The tap dancing is because of legality. one country might call someone a private military contractor, the next country might throw their arse in jail for being a mercenary

A Euphemism is still a Euphemism. Their mercenary's. Period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQLA7GNr4tY

We really do start using honest language.

Protectionism is here so that free trade is still a fair trade. but when it comes to actuall transportation of goods the less unhindered the better.

before the big boys pass some new law, they're going to ask ''great superpower'' Slovenia and ''mighty'' Croatia for their input (both maritime countries). riiiiiiight....
And still, every maritime nation (except somalia) has interests of pirate free waters, so lets say theirs actually a UN vote on this, a majority would go for new laws that allow more strict anti-piracy measures

What aspect of laws of the sea is it that you are unable to comprehend?
In case you didn't realise global issues and international law with things like universal jurisdiction happen to involve just about all nations.

OK , what do you suggest would be the honest language we could use instead of the word "politician" ?

I don't mind calling PMCs mercenaries, as long as that is what they are, and it often is. They avoid being callled mercenaries because of the 18th-century connotations of the word; it's akin to being called a brigand. And, as Tribesman points out, there are different legal definitions depending upon where you are.

Mercenaries, however, are hired soldiers, and many PMCs do not fit into that category. There are PMCs that specialize in non-combat operations, and in this case we're talking about a private security company, no different from the guys who protect the banks' armored cars.

Heh, I wish. No, the real reason I'm such an advocate of the private sector is that it just does everything so much better than the public sector does - when it's allowed to.

Not necessarily killing, although that could be a possibility. In any case, any killings would be an act of self-defense and protection of property, rather than a question of whether or not excessive force was used and we could forget about the political ramifications of such an action, further streamlining the process.

For a single facility, yes.

I don't understand the question.

You're right - they're actually more complex, varied, and harder to change but, small nations that share a particular export industry (and they are many) are keen to group together in order to leverage better export deals, particularly where the US is the importer. All we have to do is extract enough concessions for a chain of ports and controlled waters serving the threatened areas; registered ships in international waters are allowed to carry small arms.

The only people this would be bad news for are pirates and US producers in the industries concerned. To them I say, Foxtrot Uniform. US industries have been using subsidies and trade quotas as a means of keeping the poorest exporters poor for decades now, rather than dying off or branching out, as they should be doing. I have very little sympathy for such groups, no matter how many commercials showing shuttered factories the interest groups put out. But I'm going OT now.

As an alternative, we could always simply buy port access for security companies, or better yet, just negotiate it diplomatically. We might even be able to get private investors or the shipping companies to pay for it, if only we'd allow it.

I know this question isn't for me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. The general rule in economics is that the more freedom of trade there is, the better off everyone is in the long run. I don't have time to write a whole essay (and I'm sure nobody would want to read it) as to why this is so, but it makes sense on its own. Capitalism relies upon dynamism and innovation to work to full efficiency. If we take one dying industry that just happened to complain a lot and give it a protected or subsidized status, we are both draining money from the economy to effect that status and stifling incentive by making it more difficult for new industry or replacement industry to compete. Once you start to factor in things like rising living standards, currency values, and new technology, it starts to get really, really, obvious that free trade is the way to go.

You are talking about trade concessions between parties involved in exchange for agreements on security arangements on vessels.
So if to you take a Danish ship registered in Liberia with British officers and a Phillipino crew carrying Turkish goods from an Iraqi port to a Korean company in Australia and passing through 7 other countries territorial waters who do you make the deal with?
Once the vessel has emptied and picked up a new cargo and new destination do you need tro do more deals with more nations?
The private security agreements can work with negotiations between just a few parties and have been shown to work, but only when its on fixed regular runs which for the vast majority of commercial traffic isn't applicable.


I know, but politicians don't do long run very often do they, they think about as far as local issues for next years local election.

Unfortunately I agree.

Something will have to be changed. Either laws or the attitude of sailors/officers/merchant marine companies. The less pressure you put on pirates the more active they will become and that means companies will start hiring security companies and mercenaries to secure safe travel and then things will get out of hand.

I am studying nautics, which means that one day I'll be an officer on a ship. And if theirs a decision to protect my crew or obey the laws, I'll choose the safety of the crew. And if that means having a consealed stash of AK's on board and then killing every pirate that comes near me I'll take the chance before court. What's a few years in prison, as long as I am still alive.

The nation the ship is registred with and the nations at which it makes port calls. That's it. I doubt the captain or crew would have a problem with on-board security hired by their employer since the alternative is possible pirate raids.

No, you only need to do each deal once. Most vessels; especially company vessels trade on a circuit, only one leg of which may need protection. As long as the ports who are hubs for dangeous sealanes are covered, there is no need to do anything else.


That doesn't sound like a private arrangement at all, it sounds more like a state escort arrangement. One way or the other, or goal here is to provide private security for ships travelling through dangerous waters by virtue of services offered at the ports they visit.

It sounds to me like you're looking for a regular, scheduled system, and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about on-demand security teams that will secure shipping from point A to point B at a reasonable rate. They can handle regular traffic and the occassional odd run, though prices for atypical voyages may run a bit higher, I'm sure.

For the record, most ships do make regular runs. It's cheaper that way.


An excellent reason to get them out of the way, don't you think? As with most of my arguments, I'm not talking about what is politically feasible right now, but rather what ought to be done instead.