Folks - this is what we are outsourcing and externalizing.<p>When foreign entities are able to bid for a lot less, and pay a lot less, a lot of it has to do with the fact that they will not bother with 'end of life' for ships, or getting insurance, or worrying about the lives of people who are 'expendable'.<p>Those very nice buildings in Dubai come from some nasty labour practices.<p>If every piece of this puzzle from end-to-end were to have happened in a 'rich country' there'd be legal issues, PR/media, litigation, and a separate kind of bureaucracy altogether, meaning the 'alternative' for a lot of corporations is just 'wash their hands' of it, pay 1/2 the price, and get all the ugly parts 'off the books'.<p>We are to the point now where we have ample material surplus - we don't need any more 'plastic stuff from China' - it'd be worthwhile to start integrating a lot of 'off the books' stuff into trade deals. Ironically, it would be good for 'them' as well, because in chaotic, quasi-lawless systems it doesn't make sense for participants to invest in anything further ahead than what is in front of their noses (i.e. don't hate the Lebanese shippers for doing the only thing they can do to remain profitable, i.e. don't hate the player, hate the game) ... forcing some degree of transparency and accountability in these systems might raise prices a little bit, but the benefits would likely be immensely positive in the system overall.<p>It's nice that the story is made personal, about a real individual (think: that Tom Hanks film about someone stuck in international airport limbo) but that's not really the story here is it.
His ship has been sitting still for so long that you can see it on Google Maps:
<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D8%B3%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86+%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF+%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%B4%D8%A9+Mohammed+Aishah+Ship%E2%80%AD/@29.9446286,32.493548,301m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x14562f931826deb5:0xcc41675661426f9!8m2!3d29.9444682!4d32.4938089" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/maps/place/%D8%B3%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%86%D...</a><p>Edit: a few more story details here: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-given-crew-fear-joining-ranks-of-seafarers-stranded-on-ships-for-years" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/19/ever-giv...</a> When he rows to shore to get supplies he can only stay for two hours at most as the area is a restricted military zone. Other crew members were repatriated in September 2019, so Mohammad was not alone for 2 years but only for 7 months (which is no less unacceptable). The only reason Mohammad was allowed to leave was thanks to a local union representative who agreed to take his place as the ship’s guardian.
Is there something that could be done by people otherwise uninvolved - like myself, or my fellow HN readers - to help the other ~250 people who are currently stuck in similar situations?<p>I don’t even know how to go about enumerating who those people are, their ships, or where they are anchored. With that information a well-organized and/or funded group could at least get someone out to these people to check on them, provide basic supplies, and perhaps some form of reliable communications.<p>A lot of problems seem insurmountable large and complex, and even this one seems so if your goal is to free these people of their legal liabilities - but if you set aside trying to solve the reason they’re stuck onboard these ships in the first place, providing basic humanitarian aid to them seems doable.<p>ETA: This looks like a good place to start - <a href="https://www.ilo.org/dyn/seafarers/seafarersbrowse.home" rel="nofollow">https://www.ilo.org/dyn/seafarers/seafarersbrowse.home</a>
It is supremely unfair for the court to assign him full responsibility for the ship, but without any power over it. If the court were serious about the situation they should have handed the ship over to him entirely. He could then put the ship up on the market for whomever wanted to buy it or sell it to a scrapping company.<p>If you think this would be unfair to the ships owners this is exactly the point. Force them to fix the situation or lose control of it entirely. Don't leave an actual human in some Kafkaesque nightmare of being jailed on a derelict vessel because you are terrible at running a shipping company. The article says there are hundreds of these cases around the world, and because only regular people are being harmed nobody is trying that hard to fix it. This is unconscionable.<p>Edit: Fixed my faulty memory about the number of ships in this situation.
A friend of mine who's working on installing multimedia systems on luxury yacht told me a recent story today: a woman came from Florida to work on a yacht that was called by his owner to some place. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to her she had COVID. all of the 12 crew members went sick; the boat stopped at Malta, and 2 stewards died. As the ship was late and stranded, the owner simply fired all of the remaining people onboard, sick as they were, because he wanted his boat back. Then, the lady, stranded without resources in La Valette and probably under crushing guilt committed suicide.<p>My friend knew several members of the crew.
Not to compare bad vs worse, but when I get bored for ten minutes I tend to remember that at least I'm not in Otokichi's crew:<p>> <i>The ship, without a mast or a rudder, was carried across the northern Pacific Ocean by currents. It drifted for 14 months, during which the crew lived on desalinated seawater and on the rice of their cargo.</i><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokichi" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otokichi</a> (from a recent-ish HN thread).
I saw this video from Chief MAKOi (who has an excellent youtube channel in general) about this situation a week ago. It seemed rather hopeless for him at the time considering that it was going on for four years already. I wonder if that video contributed to pressure to fix the situation, it does have almost a million views.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zD-KjuGuiM" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zD-KjuGuiM</a>
I'm not clear what Egypt's goal was by forcing this man to stay aboard the ship. Simply declaring him the guardian never made it so. He was never going to be able to resolve the issues himself and it appears the owners have simply abandoned it and written it off. If Egypt can't get money from the owners, then, as owners of the canal, deny other of their ships passage through it.
If he had silently sneaked off the ship, would someone have noticed? How long would it take for anyone to notice that a ship without power and crewed by just 1 person was actually abandoned?
Why would you write an article like this without a word describing the legal consequences of leaving the ship? What consequence would be worth four years of your life?<p>Edit: a more useful video linked below explains that the authorities confiscated his passport. That would make it difficult to leave. Though I'd probably try anyway after a year of that.
I don't understand why he couldn't just get on another ship and leave forever. Worst case you just never go back to that shitty country right?
The saddest part of this unfair ordeal is that his mother died while he was confined to this ship, and he couldn’t go visit her or attend the funeral. This article notes, he contemplated suicide then.<p>Shipping companies regularly do this to their crew, abandoning them when the costs of properly managing the situation aren’t worth it to them. Note that ship abandonment is also what led to the devastating explosion in Beirut, Lebanon: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Rhosus" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Rhosus</a>
I hope he is able to profit from his story with book and/or movie rights. It's a fascinating story and I bet would make a great movie a la Captain Phillips or 127 Hours.
> The Aman's owners, Tylos Shipping and Marine Services, told the BBC they had tried to help Mohammed but that their hands were tied.<p>> "I can't force a judge to remove the legal guardianship," a representative told us. "And I can't find a single person on this planet - and I've tried - to replace him."<p>Well, obviously nobody would volunteer unless things were going to change.<p>But surely the ships operating company had violated their operating agreement, giving the owner grounds to "evict" them, find a new operator, get the updated safety equipment and classification certificates, and pay for the fuel. Once that was done surely the ship would be unseized, and with a new crew installed, Egypt ought to be happy to cancel the guardianship.<p>This was all especially true back before it ran aground.<p>It would also seem like this all would be very much in the owner's interest as letting the ship decay cannot be good for the ships value, and they probably were not getting paid rent by the current operator for this.<p>But I'm guessing there is a lot more to this that the BBC article has left out.
Even more surprising that there’s one situation still ongoing:<p>> Meanwhile, at the Iranian port of Assaluyeh, 19 mostly Indian crew members of the bulk carrier Ula are on hunger strike after their vessel was abandoned by its owners in July 2019.
If you're interested in shipping I highly recommend the YouTube channel of Chief Engineer Makoi <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/ChiefMAKOi" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/c/ChiefMAKOi</a>. He has been talking about Mr. Aisha's situation for some time now. Really awesome to see that he's been relieved.
Just a few months ago, Beirut port blew up after a series of events that started with an abandoned ship.<p>The way the world's maritime shipping system works is really screwed up.<p><a href="https://www.stableseas.org/blue-economy/explosion-beirut-seafarer-rights" rel="nofollow">https://www.stableseas.org/blue-economy/explosion-beirut-sea...</a>
I don't understand what use he was on that ship? And can't they find any out of work person from shore to take his place? I'm sure there are dozens lining up to get that job for a few pennies an hour. And they might just have family in the area that can help sustain them.
What does legal guardian mean? What if you flee?<p>And if your employer owes you a salary can you sell the ship for scrap to recover salary? -- I'm guessing suck tricks would require a fancy lawyer.
maybe someone could have sent him a copy of this film? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Island_(film)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Island_(film)</a><p>A bit of hacking, some solar panels, a few stereos, tents, some poker chips, a rock band's visit... how long before the authorities would force him off? How many bitcoins would have he raked?
(OK this is thinking different in a slightly hollywoodesque way... still)<p>cheers!
Oh, he is not the only one.<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-oil-tanker-int-idUSKBN2A91NS" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/article/emirates-oil-tanker-int-idUS...</a><p>Now, whose hell is hotter?<p>This world is definitly a ship of damned and fools.<p><a href="https://jakeanddinoschapman.com/works/ship-of-fools/" rel="nofollow">https://jakeanddinoschapman.com/works/ship-of-fools/</a>
I don't get it. I might be misunderstanding things, but my understanding is that here in Norway the owner of a vessel has the ultimate responsibility in cases like these. Why is the Egyptian law this way? It doesn't seem very practical to legally require this one guy to stay on board, what problem is that supposed to solve?
According to the International Labour Organization, there are more than 250 active cases around the world where crews are simply left to fend for themselves. It says 85 new cases were reported in 2020, which is twice as many as in the previous year.<p>Now that's a sad piece of information I read today.
I started to write a comment about why international law doesn’t require ship owners to post a bond superior to other debt blah blah blah. Then I realized I am out of my element. I am like a child walking into the middle of a movie and wants to know what’s going on.
This story is so appalling that I genuinely have a hard time understanding it.<p>> He was legally obliged to stay aboard<p>What the actual fuck?<p>So Egypt has some sort of law, that allows the government to imprison people who have committed no crime indefinitely?
I don't get it. 4 years without food an electricity? No Payment? What did he eat?<p>"was able to swim ashore every few days". Ok, swim ashore, hitchhike to the next city, try to cross a border.
Border to Israel looks tricky:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_barrier" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_barrier</a><p>Worst case, go to Sudan or something. Apply for Asylum, get deported.
The Egyptian legal system is not known for its fairness... the World Justice Project ranks it 125 of 128 surveyed countries, in last place out of 8 countries in the Middle East[1]<p>Similarly (and tragically) the Syrian government is not known for its compassion towards its distressed citizens.<p>[1] <a href="https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/Egypt" rel="nofollow">https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/country/Eg...</a>
> "And I can't find a single person on this planet - and I've tried - to replace him."<p>I’ll do it for $10M/year, paid in advance of course due to the company’s financial situation. Oh, he probably means for whatever meager wages they were paying this guy. Yeah, no wonder.
<i>But he is determined. He says he is good at his job and wants nothing more than to pick up where he left off.</i><p>Meanwhile HN commenters be moaning every time their scrollbar is hijacked by a link or they have to deal with spaghetti code at work like "I'm so burned out"