The presents of “small arms” on a merchant vessel are legal and they do not negate the “right of innocent passage”
What will jeopardize a vessel’s “right of innocent passage” are any of the following actions..
1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.
2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:
(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;
(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal State;
(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal State;
(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;
(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;
(h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;
(i) any fishing activities;
(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;
(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;
(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.
For 19 years I have sailed as a Master on U.S. Flag merchant ships. Most of that time I didn’t carry a weapon on board and I would prefer continuing not to. The presents of weapons on board creates, among other things, additional problems for the master with customs officials in foreign ports.
There can be a reciprocity issue here too. If we have armed U.S. vessels (beyond having a 9MM in the ships safe) entering foreign ports, will the U.S. allow the same for foreign vessel? Is DHS/USCG comfortable reciprocating and letting that armed Liberian ship with a Pakistani crew into our ports? Maybe yes, but probably not without a thorough inspection, on arrival AND departure to account for those arms and insure they’re locked in a sealed and secured space.. In foreign ports U.S. ships will also be subjected to those same, probably time consuming, inspections. It’s all quid pro quo. Any additional inspections of arms and ammunition will likely delay inward clearance, commencement of cargo operations and the eventual issuance of a clearance to sail.
Also, as was alluded to in earlier posts “small arms” are of little deterrence against determined pirates or terrorist that would in all probability be more HEAVILY armed. Getting “bigger guns” isn’t the answer either. I don’t want to start “ratcheting up” and get into an “arms race” with the bad guys to protect my ship and crew.. especially in view of the fact that most merchant mariners have little if any weapons or tactical training.
Given the growing threat of piracy and terrorism at sea, I think the U.S. Navy needs to step up it’s efforts to provide the necessary protection for U.S. flag shipping and guarantee our freedom of movement on the high seas..
To those that say the U.S. Navy is hard pressed to provide that necessary protection because the vast areas that sometimes need to be covered.. I say the mission of the Navy is clear and unequivocal. It is, in part, “to defend the right of the United States and our allies to move freely on the oceans”. By law that is what they are tasked to do. I have yet to see an asterisk in the mission statement that refers to footnotes..
*except in cases where the area of the ocean is more than twice the area of the state of Texas
or
*except where it’s too difficult due to limited assets
Understand, I am NOT being critical of the Navy. In the MAERSK ALABAMA incident the Navy performed admirably and with great skill and courage in freeing a fellow shipmaster. As brave as Captain Phillips and crew of MAERSK ALABAMA acted, it was the U.S. Navy, with better resources and training that ultimately insured the positive outcome.
Let’s make sure the Navy has the necessary “mission” support to do what they do best, so we in the U.S. Merchant Fleet can do what we do best..
My first 3rd Mates job was on the SeaLand containership SS MAYAGUEZ. A year before I joined the ship she was seized by armed Khmer Rouge in the Gulf of Siam. The ship was unarmed at the time. The Navy responded swiftly with force and the Cambodians were “compelled” to return the ship and crew after they had held them for four days. When I came aboard a year later nothing had been done since the seizure to arm the ship. We continued as before, unarmed, plying the same trade route sometimes less than 20 miles from the “killing fields” of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Despite that, the Captain and the rest of us in the crew felt fairly comfortable and safe going about our business knowing the "cavalry" was not far over the horizon at Naval Station Subic Bay and Cubi Point NAS in the Philippines and patrolling the nearby waters of the South China Sea.
I'm sure Pol and his boys in Phnom Penh had a pretty good idea where that "cavalry" was too
For a little historical perspective on current events in the IO see the link below..
http://www.usmm.org/mayaguez.html
