Short-term Thinking and Self-Absorption
Aug. 15th, 2011 09:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribOn August 3rd, Stephen M. Carmel, a Senior Vice President at Maersk Lines, one of the world's largest ocean shipping companies, was invited to make a speech at the US Navy's Second Fleet Intelligence Symposium. It's a long speech, but well worth the read. I will be "borrowing" concepts from it for my future novels. The speech was about the threat of piracy in Somalia, and had several key concepts:
1) The current level of piracy is low - too low to be a serious threat to merchant interests.
2) Piracy in Somalia is not a threat to US interests. Ships in this stretch of ocean are largely going to and from European, Chinese and Arab ports.
3) The costs of paying ransoms and/or defending ships are vastly overshadowed by the costs of complying with US port environmental regulations.
4) What the international community should do is define what is an acceptable level of self-defense armament on a ship and get the heck out of the way.
Now, as a point of fact, Carmel is correct about points 1 and 2. Somali piracy is only on the radar because piracy used to be practically zero. I would add that, considering Maersk and other shippers spend considerable effort dodging taxes by using flags of convenience, expecting first-world navies to come bail them out would be chutzpah at its finest. Point 3 is relevant to Maersk, although you can color me unsympathetic, and I agree completely with point 4.
There are two key flaws in Carmel's argument. The first is that he is thinking short-term. Piracy is like cancer - it doesn't go away on its own, rather it grows and expands. We're already seeing piracy pop up off of the coast of Nigeria and Benin. Second is the refusal to see any responsibility for his corporation's actions, whether in piracy or in the cost of running a port. So although I agree with his immediate tactical assessment, I take great issue with his conclusions.
Having said that, you will see a character in Night Watch make exactly these arguments!
1) The current level of piracy is low - too low to be a serious threat to merchant interests.
2) Piracy in Somalia is not a threat to US interests. Ships in this stretch of ocean are largely going to and from European, Chinese and Arab ports.
3) The costs of paying ransoms and/or defending ships are vastly overshadowed by the costs of complying with US port environmental regulations.
4) What the international community should do is define what is an acceptable level of self-defense armament on a ship and get the heck out of the way.
Now, as a point of fact, Carmel is correct about points 1 and 2. Somali piracy is only on the radar because piracy used to be practically zero. I would add that, considering Maersk and other shippers spend considerable effort dodging taxes by using flags of convenience, expecting first-world navies to come bail them out would be chutzpah at its finest. Point 3 is relevant to Maersk, although you can color me unsympathetic, and I agree completely with point 4.
There are two key flaws in Carmel's argument. The first is that he is thinking short-term. Piracy is like cancer - it doesn't go away on its own, rather it grows and expands. We're already seeing piracy pop up off of the coast of Nigeria and Benin. Second is the refusal to see any responsibility for his corporation's actions, whether in piracy or in the cost of running a port. So although I agree with his immediate tactical assessment, I take great issue with his conclusions.
Having said that, you will see a character in Night Watch make exactly these arguments!
