No farewell to arms

The spate of pirate attacks on small tankers and other vessels in South East Asia over the last three months has followed a predictable pattern, and so has the industry response. The boarding of vessels by armed men who take control of the ship, destroy communications equipment, siphon off the liquid cargo to another small tanker or barge and disembark after stealing the crew’s valuables is followed, usually, by warnings broadcast to Captains of the increased threat and statements from countries around the kill zone (usually Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia) promising to do more. The number of attacks has doubled in the last three years.

A third of global trade passes through these waters, but, as usual, we in shipping are reacting to threats rather than taking early and proven decisive action. Which is this- ships should be sailing with armed guards at the first sign of trouble.

In a rare success, coordination between Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore did manage to foil an attack last month, the pirates fleeing the hijacked ship when they saw a patrol boat approach. But sailors like me, who have spent years on short runs in the South China Sea, the Singapore and Malacca Straits and in the rivers of Indonesia- and have been boarded by pirates once or twice- will tell you how quick and easy it is for a couple of boats to appear out of nowhere in those restricted waters dotted with hundreds of islands, and to disappear equally quickly after an attack. 

Piracy in these waters has been around forever, although thankfully in a more benign form than, for example, Somali piracy; I used to be more concerned about a collision or grounding with pirates aboard than being killed by them. But that is because ships cannot be hijacked for long here; there is no failed State around. 

The simple fact is that criminals around the world know for sure, thanks to the ease with which South East Asian, Somali and Nigerian piracy has flourished, how unprotected merchant ships really are. Terrorists know how vulnerable these ships are, especially when sailing in restricted waters like the Suez, in narrow straits, or close to the coast. Most of all, they know that the industry is impotent; it cannot- or will not- take quick action. 

This must change. The default setting must be that ships must be able to arm themselves. That the ability to fire a couple of warning shots in the air has deterred pirate attacks around the world is beyond dispute. No ship with armed guards has been taken so far. Even off Somalia. Patrols by the navies of the world are an inferior deterrent. Arming ships should be our first response, not our last; it works.

The UN, along with the IMO and the rest of the maritime industry, has no real option except to prepare the groundwork- and quickly, please- to make the option of armed guards a real (and real time) possibility. To enact legislation  and then persuade countries around the world that a few guns aboard a merchant vessel calling their ports do not constitute either gunrunning, a national security threat or anything else that is sinister. To put mechanisms in place that will give ship owners the option of arming their ships whenever the threat of piracy- or terrorism- is foreseen. 

Else we- and our crews- will forever remain hostage to anybody who can put a fast skiff in the water with a bunch of men armed with guns. Or worse, explosives. 

.

.

The wrong history

History is usually written by the victors of human conflicts. On rare occasions it is written by the victims instead. With stories of piracy, some rule somewhere seems to say that the victims have to be of the right colour or nationality, though.

American Capt. Wren Thomas seems to be trying to go the Capt. Phillips way. Ransomed after 18 days of being held by Nigerian pirates in October last year, he has given an account of his ordeal back home in the US. Maybe the idea is, as in Phillips case, to graduate to a book, then the talk show circuit and a movie that is nominated for the Oscar- and to make a bucketful of money.

I don’t know if that conjecture is true and I don’t really care if Capt. Thomas skews the truth, like Phillips’ crew claims he did. What I care about is that the history of modern day piracy is being written inaccurately, because it is being written by victims who do not represent the typical seafarer hostage. It is therefore a false history.

While fully sympathising with Capt Thomas and his trying experience, I must point out that a typical modern day pirate story invariably involves Captains and crews from the third world. The typical hostage is not North American. A representative piracy story from Africa’s East coast includes seamen spending months- sometimes years- in captivity wondering whether the owners are going to break off ransom negotiations and abandon them, something that has been done often enough. It means daily torture and occasional death. It means seamen’s families running around from pillar to post back home, traumatised and effectively abandoned themselves by their governments, shipmanagers or owners. It means reconciling to the fact that nobody is going to pay a ransom in a hurry, and that nobody is going to come to rescue you.

The Phillips story- the Maersk Alabama hijack and rescue was all over in four days- is hardly representative of what Masters and crews suffer from piracy. And neither is Thomas.’

So far it isn't, anyway. Remember the Phillips story was embellished as time passed, when the book came out and the movie followed- and the crew took Maersk and Waterman (the owners and charterers) to court, claiming, amongst other things that Phillips was a villain of sorts and not the hero portrayed.

Will Thomas go the same way? The language coming out of US based media suggests so; some build up and dramatisation has already started, and a book deal or a Hollywood producer may soon emerge from the woodwork. Listen to this (out of Thomas’ article)- 

“Soon, 7.62-mm bullets from an AK-47 were spraying in, ricocheting off the walls, and sending the crew scrambling for cover. The jig was up, and Thomas knew it. He surrendered, and opened the door”.
And, “They treated us like animals. “It’s about as close as a person could get to being a POW.”
And, “I found my training as a Marine kicked in and provided me with survival skills,” Thomas said. “I knew not to piss off a Nigerian. Or worse, a Nigerian pirate, or even worse, a Nigerian pirate on drugs.”

Lots of drama. I wonder if Tom Hanks is free. 

Like I said, I sympathise with Capt Thomas; more, I feel solidarity with him. The pressures on him and his crew must have been tremendous. I also do not believe that his story- or that of Phillips- should be downplayed just because they are US citizens or because they cashed in- or may be planning to cash in- on the horror they must have gone through. I also do not believe their stories are less valid just because the US rescues- or ransoms- its pirate-hostage citizens quickly (I must point out that although the US State Department has not confirmed that a ransom was paid in Thomas’ case, and neither have Edison Chouset, the owners of his supply boat, it probably was).  Finally, it is hardly Thomas’ fault- or Phillips’- that other countries, owners and administrations treat their seafarers abysmally. (Note that I do not even waste my breath appealing that the industry in these countries ensures that a typical hostage seafarer story is heard, at least). It is not the United States of America’s fault that other countries abandon their citizens to torture and worse.

But the connection I feel with Capt Thomas is drowned out by the angst I feel at the fact that the overwhelming majority of pirate victims have no voice even after their horrific trauma. And that, with maritime piracy, the stories the world will hear today and the histories the world will read tomorrow will be, simply, the wrong ones. And that even the tragedies of most seamen will be forever discounted in a warped atmosphere of make believe.
.

.

Song and Dance

Published somewhere in November



The maritime press is going the way of the tabloids. 

One widely circulated ‘news’ piece- that Britney Spears’ music is being used off East Africa to ward off pirates- is to me flippant, mildly titillating and largely obfuscatory all at once. It appears that Somali pirates hate the lady’s music, seeing it no doubt as symptomatic of Western decadent culture. Or so say some members of the British merchant navy, who are blasting the eardrums of those aboard approaching pirate boats with Britney’s music. “As soon as the pirates get a blast of Britney, they move on as quickly as they can,” says widely quoted Rachel Owens, a merchant marine officer. Ms Owens does not say what effect Britney’s screams have had on her shipmates and their presumably Western eardrums, or, indeed, on the schools of fish in the Indian Ocean that are being tortured by Spears’ music as surely as the detainees in Guantanamo were (are, still?) tortured with Metallica’s rough rock and Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Born in the USA’.

What is largely unreported in all this tamasha is the fact that each one of the ships that are blasting ‘Baby one more time’ have armed security teams aboard. So, even as the tabloids and mainstream newspapers in the UK and the copy and paste journalists everywhere else go to town with little content but wildly inaccurate headlines (Spears harpoons pirates, anybody?), security teams aboard ships will shrug off the hoohaa and concentrate on keeping their powder dry. Britney Spears is probably a pirate irritant at best and an overrated singer at worst; she can screech loudly, but those who sail must carry a big stick. 

The other piece of titillating news from last week is actually more serious. At the trial of Costa Concordia’s Capt. Schettino in Tuscany, twenty-six year old Moldovan dancer Domnica Cemortan broke down under cross examination- and, after being warned three times by the judge against perjury- admitted that the two had been lovers aboard the ill-fated ship. 

Domnica had denied the affair for two years, presumably in a bid to protect the married Schettino or to save her and her young child embarrassment. Her ‘revelation’ went semi-viral too, with many adding a mean aside -talking to a translator, Domnica had brushed off the fact that she didn’t have a ticket for the ill-fated Concordia cruise- “When you are somebody’s lover, they don’t ask to see your ticket,” she had said. That aside became public after the judge insisted it be translated in open court.

What went under-reported was her dismaying testimony that Schettino was dining with her at a ship’s restaurant just fifteen minutes before the Concordia hit the rocks. This, combined with the fact that Domnica was on the bridge with the good Captain when the Concordia actually ran aground, is pretty damning for Schettino. The allegations that he was cavalier in his navigation and unmindful of safety will resurface with a vengeance now. 

Many cargo ship Captains ban families (including their own) from the bridge during sensitive manoeuvring times; they do not want the bridge team distracted. I have called Civitavecchia (the Concordia’s port of departure) often, and, without second guessing the events of that fateful night, I will only say this: I would not be dining with a Moldovan dancer fifteen minutes before I planned a dangerous ‘sail past’ close to an island off that coast. Hell, I wouldn’t be even dining with my wife. I would not tolerate, in darkness when situational awareness is always a bigger issue, any unnecessary personnel on the bridge. And I would not be comfortable below deck so close to a potentially dangerous manoeuvre.

I am sure Captain Schettino- charged with manslaughter, causing a maritime disaster and abandoning the Concordia- will agree with me today. Regardless of the outcome of the Tuscany trial, his errors of judgement will torture him for a long time, I am afraid. Shipmasters will tell you that Britney Spears’ wails are nothing compared to the torture that the what-if’s of their rank inflict upon them. 

 .

.

UN-Facebook Face-Off

At the end of last month, the United Nations rediscovered, when it asked Facebook for details of accounts run by Somali pirates, that it is not the United States of America. That country’s National Security Agency could get major US tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple to provide them information and data sent and shared by the likes of you and me; in fact, if Edward Snowden is to be believed, these setups were joined at the hip with the NSA, giving the now six-year old PRISM programme direct access to massive information-data mining on a gigantic scale. 

On the other hand, the UN’s Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea was ignored by Facebook last month when it requested a discussion on “information on Facebook accounts belonging to individuals involved in hijackings and hostage-taking." Facebook said that the UN had no jurisdiction.

I do not know what the UN hoped to accomplish with this attempt at information gathering from a social networking site. Did some lazy bureaucrat think he was going to sit behind a laptop and track down pirates and their backers in real life halfway across the world? Did the Somali militant group Al-Shabaab’s Twitter account shutdown in January (when they used it to threaten to kill Kenyan hostages) give somebody at the UN a gleam in the eye? Does anybody seriously expect pirates to make it easy to be tracked through social networking sites? 

All in all, it seems like a pretty useless thing to spend the international community’s money on, but then the UN is known for spending large amounts of money on useless things.

Closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, too. Somali piracy has declined, thanks to armed guards on ships (and little thanks to the UN or the IMO.) On the other hand, piracy on the other coast of Africa is doing quite well, thank you. Maybe the UN should focus its attention where the problem exists. Judging by the numbers of emails telling me of lotteries I have won, the Nigerians seem to use the internet copiously; I am sure they must be on Facebook too. 

I expect legitimate law enforcement agencies, including from those Asian countries whose seamen are badly affected by piracy, will probably be obstructed by Facebook and the like too, should they ask for information. It is a sign of the times that criminals can use sites like YouTube and others quite effectively to get their message across- pirates putting up short films of pathetic looking seamen hostages, threatening violence and demanding money, for example, and the ‘good guys’ cannot use that information- or what is behind that information- to track the criminals. Facebook, Microsoft, Google and the like can give direct access to my account to the US government, but giving indirect information to the UN on pirates is a no-no. 

Actually, the problem is not Facebook but the international community that the UN claims to represent. Assume, for a moment, that something tangible was to be gained by the UN getting access to pirate profiles from Facebook-that, by giving the UN the information it wanted, Facebook could have helped in striking a blow against piracy. It chose not to. It chose to hide behind some legalese, and the international community, represented by the UN, seems to have accepted that. It appears that criminals have a right to privacy but hostage crews do not.

No surprise then, that people like me wonder. When wars, occupation and loot of countries like Iraq can be sanctioned based on confessed lies at the UN, as in Colin Powell’s case, why it is that the truth cannot be used to protect seamen and the ninety per cent of world trade figure that I am so sick of hearing about?

If the US wanted, it could slap a subpoena on Facebook’s ass before breakfast tomorrow morning, and Facebook would have to cough up whatever the UN wanted it to.

.

.

 

Guns N’ Poses

(I wrote this piece more than two weeks ago and gave shipping time to prove me wrong before sending it in for publication. I needn’t have bothered.)

The saga of the Albedo- sunk off Somalia on July 6 after more than two and a half years in pirate hands, condition of survivors not really known- has more or less gone unnoticed except in the usual sections of the maritime press, and even that seems to be fatigued with seamen hostage stories. 

It appears, also, that the rest of the shipping community has become weary of striking its usual pose of concern and simulated outrage: there has been no clamour to pressurise governments to negotiate for the Albedo survivors release- or, for that matter, those of the Asphalt Venture who remain hostage since 2010- and after ransom was paid in mid-2011. Even the heart breaking letter written by the families of the Albedo crew begging Somali’s worldwide to pressurise their clan leaders to act has failed to generate any real interest. 

Maybe the poseurs in the industry are finally tired of the act. Or maybe, like Oscar Wilde, they are finding being natural a very difficult pose to keep up. 

Meanwhile, the EUNAVFOR folk seem to be running around like a bunch of sleazy paparazzi chasing Megan Fox on a beach, sighting an Albedo lifeboat here or there, but clueless about what actually happened on the Albedo, exactly how many crew survived and how many are still alive. Or maybe they know and are not talking. If so, why?

The mainstream media has concentrated more on the ‘last ship in Somali hands sinks’ story, ignoring the fifty or so seamen still held hostage by pirates in that failed State. A prominent section of the press in India reported, instead, that the MV Cotton was hijacked by Somali pirates when she was actually taken off West Africa! Such is the calibre of news reporting these days, or maybe it is just a reflection of the lazy interest shown by most of the general population when it comes to anything maritime.

An interesting thing is happening as West African piracy escalates in violence and spreads in area, with mother ships now being used and seamen being taken hostage in large numbers. What is noticeable is that there seems to be a subtle conspiracy afoot that downplays this menace. Media reports are nowhere as widespread or as strident as they are with Somali piracy and shipping organisations are not out there with their patronising advice for crews or their self-congratulatory press releases. If I were paranoid, I would think that shipping and its insurers have decided that higher reporting translates to higher ransoms, and acted as they usually do. To do this they are posing again- a different pose this time, but a pose nevertheless. They are pretending, even as everything is hitting the fan, that the problem is not so big. The other pose of concern for crew has been abandoned. 

Unfortunately, this development has also meant that there nothing being done to address the particular problems of West African piracy, including issues with corrupt officials in governments linked to either the hijackers or to the anti-piracy gravy train. The fact that Somalia is a failed State has some advantages for shipping and navies, who could do as they wished off the Somali coast. Countries around the West African rim will not appreciate their waters being treated in a similar cavalier fashion by EUNAVFOR or some such ‘international’ force. Hell, even carrying arms aboard merchant ships there can be a big issue. 

What all this means, sadly, is that Masters and crews are more on their own than ever before. One would have wanted the Somali piracy problem to have ended with a more generic solution, which could be rapidly and effectively applied everywhere else after adjustments for local conditions. But that was not meant to be, because shipping and its administrators- whether in governments, national and international administrations or in commerce- failed. They failed for many reasons, but the biggest reason they failed is that they did not care enough about ships’ crews. 

Instead of finding long term solutions to the men with guns that threaten seamen’s lives, they choose, instead, to strike a pose. 

.

.