The west should not protect merchant ships from Houthi drone attacks in the Red Sea.
The west should not protect merchant ships from Houthi drone attacks in the Red Sea.
US and other Nato countries should not bother with protecting merchant ships attacked in the Red sea. The shipping companies have to rely on the navies of their flag states for protection. The 10 largest flag states for shipping are:
Panama, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malta, Bahamas, China, Greece, Japan
Hong Kong is now China. But there is still an independent shipping tax haven there. The shipping companies avoiding taxes in western countries does not deserve protection from the same countries.
They can get a return of the tax money by letting the mentionee countries send their navies. Greece is a NATO country, so NATO can participate to some degree with support to the flag state navies.
*Guess this was a popular opinion.
I think you are not understanding how global shipping works, the ship could be owned by company in country A, hired by company in country B, under the flag of country C, cargo owned by country D, crew from country E, F and G or any random mix of everything.
Also the vast majority of goods to Europe goes through the red sea, and Suez canal. Remember what happened last time shipping stopped going through the Suez canal. It directly effects the economies of Europe, which most countries are NATO, so you could say it's an attack on NATO country, which is article 5 of the treaty, and the only time article 5 has been invoked, was the 9/11 attacks, which led to a 20year(?) war. So maybe there is some interest in not letting it get that far again
I'm pretty knowledgeable on how shipping works. If not I wouldn't know shit about what a flag state is.
A company in country A flags their ship to a tax haven which is country B. They hire seafarers from country C to commit to the social dumping of poor people. Usually from the Philippines or India.
They transport goods between countries with to ties to A, B or C. Which is fine of course. That's trade.
Owners in country A enrich themselves from tax evasion in B, and wage theft from C.
One of the largest cruise companies in Norway have their ships flagged to Swiss. The land locked shipping nation of the Alps.
This is an opportunity to bruteforce the shipping companies to bring their wealth home.
This is an opportunity to bruteforce the shipping companies to bring their wealth home.
My guess is this would be a "penny-wise but pound foolish" or "stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime" approach. The main group "losing out" on tax benefits by allowing this loophole are nation states (or groups of nation states) and are well aware of it. As such, its likely that they make even more money from other steps in this chain toward the GDP or other measures that they're interested in. So while they could force the shipping companies to flag ships for defense, doing so would me less overall money for the nation states providing a safe and predictable environment for international commerce (safe for commerce).
Do you get where I'm going with this or would you like more detail?
Europe and Northern America need the goods those merchant ships transport.
To retain the logistical profits, high-income countries could operate shipping organisations themselves, like they sometimes do with railways.
Various actors like industry and retail in Europe and Northern America often rely on cheap transportation costs to sustain spatial production benefits.
The red sea shouldn't be controlled by Iran.
Not protecting merchant ships discourages sailors from joining shipping professions.
Sailors often have various nationalities, including high-income countries. Not defending merchant ships endangers those lives.
The west aren't doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. It's to protect supply chains and corporate interests.
Please make your argument citing specific international laws.
The shipping companies avoiding taxes in western countries does not deserve protection from the same countries.
In theory yes, but in reality, many nations are hugely dependent on the wares shipped via sea. Having no secure supply chains is a huge detriment to your own production base and will quickly depress your economic forecast.
Right idea , wrong solution maybe ?
Everything you’ve said about flags of convenience is true. In addition, it helps the shipper circumvent labour laws and pay proper wages.
On the other hand, I can’t really support putting those ships at risk and the the lives of the people on them. The west maintains expensive forces for reasons just such as this.
Plus, if we suddenly stop getting cheap shit by the boat load, the world grinds to a halt, literally.
So, good idea, wrong solution because the price of it is too high, given the dependencies in place .
Im actually a surprised how much this hot downvoted. Its either incredible popular, or this place is a carbon copy of reddit where only popular opinions get upvotes.
Unpopular opinion: Trump is not suited as president.
I'm not who you're replying to, and I certainly haven't downvoted you. I don't downvote people for having a different opinion. Downvotes are for posts that actively poison conversation or where posters are treating others poorly.
However, your cited problem and suggested solution appear to be lacking in larger understandings of geopolitics and global commerce.