August 14, 2009 4:43 AM

U.S. Weighs Arming Ships Against Pirates

By
CBSNews
(AP)  Challenging a global aversion to guns aboard ships, France has put troops on tuna boats in the Indian Ocean, and Belgium is offering military units to its merchant vessels off the Horn of Africa. Now, U.S. lawmakers are weighing similar action to fight piracy.

Opponents fear such moves will escalate the violence and raise a minefield of legal issues.

In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment that would require the Department of Defense to put armed teams on U.S.-flagged ships passing through high-risk waters, specifically around the Horn of Africa where Somali pirates have become a scourge of world shipping.

The amendment now goes to the Senate. A separate bill introduced last month would grant immunity from prosecution in American courts to any "owner, operator, time charterer, master, or mariner who uses force, or authorizes the use of force, to defend a vessel of the United States against an act of piracy."

Both measures face tough debate - U.S. military resources are spread thin and onboard weapons, especially in the hands of civilian crew, are seen as an extreme option.

"Work and watch-keeping take up most of a seafarer's day," Sam Dawson of the International Transport Workers' Federation, which represents hundreds of unions, told The Associated Press by e-mail. "The practice, handling and use of weapons would be a duty too far."

But there is a strong push for action following the April seizure of the MV Maersk Alabama.

That standoff, which transfixed the American public, ended with the killing of three pirates by Navy SEAL snipers and the release of the vessel's captain, Richard Phillips.

The wider potential fallout from the Western initiatives is uncertain because countries such as the Philippines, which supplies most of the world's ship crews, don't have the resources to protect them. Besides, the laws of many nations prevent vessels from carrying weapons, historically for fear they would be used by mutineers.

A range of maritime groups and insurers oppose arming ships because of liability issues and fears that violence could provoke an arms race with the pirates. Still, some ship-owners hire private guards; Israeli commercial boats are believed to routinely carry arms.

"What the Americans do will not necessarily lead the way in terms of the global shipping industry," said Daniel Sekulich, the Toronto-based author of "Terror on the Seas: True Tales of Modern Day Pirates."

Sekulich said a global trend could take hold if international groups such as the U.N. International Maritime Organization develop a comprehensive approach to arming ships. In the meantime, he said, the U.S. initiatives could encourage a "two-tiered or three-tiered system" in which a few wealthy nations protect ships flying their flags, while pirates prey on softer targets.

International patrols, including U.S., European, Chinese, Russian and Indian ships, have reduced the success rate of Somali attacks. But with ransoms running into millions of dollars, pirates have adapted, raiding boats far into the Indian Ocean.

Advocates say onboard teams with weapons would deter or defeat ragtag bands of pirates in flimsy skiffs. On April 25, pirates tried to board the Italian cruise liner MSC Melody as it headed in the Indian Ocean from southern Africa to Europe, but Israeli private guards opened fire and the assailants departed.

For opponents, the worst-case scenario is pirates getting bigger weapons.

"It's something that could actually stoke up the attacks, take the attacks to a higher level," said Andrew Linington of London-based Nautilus International, a union that represents 24,000 mariners, most of whom work on British- or Dutch-registered ships.

But internal polling among Nautilus members has indicated a "hardening of attitudes" in recent months, with more calling for armed protection, Linington said.

This summer, the Netherlands turned down a plea from parliament to put marines on especially vulnerable, slow-moving Dutch vessels threatened by Somali pirates. The refusal was based on fear that pirates could react more violently if they spot weapons and that wounded marines would not get medical care at sea.

Belgium, however, decided in early May to offer an onboard detachment of at least eight troops for euro115,000 ($162,000) a week per unit to its commercial vessels, but so far there has been only one taker, according to Defense Ministry spokesman Kurt Verwilligen.

The French government signed a deal with a tuna fishermen's union in June allowing for military protection of tuna boats in the Indian Ocean during the fishing season, according to Lt. Col. Phillippe de Cussac, a military spokesman. No attacks have been reported so far.

Global pirate attacks more than doubled in the first half of 2009 to 240, from 114 in the same period last year, according to the International Maritime Bureau. A surge of raids in the Gulf of Aden and off the east coast of Somalia accounted for many attacks, though waters off Nigeria are a serious trouble spot.

The Somali attacks are in a lull because seas are rough, but are expected to increase around the end of this month when the weather should improve.

The measure to put military guards on U.S.-flagged ships passed in the House by a vote of 389-22.

In testimony in May, Arthur J. Volkle Jr., vice president of American Cargo Transport, Inc., said private guards were already on his group's ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Persian Gulf. He said the best way to protect U.S.-flagged ships was by deploying military teams to avoid "regulatory shortfalls, liability concerns, and international reluctance to permit armed merchant vessels into their ports."

Phillips, the Maersk Alabama captain, has testified that senior crew members should have access to weapons, though he acknowledged that even this limited approach opens "thorny" issues. Maritime experts say some seafarers travel with small arms, but don't declare them.

The separate bill granting immunity has yet to go to a House vote. It would direct Washington to negotiate deals through the U.N. maritime agency to provide similar exemptions from liability in other countries, as well as to ensure armed U.S. crews can enter foreign ports.

But implementing the measure could be difficult because the U.N. agency discourages onboard weapons.

AP
Add a Comment See all 103 Comments
by hower4 August 17, 2009 7:29 AM EDT
To OregonJames: Answer this question - Which is more likely, that your gun will be used to prevent a crime or that it will be used to commit a crime?
-------------------------------------
Don't want to answer? Quite right, it would only make you look like the idiot that you are.
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 14, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
Hower4, maybe when your country grows up, they can be a super-power like the U.S. and export something other then drunkards and sheep hair.
Reply to this comment
by Joe_NY_15 August 14, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
by speakinup22 August 14, 2009 3:41 PM EDT
and hower4

Iraq surrendered to the U.S. commander at the end of the 1st Gulf War, they didn't abide by their surrender agreements, the re-invasion began.

"illegal war" ?? according to who ? the girly eurotrash international court of opinions ?

We will destroy any threat posed against this country, current or future....that we see fit....got that EuroGirl Cowerd4 ?
Reply to this comment
by speakinup22 August 14, 2009 4:46 PM EDT
Exactly. Thank-you, Joe.
by hower4 August 14, 2009 5:05 PM EDT
by Joe_NY_15 August 14, 2009 4:24 PM EDT
We will destroy any threat posed against this country, current or future....that we see fit....got that EuroGirl Cowerd4?
------------------------------
So what threat was Iraq? Go on, just make one up........
See all 4 Replies
by speakinup22 August 14, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
hower - I answered your question - now answer mine.

So are France and Belgium trigger happy too ?
Reply to this comment
by hower4 August 14, 2009 4:20 PM EDT
What? Do you mean your answer that the weak shouldn't pester the strong? I hope that one day when you're 80 you annoy somebody with the same attitude as you.
by speakinup22 August 14, 2009 4:44 PM EDT
So are France and Belgium trigger happy ?

Or, don't you believe in quid pro quo either ?
See all 5 Replies
by johnbrown8888 August 14, 2009 1:41 PM EDT
Stalin's famous quote about Winston Churchill (made after the Yalta Conference): "Roosevelt only reaches into your pocket for the big change, but Churchill, Churchill, he will pick your pocket for a kopek!"

Clearly a leader that Howey admires.
Reply to this comment
by hower4 August 14, 2009 2:02 PM EDT
No, I think Stalin was a foul, murdering dictator. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with American policy is a "terrorist", a "jihadist", a "communist" or whatever other demon is current in FoxTVville, USA? Why are Americans totally unable to actually discuss the issues without demonising the opposing argument?

By the way, that supposed Churchill quote was fabricated by Milovan Djilas (a Stalin supporter) and was never reported by anyone else.
by speakinup22 August 14, 2009 3:48 PM EDT
I admire Churchill too, even though he conspired to get the US into the European war. He was facing extinction without our help. And, I'm quite glad we helped him and England eliminate Hitler.

hower4 - he's just a misguided fool that thinks we don't play fair because we prefer to kick butt if some one is a tyrant and pisses us off. We are tolerant up to several months of Tom-foolery, as we gave Saddam every chance to prove his innocence, as required by the UN and cease fire agreement.

That he couldn't because of Iran looking to wipe him out was NOT our problem. The jerk brought THAT on himself.

But, don't try to convince a liberal of anything - they already have their mind made up, don't confuse them with facts.
See all 4 Replies
by hamiltongrad August 14, 2009 12:56 PM EDT
so fine, but WE CAN NOT use DISPROPOrtionate UsE OF FORCE.

no heavy weapons, or cannons, or machine guns, for us, or radar. It would not be fair.
Reply to this comment
by Sloughfoot August 14, 2009 11:26 AM EDT
Oh my, oh my don't resist; get raped, mugged and murdered but don't resist you may make the criminals of this world resort to violence!
Reply to this comment
by r_mcdonald1 August 14, 2009 11:06 AM EDT
Any vessel under a US Flag should have the option of requesting, and then making compensation for, a squad of US Marines to protect the vessel, crew and cargo when at sea.

Ship lines would have the option of applying for the protection, and the responsibility to reimburse the Maine Corp the expense of the squad.

Highly trained professional, understanding the need for their duty, would give the Merchant Marines the protection that is needed to ensure the safe delivery of cargo, the protection of the crewman and their lives, as well as the preservation of the vessel from seizure on the open seas.

As for the pirates, the old theory applies - kill 'em all, let their god sort them out.
Reply to this comment
by wtcmedic911 August 14, 2009 11:05 AM EDT
love the idea!
Reply to this comment
by hower4 August 14, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:53 AM EDT
Hower4, speaking of morons opening mouths without thinking, will you tell me of the wars or attacks on nations that ever, in the history of the world, was not a case of the attacking nation acting "purely in their own interest"? In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon, what a maroon." :)
---------------------
Exactly! The key is "defending" not "attacking". Britain declared war on Germany to DEFEND against German aggression in Europe. Of course it was to defend Britain itself, but also defend Poland, France, etc. So why did the USA attack Iraq? What threat was there to the USA?

If you have the integrity to continue this and answer that question then you will eat your words.
Reply to this comment
by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 10:46 AM EDT
by hower4 August 14, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 9:53 AM EDT
Hower4, speaking of morons opening mouths without thinking, will you tell me of the wars or attacks on nations that ever, in the history of the world, was not a case of the attacking nation acting "purely in their own interest"? In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, "what a maroon, what a maroon." :)
---------------------
Exactly! The key is "defending" not "attacking". Britain declared war on Germany to DEFEND against German aggression in Europe. Of course it was to defend Britain itself, but also defend Poland, France, etc. So why did the USA attack Iraq? What threat was there to the USA?

If you have the integrity to continue this and answer that question then you will eat your words
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last commdnt, then I really gotta get to work. England declared war on Germany when it finally became clear that her policy of appeasement would eventually result in the economic, military, & political domination of Europe by the Germans under Hitler. England was acting explicitly "in their own self interest" when she declared war on Germany. As for USA attacking Iraq, perceived threats and actual threats may well differ. Make no mistake. The USA as well as Europe has/have/had financial/economic interests in the middle east. And as sad a comment as it is on the world as we know it, financial and economic interests have caused most, if not all, of the wars to date. By the way, why will answering the question cause me to "eat your words"? Bye now, gone to work. Will check for your reply when I get home.
by hower4 August 14, 2009 11:02 AM EDT
by nojoy01 August 14, 2009 10:46 AM EDT
Last commdnt, then I really gotta get to work. England declared war on Germany when it finally became clear that her policy of appeasement would eventually result in the economic, military, & political domination of Europe by the Germans under Hitler. England was acting explicitly "in their own self interest" when she declared war on Germany. As for USA attacking Iraq, perceived threats and actual threats may well differ. Make no mistake. The USA as well as Europe has/have/had financial/economic interests in the middle east. And as sad a comment as it is on the world as we know it, financial and economic interests have caused most, if not all, of the wars to date. By the way, why will answering the question cause me to "eat your words"? Bye now, gone to work. Will check for your reply when I get home.
-----------------------------------
Americans always like to call it appeasement. Unlike Americans, civilised people want to avoid war until is completely unavoidable. If America was so morally opposed to 'appeasing' Germany, why didn't it declare war on Germany BEFORE Britain did? No Americans EVER answer that!

You say "As for USA attacking Iraq, perceived threats and actual threats may well differ." Pray tell..... what were the real threats?

You're probably right that you won't eat your words, you'll just change the subject or not answer at all.
See all 6 Replies
See all 103 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook