The international shipping community is content to pay ransoms for ships which are captured, because this is cheaper than arming their ships, and probably even cheaper than even doing the basic things against pirates, such as 24 hour watchmen.
Now that the issue is heating up, it's all coming to a head, to make the users pay for protection.
There has been experience fighting pirates in the Straits of Malacca.
Most controversially, however, Mr Sasakawa advocated copying the user-pays framework he has advocated to fund maritime safety in the Malacca Strait to help fund anti-piracy operations.
“While it is critical for the international community to cooperate in dealing with piracy, I think the time has come to expect the private sector to also make various contributions,” he said.
And, can the navies really cover the big oceans?
Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also told the media after the conference that he did not support putting arms on commercial ships and that it was up to merchant ships to pay for their own protection.
“I am not a proponent of putting arms on anything,” Adm Mullen said, adding commercial shippers could hire private security, but did not want to “because it costs them too much money”.
He pointed out that less than 1% of the ships transiting the Gulf of Aden fall victim to attack, and combating piracy was therefore not his top priority.
He said one analysis had shown it would take 1,000 ships to effectively fight piracy, more than the entire US Navy fleet. “I’ve got a big globe. I don’t have 1,000 ships that I can devote to that,” he said. -
