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?
I work in the industry and see how the industry treat it’s workers, climate and environment.
For me it’s more important to future proof our species then feeding some capitalist hedgefund dollars.
Flagging the ships to countries with proper societal structures with military defence and laws is beneficial for everyone except the sharks. Lemmy is pretty anti-capitalist untill their cheap Chinese electronics are under threat.
IMO has codes to better the conditions at sea with SOLAS, MARPOL and MLC. With a foot inside the industry you are a fool to see these regulations are far from enough.
The regular philipine seaman is onboard 9 months on a single contract, and has to get a new contract for the next time. The regular western seafarer has a 1/1 rotation with an employment contract with a shipping company.
More expensive shipping forces less shipping. Which might re-establish local industries. Europe made much of its stuff before. Now it’s moved to cheap countries in the east. Norway sends fish to china for processing, it gets sent back and sold in Norway. This is insane to me.
Norway has 1 shoe maker left. Other Norwegian shoemakers has their head office in Norway, but production is moved to Asia.
For me it’s more important to future proof our species then feeding some capitalist hedgefund dollars.
So you’re making a philosophical argument instead of a pragmatic one? Until those in power agree with your mission statement of “future proof our species”, any desired actions toward that aim are moot.
More expensive shipping forces less shipping. Which might re-establish local industries. Europe made much of its stuff before. Now it’s moved to cheap countries in the east. Norway sends fish to china for processing, it gets sent back and sold in Norway. This is insane to me.
While our current system has lots of downsides, it allows for nearly everyone to have more than they did before (yes it is disproportionately distributed). Additionally, the large global interconnected system is the strongest check against war in history. Trade helps prevent total global war.
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.
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.
Please make your argument citing specific international laws.
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.
