What is the cost of making Gulf of Aden safe from pirates? $27.5 million.

News from Lloyd’s insurers are quite sensational, though few can appreciate it. Here they’re in short:

Insurers in the City of London are finalising plans to set up a private fleet of armed patrol boats in the Gulf of Aden. The goal of the Convoy Escort Programme is to provide protection. Key representatives of the shipping industry, including the Baltic and International Maritime Council (Bimco) have agreed to explore the idea further. Royal Navy would regard the escorts as a trial which, if successful, would allow naval vessels to hunt pirates in other areas. Under the plan, which has been developed over two years, a non-profit association involving private and public sector members would be set up. It would control a fleet of 18 vessels, each with a fixed gun position and an armed crew authorised to engage the pirates in battle. The programme would need about $US27.5 million to pay for 18 second-hand vessels, believed to be Swedish patrol boats. It is understood that the plan is to try to tap a $US200 million anti-piracy fund managed by the EU. In theory, any ship seeking the protection of the fleet on a trip through the Gulf of Aden would be able to do so through her Lloyd's of London broker.

News mean, that safety of navigation in GoA may be secured in several months with several dozen of second-hand navy boats at a price of some tens of millions dollars. Not hundreds, not billions – just tens. Let’s forget about “non-profit association” and the whole project as a Lloyd’s charity, I’ve heard from private securities different stories, and I don’t doubt Lloyd calculated everything and will be justly rewarded for their pains. Still, this is not the point. The point is, private capital and private initiative can do what States, UN and maritime organizations can’t, for many years. Another point is, States, UN and maritime organizations are bullshitting us all over, with their “Piracy:orchestrating response”. Don’t orchestrate responses, just secure the safety of each vessel, with escort or armed guards – that’s what States could do long time ago, without wasting billions of dollars, that’s what maritime organizations were to require from States and UN, and provide the demand with exact calculations and figures. Instead, we got “Fighting the piracy”, a very lucrative business in itself. Is it coincidence, that with news from Lloyd we got news from Internationa Chamber of Shipping, in which ICS declared they don’t oppose armed guards anymore? Their declaration is very funny in itself, I mean, who cares wether they’re opposed to armed guards or not? All responsible shipowners (including for example, Sovcomflot) practice hiring private guards long time ago, and opinion of ICS is the last thing they worry about. Still, I don’t think it’s a coincidence, after all, response is to be orchestrated, is it not?
One more observation. Why maritime organizations, including ITF and affiliated trade unions, were so enraged with sudden pirates’ brutality? Don’t they know the reason for sudden brutality? I think they know the reason all too well, and what we witness in fact, is not their anger at pirates, it is their fear. They fear the possibility, albeit very slim one, that international media will investigate their activities in connection with piracy, where their orchestra came from, what they personally got from “fighting the piracy” process, and the extent of their responsibility for casualities and losses shipping suffered, for all the bloodshed in Indian ocean.

Voytenko Mikhail
Feb 22 2011