U.S. ships must post guards if sailing off Somalia

[inwiththenew]

Source: Reuters

By Jane Sutton

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (Reuters) – The U.S. Coast Guard will require U.S.-flagged ships sailing around the Horn of Africa to post guards and ship owners to submit anti-piracy security plans for approval, a Coast Guard official said on Tuesday.

The new requirements, which respond to a surge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, allow ship owners to decide whether to use armed or unarmed guards, Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson told shipping industry representatives at a maritime security meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The revised Maritime Security Directive, highly anticipated by the shipping industry, was signed on Monday by Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.

"We expect to see additional security on U.S.-flagged vessels that transit these waters," said Watson, the Coast Guard's director of prevention policy.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_piracy

---

Interesting. I wonder how this will work if they do decide to arm them when they enter other countries ports.

[babylonsister]

1. What do you think should be done? And welcome to DU. nt

[kristopher]

2. This actually settles the main question, doesn't it?

At least, as far as the point most debated here at DU. It looks to me like the Coast Guard's position puts to rest the assertion that having armed response on the ships is somehow forbidden or not possible due to complications with security at various ports of call.

It's a good, common sense solution to the problem. 3 cheers for the Coasties.

[MercutioATC]

3. It doesn't "put to rest" the fact that weapons on a ship cause problems at some ports.

That's why the companies get to decide whether to use armed or unarmed guards.

[kristopher]

6. "Cause problems"

To "cause problems" and to be "an insurmountable obstacle to a strategy" are entirely different things. Those carping on this facet of the problem are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It is one thing when a lone ship shows up in a port and is, apropos of nothing, armed to the teeth; it is entirely another when a nationally recognized problem has addressed by a coordinated shift in the national policy of major shipping nations. Ports don't just act like rogue states and pretend they are operating in a vacuum; say what you will about market forces, in this case ports are in competition with other ports and are therefore responsive when legitimate problems present themselves.

[inwiththenew]

4. Thanks

As far as the weapons go, I am not opposed to the ships having armed guards but it was my understanding that one of the main reasons they didn't have armed guards in the first place was do to problems it could cause with private citizens being in possession of firearms in foreign ports.

[Fumesucker]

5. Insurance also will be effected by arms on board ships..

Armed ships may well lose their insurance coverage.