augment it.

Most attacks, whilst being extremely serious, are centred on a small number of areas around the globe. The vast majority are limited to the Malacca and Singapore Straits, Indonesia, Nigeria and the Northern Gulf. But, as the level of violence increases, it is easy to see why guns are seen as the solution.

Having weighed up the risks, provision of weapons may be appropriate. However, only trained security personnel should be armed. Arming the crew is not a wise option, the risks are enormous. Although we have qualified instructors on vessels we generally do not train crew as it can lead to numerous issues particularly with client’s insurers and P&I clubs, who are very reluctant to extend cover to crew. We have to carry substantial additional insurance cover ourselves for the deployment and use of firearms.

The issues of deploying arms on board do not stop with insurance. There are strict rules to adhere to for the Master, who retains ultimate sovereignty over weapons on a vessel. In addition, some flagged states may not permit armed guards on their merchant ships, and some vessels may transit through coastal waters (or dock in ports) of nations whose own laws prohibit unlicensed armed guards operating – and the Master, and guards, could face legal action on arrival at a destination. The potential for severe complications should there be a death or injury as a result of the use of weapons has to be considered.

Training is a substantial factor in the firearms debate. Allowing anyone to take up arms without instruction (or providing incorrect instruction) will at best render the whole mission useless when it comes to the moment of truth, and in the worst case scenario result in a fatality. One should always remember that drawing and effectively using weapons inside the close confines of a vessel is best left to those skilled in this kind of combat.

Training in the use of firearms is a lengthy and serious business. All of our armed Security Officers undergo weapons specific training, handling, maintenance and Rules of Engagement at our US training facility, and specific refresher training is conducted (where possible) on board vessels.

It is easy to see why, in the current ‘protection’ furore where guns, and RPG’s, have been used against the commercial shipping sector, guns have become a focal point. There may be an assumption that anyone, pirates or criminal, attempting to gain access to a vessel at sea can best be repelled by the use of firearms. Not so. Preventative methods will often deter such activity in the first instance.

Stopping any unauthorized person gaining access is a primary objective and if the vessel in question is operating in regions where boarding is likely then there are other, simple preventative measures that can be employed first. Proper lighting, constant watches, visible 24 hour deck patrols, running out fire hoses, even physical barriers erected on low free board vessels are all methods that are easy to put into operation.

Aggressors can be dealt with through sound security measures and countermeasures. The delivery of a carefully crafted and tested security routine has proved to be a highly effective deterrent to assaults on ships. Non-lethal sonic devices such as LRAD are frequently employed on vessels. Better use of Radar, video cameras, thermal imaging technology, electrical fencing, and high intensity directional lighting (even ‘light guns’), must be the first consideration before firearms. That said there is a misconception that these methods do not require training. Any security equipment or method requires training, and practicing until it becomes intuitive. Failure to prepare and train properly is preparing to fail.

A case for arming merchant vessels is often made along the lines that pirates will know who carries armed teams on their vessels and they will steer clear. This is not necessarily true, and could set a very dangerous precedence. Arming the vessel may very well up the stakes, and increase the likelihood of escalating the danger to all personnel. The subject of having arms on commercial vessels is not simple, and requires a very thorough risk analysis. The analysis needs to consider other, effective, methods and routes before deploying armed teams. The accidental discharge of a weapon, poorly trained and inexperienced personnel, high liability and deployment costs are all strong reasons to seek, where possible, alternative solutions to armed guarding. But it has to be a concerted effort. Those companies who have employed experienced maritime security consultants to put such measures in place will also become familiar to pirates.

• About the Author:

Stuart Flynn is vice president business development at global maritime security services provider Securewest International. With 21 years experience in the national and international arena, specialising in security, IT and telecommunication applications within government and private sectors, Flynn is responsible for identifying new markets, as well as developing and introducing bespoke solutions and services to existing Securewest International clients.

• About Securewest International:

Securewest International has been specialising in maritime security for 20 years, incorporating areas of expertise connected with the provision of on-board or in-port Security Officers (armed or unarmed), worldwide, ISPS & related regulated compliance programmes, training for vessel, facility or company Security Officers, ISPS audits, SSAS monitoring through a 24/7/365 Maritime Assistance Center, and general consultancy provision. On the WEB: www.securewest.com