Is that supposed to be disproving what I said?
I take your statement as meaning you think a requirement to grant blanket legal entry could be a deal breaker in the application of MCL 2006.
The article clearly states: “MLC, 2006, except in covering the matter of shore leave for seafarers in ports, does not touch upon visa requirements or immigration laws.”
It leaves the question of shore leave extremely vague and open to interpretation and specifically avoids visa issues. Congress hasn’t had the wherewithal to address a broken immigration system in 50 years I don’t see them jumping up and changing anything any time soon to please an international maritime organization on behalf of foreign sailors.
The Seaman’s Church Institute published a report in 2014 on the numbers of foreign sailors denied entry and the reasons why:
CBP officers boarding and clearing ships don’t currently have access to the data bases available to them in airports and land ports of entry. The default position is to restrict entry unless a seaman already has a visa or has good reason to request a temporary one.
“2. Seafarers shall be granted shore leave to benefit their health and well-being and with the operational requirements of their positions.”
That doesn’t sound very vague to me.
Which is why the US doesn’t want to sign a treaty infringing on their ability to do just that.
It’s a lofty goal and as a former deep sea sailor it’s one I wholeheartedly agree with but I don’t see the US position changing.
The reality is that there is a real concern that without complete vetting, it’s too easy to slip through the cracks and forget to return to the ship. It’s public knowledge that there is no tracking system once they’ve entered the country and they’re free to join the ranks of the 10 million illegals here already.
It’s also stated that the shipping company is obligated to provide sailors with the necessary visas. They already do so for officers with operational requirements but in the rotation I spent clearing ships as a CBP Officer I don’t recall the courtesy being extended to non-licensed personnel.
And that’s why the US isn’t planning on ratifying the MLC…
Why didn’t you say so before. Just kidding. It’s been a long day. I read the article too quickly and somehow got it into my head that the US had decided to ratify the agreement while avoiding compliance with the shore leave requirements. I’ll just pour myself a stiff cocktail and call it a day.
Five crew members on an anchor-handler in Mozambique claim they have not been paid for almost a year by the ship’s owner.
The owner of the 736-gt Amsol (built 1984) is a mystery. But in an interview with Mozambique’s O Pais newspaper, the mariners described it as being from the Middle East and having Iranian connections.
The crew, who come from Iran, Syria, India and Bangladesh, claimed that they were only managing to survive because of assistance provided by the police.
In a televised meeting last week, Sofala provincial maritime administrator Antonio Vilanculos curtly told a representative of the owner who had been summoned to Beira that the crew had better be paid by this week or he would take legal action against the ship.
The Tanzanian-flagged Amsol, which until earlier this month was named PSD 2, has been stranded in Beira for two months because of engine problems.
Earlier this year the ship was working on contract for Mozambique’s National Institute of Hydrography (INAHINA) to repair buoys in the country’s ports.
Shipping databases shed no light on the identity of its owner. The last listed owner in the IHS International Ships Register was Smit Amandla Marine when the ship was named Pentow Service, but that company appears to have sold it in April 2012.
After that, it underwent several name changes, but always with the owner and operator stated as being unknown.
The ship appears to have been laid up in Durban during this vague period of its existence, only departing for Mozambican waters early this year after it was renamed PSD 2.
Not even scrap value, it will cost to dispose these low quality vessels…
Malaviya Seven auction halted
UK auctioneer trying to up $395,000 offer from lone bidder to pay off crew.
October 17th, 2017 13:27 GMT by Gary Dixon
Published in SHIP SALES
The UK auction of an arrested Indian platform supply vessel has been called off due to only one low bid being received.
The BBC reported that the 4,750-dwt GOL Offshore ship Malaviya Seven (built 1994) was to be sold on Tuesday in Aberdeen.
Auctioneer Dominic Daly was cited as saying the sole bid was at £300,000 ($395,000), when 24 crew are owed more than £600,000 after not being paid for a year.
He is now trying to persuade the bidder to increase the offer.
The ITF union had the ship arrested over the arrears. The auction was aimed at paying the seafarers so they could return home.
Aberdeen Harbour Board is also owed money.
The VesselsValue platform listed the vessel as worth just $1.74m earlier this year.
GOL has been facing significant financial pressures. The State Bank of Hyderabad has taken over its headquarters and in January lender DNB took over five of its ships.
The owner probably just created another shell company out of thin air to make the bid and get his ship back…
And she is not that old and obsolete (Blt. 1994 in Norway as Northern Clipper)
Although missing maintenance for a long time, this should be a feasible vessel for further trading, just looking at the brief specs and equipment list.(Not for the North Sea though):
Hahahahaha, that brilliant!!!
That also happens with US Government guaranteed non-recourse loans
Call for more action from IMO, ILO, Flag States and Ports to stop crew abandonment:
Splash 24/7 is really doing their bit.
It’s utterly ridiculous for port states to enslave and imprison abandoned crews on junk ships for months or years. What is worse, is that the same countries that do this to innocent mariners, are the ones who are constantly screaming about human rights.
It’s so simple, if no one responds within 15 days, buy the boys plane tickets and fly them home. A trivial expense for the port state in the context of global human rights efforts. I’m sure plane tickets for 30 crew cost less than the bar tab at the typical IMO, ILO, or whatever meeting.
Promptly sell the ship at public auction and pay off the crew and local vendors. Problem solved.
Another approach would be to deliver the crew to the flag state’s embassy, and say “here you go, take care of your boys.” Lots of ways to bring diplomatic pressure to enforce this, such as a freeze on foreign aid payments, orders to reduce embassy staff, etc. Reducing the number of diplomatic license plates issued would probably be enough.
The only reasons owners, charterers, and financiers, often in the midst of an internal dispute over payments, abandon crew is that we make it too easy and let them get away with it.
With security concerns today, no ship should be permitted to enter a port if it’s beneficial owners cannot be identified.
This crew abandonment issue and unidentified owners issue, is a testament to the hypocracy and ineffectualness of governments and international organizations.
Splash 24/7 is continuing it’s campaign against crew abandonment. Here is an article from today’s newsletter:
Splash 24/7 gets a pat on the shoulder from the boss of one of the largest FOC registers:
The latest on the Splash 24/7’s initiative to stop abandonment of ships and crews:
Here is a good reason why this has to be stopped:
The problem with abandonment of crews were main topic at a recent Maritime CEO forum in Hong Kong:
Looks like the Splash 24/7 campaign is getting traction.