Attacks on merchant shipping continue to expose a significant gap between official statements and the grim reality faced by crews at sea, according to Sunil Kapoor, partner and chief operating officer at Oesterreichischer Lloyd Shipping Group.
Writing for industry publication Splash, the executive of the Limassol-based shipping firm, highlighted the growing dangers for seafarers amid ongoing maritime security threats.
He argued that global trade depends on seafarers, yet the system meant to protect them often fails in times of crisis.
Kapoor said ships are burning at sea, with flames and thick dark smoke rising into the sky. He stressed that these are “not warships. Not naval vessels”, but “ordinary merchant ships carrying cargo for the global economy, with civilian seafarers on board simply doing their jobs”.
Referring to recent attacks on merchant vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, Kapoor noted that International Maritime Organisation (IMO) secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez had expressed deep concern over casualties among seafarers.
He added that Dominguez had stressed that attacks on innocent civilian shipping can never be justified and had reaffirmed that freedom of navigation remains a fundamental principle of international maritime law.
Still, Kapoor said the words were correct, but added that they have been heard many times before. Every time merchant ships are attacked, or seafarers lose their lives in geopolitical conflicts, “the same kind of statements appear”, he said.
What is less clear, Kapoor continued, is what those statements mean “for the seafarer standing watch tonight on the bridge”.
He pointed out that the past few years have offered several examples of the system that is supposed to protect seafarers simply not working, pointing in particular to the Covid period.
During that time, Kapoor said, governments insisted that seafarers could not remain on board ships beyond twelve months, while port state and local authorities were very strict in checking that crew contracts were within the legal limits before allowing ships to operate.
At the same time, however, those same governments often refused to issue visas for incoming crew or allow crew members to disembark.
As a result, Kapoor said, ships trading in certain regions simply had no practical way to change crews.
He described this as “a strange and frustrating catch-22 situation”.
Kapoor explained that authorities insisted that no seafarer should remain on board beyond the permitted period, yet “the same system made it impossible for crew changes to happen”.
To keep vessels trading, Kapoor said, many ships started operating with additional people on board.
He explained that relief crew would join the vessel, but the seafarers who had already exceeded their contracts were not allowed to leave. So they continued sailing as “passengers”.
“On paper, the rules were followed,” Kapoor said, adding that, in reality, everyone knew the system was not working.
Kapoor also recalled one vessel during that period arriving in port carrying the body of a seafarer who had died on board. He said the crew had kept the body in the ship’s freezer and requested permission to land it so it could be repatriated to the family.
Instead, Kapoor said, the ship sailed from one port to another because no authority was willing to allow the body to be landed.
He added that the crew continued their voyage carrying the remains of their colleague, while his family waited thousands of miles away for a funeral that could not take place.
A similar situation emerged, Kapoor said, when war broke out between Russia and Ukraine.
He said merchant ships were suddenly trapped in Ukrainian ports while missiles were falling around them. Kapoor added that the crew on those ships were “not soldiers”, but “commercial seafarers responsible for maintaining the safety of their vessels and cargo”.
When evacuation became necessary, Kapoor said, the responsibility for getting those crews home fell largely on ship managers and the seafarers themselves.
He added that they organised transport, arranged routes out of the region and found their own way home while the conflict continued.
Today, Kapoor said, the industry is again seeing ships under attack in the Red Sea and surrounding waters.
Referring to March 2024, he noted that the bulk carrier True Confidence was hit by a missile off Yemen, killing three seafarers and injuring several others.
“They were not part of any war. They were simply doing their jobs,” Kapoor said.
The damaged vessel drifted for months before a port was finally willing to accept it. Kapoor said there would later be many discussions and analyses about how the vessel ended up in such a dangerous situation and what led to it being hit in broad daylight.
But, he added, for the families of those seafarers, “those explanations will make little difference”.
Now, Kapoor said, tensions in the Strait of Hormuz are creating similar concerns. “The whole area is on fire,” he said, adding that “more than 1,000 ships are stuck in the strait”.
The question now, Kapoor went on, is what needs to be done: should ships stay and wait, or continue sailing through the strait?
He said some political leaders have suggested ships should simply continue sailing through the strait and “show some guts”.
Kapoor argued that such comments may sound strong in political speeches, but they ignore the reality faced by the master and crew of a merchant vessel.
“Decisions taken in political offices eventually fall on the seafarers navigating those waters,” Kapoor said. He added that, for them, the risk is very real.
Kapoor also said there can be pressure within the industry to keep trading through high-risk areas. Sometimes, he noted, when a ship passes safely through a dangerous region, it is presented as a success story.
But “the outcome is not the same for every vessel”, Kapoor said.
When an incident happens and a seafarer dies, Kapoor said one has to ask a basic question: “Does anyone investigate the instructions given to the ship?” He also asked on what basis the master and crew were told to sail through such areas.
“The vessel may be insured. The cargo may be insured. But human life cannot be replaced,” Kapoor said.
He also said that when his company bought its vessel, one thing was very clear: “We will never endanger the lives of our seafarers.” Kapoor added that “no cargo and no charter is worth that risk” and that, if a situation becomes unsafe, “our vessel will stay away from conflict areas”.
Kapoor said there is sometimes “a sense of bravado in this business”, with ships passing through dangerous waters and the story later presented as a success. But, he added, when something goes wrong, “it is the seafarers who pay the price”.
Moreover, Kapoor said incidents like these make one thing clear. He stressed that the risks of geopolitical conflict are not carried by politicians or decision-makers sitting far away.
“They are carried by seafarers onboard the vessels,” he said.
In many of these crises, Kapoor added, the practical solutions have come from the shipping industry itself. He noted that shipowners, managers, agents and local maritime communities organise repatriation, support families and deal with emergencies, while international organisations issue statements and hold discussions.
That, Kapoor said, raises a simple question.
“The vast majority of world trade moves by sea. The global economy depends on seafarers. Yet when crises happen, whether pandemics, wars, or attacks on ships, the world still does not have a reliable system to protect them,” he said.
Kapoor concluded by reminding readers that behind every crew list there is a family waiting at home.
“When a seafarer boards a ship, the expectation is simple: that the voyage will end safely and that he will return home,” Kapoor said.
He added that when merchant ships become targets in geopolitical conflicts, that expectation can disappear very quickly.
“Statements of concern will continue to be issued after every incident,” he said. But, he added, for the families waiting at home, one thing is clear. “When seafarers die, statements are not enough.”
