IT WAS inevitable. If you keep on firing deadly weapons at people, sooner or later, you will kill them.

Because of the economic importance to world trade of ships and their cargoes, news coverage on the Red Sea crisis has mainly been on the vessels that have been attacked and the re-routing of many others.

But we must remember that those attacks haven’t really been on the ships but on the people who live and work on them – the seafarers.

It was already intolerable that the 25-strong crew of the Galaxy Leader was being held hostage. Now, the Houthi rebels in Yemen are killing seafarers.

The bulk carrier True Confidence was attacked south-west of Aden a week ago. Three crew members were killed, and two others severely injured.

The following day, the Philippines’ Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) announced: “We… sincerely extend our deepest condolences to the family and kin of our slain, heroic seafarers. For reasons of privacy, we are withholding their names and identities.”

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

The DMW added that two other Filipinos were severely wounded, and that the remaining crew members had been taken to a safe port.

Reactions to that attack from the shipping industry came in quickly. International Maritime Organization (IMO) secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez extended “deepest condolences and those of the entire IMO family to the families of those who have lost their lives”.

“Our thoughts are with those who have been injured. Innocent seafarers should never become collateral victims,” he added.

He also highlighted the efforts of all ships in the area in assisting the vessel and particularly its crew.

Dominguez has been vocal in calling for action to stop the attacks since the Galaxy Leader hijacking in November. In a statement, he repeated this message: “I once again call for collective action to fortify the safety of those who serve at sea. International trade depends on international shipping, and international shipping cannot go on without seafarers.”

The main shipping industry associations were also quick to issue a statement expressing “heartfelt sympathies… to all those affected by this terrible event”.

Once again, the industry bodies asserted that merchant vessels crewed by civilian seafarers transporting global trade have a right to innocent passage through the region without the threat of attack. They added: “The frequency of attacks on merchant shipping highlights the urgent need for all stakeholders to take decisive action to safeguard the lives of innocent civilian seafarers and put an end to such threats.”

Among those stakeholders are the seafarers’ unions. One of them, Nautilus International, commented: “In light of the recent tragic incident involving the True Confidence, we are compelled to address the escalating situation in the Red Sea.”

It added that the fatal attack on the True Confidence once again highlighted the “extreme risks that seafarers are exposed to while transiting these volatile waters”.

Nautilus is a member of the UK Warlike Operations Area (WOA) Committee, an independent body that provides a forum for shipping companies and seafarer unions to consider threat levels and monitor “warlike activities”. It decides when war risk service clauses in crewing agreements should be invoked.

Those clauses include the right to be repatriated from a vessel sailing into WOAs, as well as double pay while within them and enhanced compensation on death or injury. But seafarers electing not to sail into WOAs will have to consider what that may mean to their prospects of securing their next contract.

The WOA clauses have applied for some time in the danger areas of the Red Sea, but the union has now more or less said ships should no longer use the Red Sea route.

Said Nautilus: “We believe it is time for those shipowners who are continuing to transit through the Red Sea to reassess the necessity of their decision, considering recent events including the sinking of the Rubymar and the tragic incident onboard the True Confidence.”

Stressing that “no commercial interests should ever take precedence over the safety and lives of our seafarers”, Nautilus pointed out that the Houthis are no longer attacking just vessels with meaningful links to Israel, the UK or the US.

“Any vessel could potentially come under attack, and shipowners should not be complacent when seafarers lives are at risk,” it warned.

The union concluded: “We, therefore, call on shipowners to urgently reassess the necessity of any planned transits considering the worsening situation until such time as there is a significant improvement in the security situation.”

That is carefully worded and not quite the same as simply saying seafarers should not be asked to sail into the Red Sea, but it is close.

In fact, many shipping companies, and most container carriers, have stopped using the Suez Canal route between Asia and Europe. However, the True Confidence was bound for Saudi Arabia and was not “through traffic”. There will be a continued commercial imperative for ships to sail there and to other Red Sea ports. But this will apply to a comparatively small number of ships.

The current situation is reminiscent of the Tanker Wars in the Middle East Gulf in the 1980s. Despite the high number of ships hit and the significant number of seafarers killed, merchant ships continued to keep trade moving. There were enough seafarers prepared to take the risk.

There is a difference, though. Keeping the Gulf open to shipping was then essential to the world economy, primarily as a source of crude oil.

The same cannot be said of the Suez route. World trade has managed to continue without it in the fairly recent past.

So, to return to the question of whether seafarers should be asked to routinely sail through the Red Sea: in general, the answer has got to be no, until the risks are, at the very least, much lower than at present.