More owners exploring use of armed guards

Brian Reyes - Wednesday 3 December 2008

Some owners are keen to use armed guards to protect their ships. Some owners are keen to use armed guards to protect their ships.
A SMALL but growing number of shipowners is exploring the use of armed personnel to guard ships sailing through the pirate-infested waters of the Gulf of Aden. 

Private security contractors said they were getting more queries from companies interested in their services, including the use of weapons. 

While most maritime executives flatly refuse to even consider the presence of armed guards on their vessels, others seem seduced by the idea. 

“Some owners have a fascination with the concept of armed guards sailing on ships transiting the Gulf of Aden,” said one senior maritime consultant, who asked not to be named. 

“But many shipowners abhor the idea and generally, there is far more talk than action.” 

At the heart of that fascination is a sense of impotence in the face of an unrelenting surge in hijackings and clear evidence that Somalian pirates are increasingly daring and sophisticated in their tactics. 

In the past week, several vessels have been attacked while sailing in the so-called safe corridor established by western naval assets. 

One ship was boarded while it was sailing in a French navy convoy and despite the presence of three British unarmed security guards, who were forced to jump overboard when they came under heavy fire. 

Andy MacDonagh, a director of private military contractor Raven Special Projects, said that for most people, contemplating the use firearms was distasteful. 

But he said non-lethal alternatives were not working. 

“How do pirates in a small boat stop a 30,000 tonne ship? It’s firearms, that’s all it is,” he said.
“But as soon as you fire back, they are going to turn round and go the other way because they so vulnerable.” 

Mr MacDonagh said that in common with other security companies, Raven Special Projects had received numerous enquiries about the use of both armed and unarmed guards. 

That view was echoed by John Dalby, founder of Marine Risk Management, a security company that offers both armed and unarmed protection. 

“Our experience so far shows that about 30% of owners are not averse to our personnel carrying lethal weaponry,” he said. 

“Of the remainder, it’s a pretty even split between ‘definitely not’ and ‘umm…maybe’.” 

Most companies in this sphere share common features and tend to employ seasoned ex-military personnel with wide experience operating in high-risk conflict zones. 

But the nature of their work means it is difficult to independently gauge the level of interest in these services, or how they are conducted in practice. 

“The success of a ‘carrying’ mission depends on a wealth of factors,” Capt Dalby said. 

“For instance, embarkation point, disembarkation point, jettisoning of weapons if necessary, liaison with orthodox military and naval forces during transit.” 

Hiring armed guards is a controversial step that goes against the advice of international shipping bodies, including the Round Table of industry associations and the International Maritime Bureau. 

Both organisations strongly oppose this option, which is fraught with legal and moral complexities that could expose owners to tough questions in the event of a confrontation at sea. 

One senior P&I executive said there were deep concerns about the possible implications of using armed guards. 

“[There] is fear being expressed that it may not be possible to control the actions of the contractors, resulting in civil or criminal liability on the part of the shipowners,” said Paul Hinton, chief executive of A Bilborough, the manager of the London Club. 

“Hence there seems to be a reluctance to employ them.”

* Click here for more stories, videos and exclusive interviews on the Somali piracy situation.
Send to Colleague Printer Friendly Format Email the Editor