The EU wants to reflect on the use of armed private guards. Finally !

(BRUSSELS2) The affair of military and Indian sailors goes back to the highest level. EU High Representative Catherine Ashton met today with Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti. At the heart of the discussions: the latest European contacts with the Indian authorities, to try to resolve the situation of Italian soldiers held in prison in India (suspected of having killed 2 fishermen by mistake).

EU-India cooperation on piracy

To avoid giving the impression that there is a problem, it is around the " cooperation between the European Union and India on piracy » that officially the conversation took place. And we see a possible way out, through a joint declaration from the two parties (EU – India) affirming their desire to “ cooperate on regulation of armed private security guards in the context of the International Maritime Organization. On the specific case of the Italian military, the High Representative wants "keep in close contact" so much with the "Indian authorities" than with the Italians. to follow the file. "We want this case to be resolved as quickly as possible."

A new regulation with imprecise content

Little is known about the new regulations. “It’s a new concept” confessed the spokeswoman for C. Ashton when questioned by the press during the daily midday briefing (March 13). “The principle would be to be able to authorize armed guards on board sensitive cargo ships.  (...)  (Corn) We are at the principle stage. For this principle to be recognized, a legal basis is required. And we want this to be done at the international level, from the International Maritime Organization ». The rules established could be inspired by what is practiced “ as part of Operation Eunavfor Atalanta. We have a similar concept, which was recently introduced, allowing military personnel to be on board certain ships (civilian, PAM). And it works perfectly ».

Comment: the end of DIY

Finally ! you could say. After four years of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean, it is perhaps not too early for us to look at the consequences of armed guards on board, or soldiers, merchant ships. .

First of all, let us note that this option of integrating the protection teams embarked as part of the Eunavfor Atalanta operation had been considered for a while, three years ago, in particular for the fishermen who were in the Indian Ocean, but had been rejected. As a result, each country did what it wanted. The French chose an option of marine riflemen aboard tuna boats; the Spanish took the option of strictly supervised private guards. Germany has, for the moment, refused the option of private guards on board merchant ships flying its flag (neither military nor private guards). The Netherlands has refused legislation on private guards but provides soldiers. The United Kingdom did not want to deploy soldiers on board these ships and authorizes private guards, just like Greece, etc.

In fact, each State has invented, for its needs, ad hoc rules, with a rather shaky international foundation, and not very tenable in fact. The Indian affair revealed this. Nothing prevents a State from exercising its sovereignty over armed men who cross its territorial waters. The use of private guards was finally integrated into the guide to good practices against piracy. But without really resolving any of the problems that could arise (liability, use and stock of weapons, etc.). The European Commission, once involved (4 years ago), has given up on legislating on anything, for obscure reasons (which I myself find difficult to explain!). A mistake …

To get back to work, any leads?

Today it is time to resume work from the base by establishing rules of use for private guards but distinguishing them from those of soldiers exercising public power. The rules for some cannot automatically be the same rules for others. The confusion maintained by the High Representative of the EU is neither accurate, good nor desirable. All rules must be clarified from departure to the platform until arrival. We will not have to wait for the IMO, otherwise in three years we will still be at the same point (provisional guidelines have been adopted, but they are still very partial: read  THEIMO establishes the conditions of employment of private guards on board).

It may be necessary to have a dual approach: community and international and not just one. At the European level, we need a harmonized system for the approval of private companies (conditions of use, insurance, rules of responsibility vis-à-vis the shipowner, the captain, control, etc.), even if it means supplementing them with international rules. At the international level, a system is needed to authorize the presence of weapons on board, particularly when crossing territorial waters or upon arrival in ports. On this point, we could draw inspiration from the agreements concluded with the Seychelles for Spanish tuna boats.

Finally, the military EPE/VPD should be integrated into the Eunavfor Atalanta operation, to allow a more coherent (and economical) use of all forces and the application of the same rules of engagement (warning shots, warning shots, …). It would not be inconsistent to see Italian VPDs protecting a French or Dutch ship, and vice versa. Estonian VPDs are already used on WFP vessels. And African VPDs over those of AMISOM.

Read also:

• The issue of VPDs, is it urgent to regulate?
• Italian soldiers imprisoned in India: the EU ready to help for a solution