Maritime Security Specialist Urges Caution Before Arming Commercial Vessels Against Pirates

Securewest International believes that it is vital that action against pirates is undertaken by those who have proven experience in the field of commercial maritime security.

Global maritime security specialist, Securewest International is urging caution and considered action by the maritime community following the recent spike in piracy incidents, which has led to suggestions by senior Royal Navy commander in the Gulf, Commodore Keith Winstanley, that commercial shipping companies should consider the use armed private security personnel to secure safe passage through high risk areas.

Whilst in full agreement with Commodore’s view that security companies have a role to play, Securewest International believes that it is vital that action against pirates is undertaken by those who have proven experience in the field of commercial maritime security, and that it is hugely important that crews that are not simply handed weapons, thus putting themselves at risk.

“The comments by senior Naval figures that the shipping industry can’t rely on warships to offer full protection against pirates, and that companies must seek other outside help is not something that surprises us, but calls for crew to be armed is fundamentally unreasonable, placing undue strain and responsibility on those working on merchant vessels”, says Stuart Flynn, vice president business development at Securewest International.

“Securewest International has 20 years of experience behind it and although placement of security teams on commercial vessels is only one of many services we provide, we have long advocated that arming crew is not always the best course of action, Flynn continues. “It may appear an obvious point, but allowing anyone to take up arms without instruction (or providing incorrect instruction) will at best render the whole exercise useless when it comes to the moment of truth, and in the worst case scenario result in a fatality. Firing over the bow of a ship is one thing, but effectively using weapons inside the close confines of a vessel is the last thing anyone wants to see, and only those skilled in this kind of combat should ever be called upon in such tense situations.

“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.

“Many ports around the world will not permit vessels to berth with weapons on board and we would always recommend other proven preventative methods to clients in order to deter such activity by pirates in the first instance. Non lethal sonic devices, better use of Radar, video cameras, thermal imaging technology, and high intensity directional lighting must be the first consideration before firearms.

“Merchant shipping has not been significantly armed since the Second World War and we don’t think this is necessarily the best course of action now. There is also the potential for a ‘gold rush’, with a plethora of money seeking, unauthorized and inexperienced private ‘security’ companies who may be carrying out dangerous or unlawful practices in the name of maritime security, often using Security Officers with little or no formal maritime training,” Flynn explains.

“The commercial shipping world has been waiting for some time for approval for UN and national government agencies to assist with efforts to curb pirates and when it does come, those concerned admit that they can’t actually help a great deal.

“Crews are being offered increased wages whilst navigating dangerous routes but this still does not provide the protection that they deserve, and it doesn’t decrease the chances of ships being hijacked. The financial cost of hiring responsible and experienced maritime security that offers best practice is small in comparison to the huge sums of money currently being paid out in ransoms to pirate groups for the release of vessels and crew.

“To a great extent shipping companies are caught in something of a no man’s land”, Flynn concludes. “On the one hand they know extra security is required but they don’t have the numbers or crew time to cover such duties, and so they turn to the experts in the field of maritime security. But in doing so they have no yardstick or measurement to qualify each security company’s level of performance and remain acutely aware that they could actually be making the situation worse by employing groups who’s first action is to deploy armed men onboard.” Reference: P5762