[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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.

Once the vessel has emptied and picked up a new cargo and new destination do you need tro do more deals with more nations?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.