Shipping must move beyond sympathy and condemnation and introduce enforceable protections for crews operating in conflict zones, former Columbia Shipmanagement’s CEO Mark O’Neil has warned following the death of the chief engineer aboard the Liberian-flagged Minoan Dignity in the Strait of Hormuz.

Writing in a comment piece, O’Neil said the death “should stop every shipping leader in their tracks”. He said it raised a question that nobody in the industry should avoid, asking, “Are we doing enough to protect seafarers working in the world’s conflict zones?” His answer was direct, with O’Neil stating that “the honest answer is no”. 

O’Neil said there would be “condolences, statements and renewed declarations that seafarers must never become collateral damage”, all of which would be sincerely meant. However, he warned that “unless those words lead to coordinated and meaningful action, they will offer little comfort to the family now grieving its loss, or to the thousands of seafarers still being asked to sail through dangerous waters”. 

He argued that the industry must make the issue personal, asking readers to “imagine the public response if a missile struck a cruiseship and killed a passenger”. In such circumstances, O’Neil said, “the victim would immediately be seen as a parent, child, sibling, colleague or friend”, while “the outrage would be immediate, political pressure would intensify and demands for action would be impossible to ignore”. He then asked why the death of a seafarer aboard a merchant ship should “provoke anything less”. 

O’Neil stressed that seafarers are civilians, saying “they are not combatants and have no part in the political or military disputes through which they are required to navigate”. In most cases, he added, “neither they nor their vessels have any connection to the countries involved”. 

Despite this, crews face “missiles, drones, mines and other threats in the Black Sea, the Red Sea and the Gulf”, O’Neil said. Drawing on his own experience of being in the firing line, he added that “no additional payment can properly compensate someone for being placed in the firing line”. 

He also rejected the argument that every seafarer has a completely free choice over whether to enter a dangerous area. O’Neil explained that “refusing to join a vessel or sail through a high-risk area could mean losing income, missing a rotation or damaging future employment prospects”. When a seafarer has a family depending on their wages, he said, “that is not a choice made on equal terms”. 

Turning to the industry’s own responsibility, O’Neil acknowledged that “ships must trade, cargoes must be delivered and customers must be served”, describing these as commercial realities. However, he stressed that they “cannot justify transferring an unacceptable level of personal risk to the people with the least influence over the decision”. 

O’Neil said individual companies cannot resolve the problem alone, as an owner withdrawing from a route may suffer commercially while competitors continue trading. For that reason, he argued, “the response must be collective”. 

He called on “shipping’s associations, shipowners, charterers, commodity traders, unions and seafarers’ organisations” to speak with one clear voice. Their message, O’Neil said, must be that “attacks on merchant ships and their crews are unacceptable, and those responsible must understand that there will be consequences”. 

Although the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has condemned attacks on commercial shipping and repeatedly emphasised the dangers facing crews, O’Neil said its interventions alone cannot protect seafarers when those launching the attacks have little regard for international law. He therefore warned that “leadership must now extend beyond issuing statements”. 

O’Neil said unions and national associations should ensure that seafarers have “a clear and enforceable right to refuse passage through an active conflict zone without losing pay or harming their future employment”. Those who agree to sail, he added, “must provide genuinely informed consent and receive appropriate compensation, insurance and firm commitments covering evacuation, repatriation and support for their families”. 

At the same time, O’Neil called for risk assessments to be “robust, transparent and credible”. He said commercial considerations “must never override the judgement of the master or the safety of the crew”, while governments must be pressed to provide naval protection wherever it is required. 

O’Neil also said the industry should be prepared to consider coordinated commercial measures against those deliberately targeting merchant shipping. Such action, he explained, “could include restrictions on trade, refusal to call at particular ports or other targeted action agreed with governments and international bodies”. 

While acknowledging that these measures would be difficult, cause disruption, carry costs and create legal and humanitarian complications, O’Neil warned that “if we are unwilling to accept any of that burden, we are effectively asking seafarers and their families to accept all of it”. Such a position, he said, is “neither fair nor defensible”. 

He stressed that the aim is “not to escalate conflict or punish innocent populations”, but to defend a fundamental principle that “merchant ships are not legitimate military targets, and civilian seafarers are not expendable”. 

O’Neil said shipping has “enormous economic influence when it acts collectively” and must now demonstrate that it is prepared to use that influence to defend its people. He added that every seafarer killed or injured is “more than an entry in a casualty report”, but “someone who boarded a ship to work, support a family and return home safely”. 

Behind each casualty, he said, is “a family receiving the news that all of us dread”. O’Neil therefore reminded the industry that “the world depends on shipping, and shipping depends on its seafarers”, adding that if companies are sincere when describing people as their greatest asset, “then we must demonstrate it through our actions”. 

O’Neil concluded by saying that “sympathy is important” and “condemnation is necessary”, but stressed that neither is enough and it is time for shipping to act.