Seaworthiness, duty of care and culpable homicide

Sailors on merchant ships know very well that the employer's statutory 'duty of care' is a hollow idea exercised more in breach than in compliance. Employers routinely fail to provide seaworthy ships or staff them properly to address overwork and fatigue. Each of these are grounds for negligence, as are suggestions from superintendents and other office lackeys that encourage Masters and Chief Engineers to cut corners and contribute to this breach of a basic obligation. We know how that works, but recent events tell me that shipping has reached -even given its own atrocious record- a new low. The unique lack of intestinal fortitude that our administrators, shipowners and managers have usually displayed was standing at the edge of the abyss; it has now taken a great leap forward.

Take the fate of the Asphalt Venture hostages- seven Indians moved ashore by pirates after their ship and the rest of the crew were released in April last year. A recent Indian Ministry of Shipping press release (Release ID 79475) titled 'Hijacked Ships with Indian Crew as on 10th January, 2012', concluded with this innocuous sentence- "While 36 Indian seafarers are on board four foreign flag ships, 7 seafarers of “ASPHALT VENTURE” are held hostage on land", adding somewhat gratuitously, "So far, no ship with Indian flag has been hijacked".

Very neat, except that, two weeks earlier, press reports from Somalia (the Somalia Report for one, dated December 28 last year) claimed that two of these hostages were already dead, one having died in October. This is what they had to say in December: "A second Indian hostage has died while in the custody of pirates in Harardheere, according to sources amongst the pirates. The deceased hostage was from amongst seven crew members from Panamanian-flagged MV Asphalt Venture which pirates released April 28th, and now only five are alive, according to pirates".

"He was in serious condition over the last month and he died this week. Now we are holding only five Indian hostages from the crew of the MV Asphalt Venture," one of the pirates holding these hostages told Somalia Report. "He is the second hostage to die, two months before another hostage died," added the pirate. 

Will the Ministry of Shipping, the ship owner or the manager involved tell the families of the hostages the truth? Are two of the Asphalt Venture hostages really dead?  Where is the duty of care in all this? Or even basic humanity, actually. The least they can do is to let the families know whether they should hope-or grieve.

 

Or take the 'Vinalines Queen'. The 2005 built, 56040 DWT bulk carrier- one of the biggest ships under the Vietnamese flag- sank without a trace on Christmas Day off the Philippines north coast. Only one crewmember out of twenty-two survived, being picked up by a passing ship five days later. The Vinalines Queen was carrying more than 50,000 tonnes of nickel ore- loaded in Indonesia- at the time, and cargo liquefaction is said to be the cause of the capsizing. She had reported a sudden 18-degree list in bad weather hours earlier. 

The liquefaction of ore fines is an age-old problem when cargoes are loaded from countries like India and Indonesia. Spurious moisture content and transportable moisture limit certificates, the over spraying of ore fines with water and the collusion of cargo interests with port authorities- and sometimes even shipowners- have resulted in so many casualties over the years that the IMO and Intercargo warnings have become a bit of a joke. After the Asian Forest and Black Rose sinkings off the Indian coast earlier that year, three Chinese ships went down in a forty-day period in December 2010. Forty-four crew died, and everybody got into the act once again. Round table conferences were held by IMO and Intercargo "reminded the industry of the dangers associated with the carriage of hazardous cargoes." In the continuing nauseous game of musical chairs, Intercargo now says, after Vinalines Queen, that it is "continuing to work through IMO to protect the safety of seafarers and their ships". Ho Ho. 

Duty of care be damned. Sailors- mainly Asian- are being regularly killed by the tens because of greed and incompetence. We can shoot off an email to the ship today, asking the Master to take urine samples from crewmembers x, y and z and send them ashore for analysis of alcohol content to comply with our grossly misguided Drug and Alcohol Policies, but we cannot seem to ensure independent and honest results of moisture contents of tens of thousands of tonnes of cargoes that we will load- even if they have the potential to kill all those crewmembers and make our ships disappear without a trace. We are beyond negligence; we are well into the realm of culpable homicide here, folks. 

 

In 1972, Volkswagen recalled 3,700,000 1949-1969 cars because of a problem with the windshield wiper-the wiper arm had a screw that frequently came loose, causing problems in rain.

Early December last month, the brand new Vale Beijing- a megaship ten times the size of the Titanic and one of the biggest ships afloat- had just loaded 384,300 tonnes of ore when cracks in two of the ballast tanks appeared, indicating some sort of loading or structural problem.  At the time of writing this piece, not a single sister ship has been recalled; in fact, we are hearing news about how one of those- with 350,000 tonnes of ore- is in China where Vale is holding on to the cargo awaiting a rise in ore prices. 

Forty years ago, almost four million cars are recalled for a wiper defect. Forty years later, at a time when bigger and bigger ships- especially boxships and bulkers- are being built, the industry does not feel the need to stop even one ship when its brand new sister ship obviously has life threatening structural problems, knowing fully well the decades old history of large bulk carriers breaking up at sea without warning and drowning their crews. Seaworthy ships and the duty of care are out the window; culpable homicide is in again. 

(Since I have used that term twice now, here is the Indian Penal Code definition of 'culpable homicide' that backs up my claim. You decide whether it applies. Read the 'or with the knowledge" part carefully, please.

"Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.")

 

 

And so shipping blunders on, a dirty and grubby industry that ignores its legal requirement of providing a seaworthy ship or a "duty of care" to its crews. This is because it actually does not care for them, and neither do international and national regulators, so who is going to enforce the law? It never has cared for the seafarer, and every potential entrant to the industry should be told so at every Pre-Sea course, so that he starts his career with no illusions- especially illusions that can kill him.

Meanwhile, old life threatening issues drag on, hostage to industry and regulatory corruption and incompetence. Age-old industry practices continue to threaten the lives of crews. Underdeclared container weights continue to threaten to capsize or damage ships. Even lifeboat mechanisms- that are supposed to help save lives- continue to snuff them out instead. 

It is an endless and dangerous game. The hypocrisy kills me, though. I wish that, instead of telling seafarers claptrap about how valued they are, the industry would collectively get off its behind and actually prove it to them just once. I wish that, instead of blindly exhorting contractual employees to be loyal and giving them nothing in return, shipowners and shipmanagers would deliver on their legally required duty of care, or guarantee them a seaworthy ship. The industry has a long way to go from culpable homicide to there.

.

.

Deja Vu in the Gulf, threats in the Strait of Hormuz

Shipping has never organised itself enough to influence political decision making that impacts geopolitical events, even if those events end up in a war that threatens it directly. However, shipping usually ends up paying the price- and first, whether the price is financial loss or sailors' lives- whenever armed conflicts occur. Governments across the world will react, often robustly, when their economic interests are threatened by other nations, but orphaned shipping is not seen as a vital industry and so it has no voice; it is a dog in the street that is at the mercy of every passing car.

So is the case of the present brinksmanship between the West and Iran that is concentrated on the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Everybody has their pants in a twist because the flow of oil through the Strait is threatened today, and, while the world talks of international laws on shipping lanes and their vital interests in the region, they are talking about the risks to the flow of oil, not about the risks to shipping or its sailors. But then, they never do.

It is important for the industry to understand the situation and which way it might go, for that is vital to its interests. My take is that declining Western nations with tottering economies, led by the US in a Presidential election year, see an economic advantage in a possible conflict- the consumption and sale of armaments. Politically too, the abnormal influence of Israel on their policies and their worries at the increasing Iranian influence in enclaves of Iraq seem to have made them tone up the rhetoric against Iran in recent months. The demonising of a nuclear bad-guy Iran and its leadership has been going on for years, though, although it was interrupted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, Iran and the US have been antagonists ever since the Shah was forced out and especially since the Tehran US embassy hostage crisis that scarred Jimmy Carter's presidency.  Finally, Western friends in the oil rich states around Iran are desperately against Iranian nuclear and regional-satrap ambitions- and some of them host Western navies at their bases spread across the region. 

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how a conflict will benefit anybody in Iran, except some of its hardliner leaders. Unfortunately, those are the very leaders whose voices are getting more shrill with every passing day; Iran's threat to close the chokepoint of the Straits of Hormuz ("Easier than drinking water from a glass," said Iranian Naval Commander Habibollah Sayyari) as a reaction to increased western economic sanctions has already seen oil markets jittery. Imagine the impact, economists are saying, of Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi's threat- that should further sanctions proposed by the USA be imposed on Iran, “not even a drop of oil will be allowed through the Strait of Hormuz.” Keep in mind that about 16.5 million barrels, more than a third of global oil supply, pass through Hormuz. Every day.

But, surprise, surprise! Folks, Iran has already closed the Strait once on Dec 31- by manipulation, not by force. What reportedly happened was this: Iran announced- the previous evening- that it would test-fire missiles as part of its 'naval exercises' around the Strait of Hormuz. For five hours or so, not a single warship or merchant vessel transitted the Strait. Then, tongue in cheek, Iran announced that no missiles had been fired at all. "The exercise of launching missiles will be carried out in the coming days," Iranian navy commander Mahmoud Moussavi said.  Easier than drinking water, after all.

The scenario today has some remarkable similarities with the 'Tanker War' during the Iran-Iraq conflict in the eighties, in which around five hundred and fifty ships were hit by missiles or mines or whatever- and, if my failing memory serves me correctly, around 450 seamen died. Then too- as now- shipping was in recession and political rhetoric was high. Then too, as now- the West sold billions in arms to Saudi Arabia and other States in the Gulf. (Billion dollar arms deals have been announced in the last fortnight, by the way- Saudi Arabia and some Gulf States included). Then, too, the war of attrition at sea targeted shipping. Sailors were the forgotten victims then, as they will be now, if war erupts. In fact, given the firepower Iran has developed over the years, and the fact that it has more than twelve hundred miles of coastline littoral to the Straits, and given that the generals of NATO countries will be chomping at the bit to teach those pesky Iranians a lesson (Iran Iraq same- same, just one letter difference, after all), casualties at sea will be far higher.  I don't know about you, but I get a keen sense of Deja Vu- or, given the rhetoric, should it be Deja Boo instead?

If the situation escalates dramatically, Israel will be in the war, aerial bombing Iran. In addition, Iran has the ability to strike at US and British bases in Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman- an eventuality that will bring war to the waters of the Arabian Sea and the Gulf both, with greatly escalated dangers and costs to shipping- and over a much wider area too. 

I think that the rhetoric from both sides will remain ratcheted up throughout 2012- perhaps more so as the elections in the US draw near. In addition, unless both sides cool off, chances are decent that there may be a small skirmish between the West and Iran sometime. If this happens, one can only hope both sides will back down after a round-one pissing contest and better sense will prevail, for a change.

Sadly, inevitably, shipping cannot do much to counter this massive threat to its businesses or its assets, except use every means possible to pressurise governments to internationalise the issue. Although I have little faith in the United Nations (who would, especially after the illegal Iraq war sanctioned by it?) that is the only way, right now, that outside influence can be brought to bear on countries that are snarling at each other like a bunch of Rottweilers in the park. Much of the oil that passes through Hormuz is bound for Japan, China and India; these countries stand to lose heavily if the Strait is even temporarily shut down. Besides, the world cannot afford- for economic reasons, if nothing else- a war in the Gulf of Oman, with its devastating affect oil prices in particular and on trade in general. 

Notice that  I do not speak of the collateral murder of ship crews as an argument against war here, because I know that line of persuasion will have few takers, either from outside the industry or from within it. Oh, me of little faith!

.

.

The anti-piracy bandwagon: conveniently blind

The reactions of the pillars of the international shipping community, as they grandiloquently like to call themselves, have been even more surreal in the last few months as the number of successful Somali pirate attacks have dwindled. Those of us who have been following, with some interest, the moral turpitude that has become the hallmark of a bunch of people who have got used to being paid for just standing around and talking about piracy- all the while actually doing nothing even remotely useful will not be surprised at this turn of events. Their imperative remains the same as it was when piracy was taking off- use every avenue to milk the gravy train of piracy. Use every trick in the book to peddle influence or assumed expertise. Use every sucker at your disposal to cling on- and suck the blood- of the besieged host. And if all else fails, discuss the issue to death.

Any half sober sailor will tell you that the main reason pirates are being unsuccessful in hijacking ships in the Indian Ocean today is because of the armed guards that more and more shipowners are deploying abroad their fleets. Sure, there are other reasons- the covert Western air and drone strikes on Al Shabaab targets in southern Somalia and the Kenyan and Ethiopian coordinated attacks on the Shabaab are two. Kenyan forces have gone hundreds of miles into Somali territory, disrupting Shabaab lines- and, presumably, their logistical and other links with pirates in and around the important port city of Kismayo. Ethiopia- and now Djibouti- have joined the African soldiers that have, with American backing, propped up the transitional government for long. American drones and unidentified aircraft (US? French? Kenyan?) are bombing Shabaab stronghold villages well inside Somali territory. All this is said to have panicked some pirates somewhat- and resulted in a fire sale of ransoms for hostage ships two months ago. 

Anybody with half a brain will tell you all this, but the IMO will not, and neither will the coalition navies or the IMB, for doing so will raise some existential questions about many organisations, not to speak of questions related to their integrity. These organisations- and those hostage negotiators, insurance and reinsurance companies and assorted experts hanging on to the teats of the anti-piracy bandwagon for dear life- are still on their old trip. They continue to flog the dead horse of BMPs, citadels and coalition warships as the cause of the reduction in piracy. And when the music gets too strained and the story wears too thin, they hold a seminar- as they did recently- at the end of which they tell us that 'the industry is in two minds about the effectiveness of citadels'.  Can there be any statement more inane? Do we need an international junket of talking heads to reach these dizzying peaks of banality?

The rest of the bandwagon is alive and kicking too, by the way. Governments continue to make appropriate noises about protecting seafarers, even as pirates sporadically single out mariners by nationality and take them ashore while releasing their ships (Shockingly, the Asphalt Venture's Indian crew continues to be held in Somalia, and now four South Koreans, including the Master, have been similarly kept back after the tanker 'Gemini' was released post ransom. Payback for the earlier Korean operation against the pirates on the hijacked 'Samho Jewellery', we are told. The industry is playing this down with everything at its disposal). 

Governments may mouth platitudes, but are predictably schizoid when it comes to backing words with action. Despite loud claims saying that it will do everything to protect seafarers against piracy, and despite making appropriate noises about putting armed guards on its own merchant ships, the Indian government nonetheless detained the bulk carrier Genco Provence in Gujarat two weeks ago. The ship was carrying two Irish guards, four SLRs and some live cartridges, all of which had apparently been declared to the authorities, but it did not matter; the ship was held anyway. Maybe the Indian government thought they were planning an invasion of Gujarat. Governments in Egypt and South Africa have been similarly- some say deliberately- short sighted and stubborn when it comes to ships carrying arms to protect themselves. 

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, every interested party- from the IMO down to the mainly Western think-tanks that have mushroomed like toadstools every since piracy began to be a problem- continue to push old failed tactics as solutions. Some of these organisations have come to India too. These setups seem to sprout only to serve the personal needs of retired naval officers and other assorted out-of-touch functionaries that they are staffed with in the country; much like most of the others clinging to the teats of the anti-piracy bandwagon, they have nothing to do with either finding solutions to piracy, helping victim seafarers or seeking the truth. 

Instead of building on the only tactic that has worked- armed guards- the parasites that shipping is plagued with will beat around the bush, obfuscating issues, diluting effective responses and refusing to build upon the embarrassingly few successes that we have had over the years. Shipping should be using the present  circumstances- the welcome lull in successful hijacks- to push aggressively for permanent solutions to piracy, whether on land or in the water. It should be engaging with governments, realising that there are collateral advantages for the industry to the Western and African military intervention in Somalia and to the recent wooing of the iffy Puntland authorities by Western powers. It should be wondering how to ensure that the success of armed guards against piracy does not end up escalating violence but instead remains an effective interim solution until the situation is finally resolved on the ground in Somalia. 

Instead of doing all this, all that the parasites in shipping want to do- from the very top downwards- is to find ways to feather their own petty little self-interests. That is their single point agenda. If that includes letting piracy thrive, so be it.

I guess every industry has its parasites, but it is the rare industry where one finds the whole shebang, almost without exception- national and international regulators, unions, industry bodies and pious non-profit organisations included- collaborating with a criminal enterprise like piracy in a hundred little ways. It is a rare industry that shows such complete contempt for the torture and abuse of a significant segment of its employees, whom it ignores even as it junkets at their expense. It is a rare industry that feeds on itself so willingly.

I do not know which way Somali piracy will go; it may be defeated or it may morph once again, resilient and adaptive. I tend to think that we will graduate to an era of intelligence driven high value heists of ships instead of opportunistic attacks, but I am far from sure about this.

I am sure, however, that the suckers of the parasites that claim to be fighting piracy will remain attached to the teats, arteries and veins of the industry long after the Somali threat is dead and gone. These leeches will not be satiated so easily; they will have to be burnt off with cigarette ends, dropped to the ground and stomped upon before we are rid of them.

.

.