brandon.plank[dot]com

In recent months, there has been a surge in the amount of ‘pirate’ attacks off the Somalian coast and the Horn of Africa, but we saw a change in the attitude towards the resolution of those attacks on Sunday.

Navy SEALs used sniper fire to take out 3 people holding the captain of a U.S. flagged cargo ship, which has, as you can expect, led to some mouthy reply by those that are associated with the pirates.

“From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages). (U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy.” – Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press.

Of course, don’t expect these threats to be taken too seriously by the US military; these ships are out of Somali coastal jurisdiction, so feel free to try to take on a US Naval ship, I’m sure they be happy to use you as target practice.

But this rescue and the recent French rescue, where 2 pirates were killed and 3 were taken into custody and back to France for trial show a shift in the way these types of ransom demands are being met/handled. Up until now, the pirates did as they pleased, because there was no threat or concern of death/capture, because many companies/countries would rather pay the ransom and face higher shipping insurance, than to use military operations to extract hostages.

Frankly, I see the liaise-faire attitude towards these pirates to be non-productive and I think it’s high time shipping carriers address them in a different way.

What if these large cargo ships were to hire a team of 5-20 armed, trained mercenaries to guard their ship for voyages by the Horn of Africa? We’ve found in recent months that these ships are simply taken over and commandeered, but what if there was a group of highly-trained killers to take out any threats to the boat?
If we take Blackwater’s services for Iraq, for example, if we give a generous $1,000 per staff, per day cost, a staff of 10 is going to be $10,000 a day; this may, however, be discounted, so the cost could be less. If a voyage is 2 weeks, you’re looking at $140,000 for a voyage.
Now, I can’t find specific numbers, but if we assume that rates for shippers have increased $100,000 a year for insurance because of these claims they have to file, the cost-effectiveness of the armed staff is already evident.

The problem with the insurance claim route is that all customers of these shippers are affected by the higher insurance rates and these rates affect all shipments, all year long. Now, if you as a shipper go the mercenary route, you have a one-time cost that is route and even voyage specific; it can be applied to only those who use the service, rather than affecting all of your customers.

Frankly, I don’t see how this isn’t a win-win for the shipper. They can potentially save their shipments and keep costs down, except for those shipping to higher ‘danger’ routes. This is the same technique used in other shipping methods, so why haven’t more companies jumped on this idea?
I suppose time will tell, but I hope to see more armed vessels and more vessels taking a stand, rather than allowing the continued pay out of millions to undeserving pirates.

SOURCE

Copyright protected by Digiprove © 2010 Brandon Plank Posted in Politics | No comments