fishing boat that fired shots
to repel an attack. France
also allows its commercial
vessels to sail with armed
marines aboard, and there
have been reports of their
success in driving off
attackers.
Even so, the notion of
arming merchant ships con-
tinues to spark controversy.
Opponents include the
United Nations, which out-
lined its position in a circu-
lar issued in June by its
International Maritime
Organization. “The carrying
and use of firearms by sea-
farers for personal protection or for the protection
of a ship is strongly discouraged,” the organization
said. It went on to warn ship operators to consider
carefully the “possible escalation of violence and
other risks.”
There is no mention of crews playing guitars and
singing “Kumbaya” in the face of an attack. But to
my mind, the United Nations’ guidance clearly
leans in that direction.
On the other end of the spectrum is the U.S. mil-
itary, which recommends the use of armed guards
on merchant ships when transiting high-risk areas,
and even goes so far as to call deploying armed
security teams a “best practice.”
“Due to Maersk Alabama following maritime
industry’s best [anti-piracy] practices, such as
embarking security teams, the ship was able to pre-
vent being successfully attacked by pirates,” said
Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander
of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and
U.S. 5th Fleet, in a press statement. “This is a great
example of how merchant mariners can take
proactive action to prevent being attacked, and
why we recommend that ships follow industry best
practices if they’re in high-risk areas.”
Speaking to the idea of using less lethal
options—like sound blasters—to repel attackers,
Vice Adm. Gortney was a little more colorful. “A
well-placed round from an M- 16 is far more effec-
tive,” he said.
The U.S. military has long been aggressive in
confronting piracy—so long that the battle against
maritime pirates has been enshrined in a line from
the Marine Corps Hymn: “From the halls of
Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli …” The
“shores of Tripoli” refers to the Barbary States,
where almost 200 years ago, the U.S. Marines went
ashore to eliminate a group of incorrigibles who
would not leave the nation’s merchant ships alone.
To arm or not to arm?
When you are faced with a decision like this
regarding arms, nobody else can make the decision
for you. You have to face it, and you have to own it.
I understand this from personal experience. While
on assignment in Iraq, I once asked some civilians
to go out to make a pickup. It was a peaceful activity in a decidedly unstable area. The unarmed convoy was attacked, and somebody died.
So, while I understand the lofty sentiments that
support the argument for not arming merchant
ships, I cannot get past the thought of those crew-men who risk their lives carrying our goods. I
salute the shipowners for proving once again that
the U.S. Merchant Marine is not to be trifled with,
and I congratulate Maersk’s management for
standing up and making what I believe to be the
right call.
Steve Geary is president of Supply Chain Visions Inc. and an editor at
large for DC VELOCITY. An extended version of the article on modern-day
piracy that ran in DC VELOCIT Y appeared in the Quarter 4/2009 edition of
its sister publication, CSCMP’s Supply Chain Quarterly.
