ECONOMY

Shipping Report

TANKERS Easier conditions in all markets and sizes. – In the Med., Petrogal for Aframax cargo, loading Algeria June 29 with destination Sines (Portugal), has received 4 offers and finally fixed M/T «Westchester» for 78,500 tons of cargo at W/S 111. – On Suezmaxes in the same area, Exxon for 135,000 tons of cargo loading July 4 Egypt, discharging Italy, has received offers from M/T «Searacer» M/T «Ottoman Dignity,» M/T «Donat» and finally fixed M/T «Voyager» at W/S 81. – Cont. quieter with rates expected to fall due to an absence of cargoes. – In Caribs and for the 70,000-ton liftings, rates have been ranging between W/S 135-140. – W. Africa in poor condition with Sun having fixed M/T «Genmar Harriet» for 130,000 tons of cargo, loading July 11, discharging USAC at W/S 69.5. – In the Med., Erg for 80,000 tons of cargo, loading June 29 Egypt, discharging Italy, has fixed M/T «Missouri» at W/S 107.5. – In the Cont. on Suezmax, Exxonmobil for 130,000 tons of cargo, loading July 7 Denmark, discharging Canada, has fixed M/T «Tromso Fidelity» at W/S 80. – In Caribs, Equiva has fixed M/T «Minerva Anna» for 70,000 tons of cargo loading June 25 Colombia, discharging US Gulf, at W/S 142.5. DRY CARGO Market remains weak, although we have seen 2-3 new caper cargoes out of Australia with destination Europe. RTS has fixed U Ming tonnage for 150,000 tons of ore loading mid-July Australia, discharging Spain, at USD 6.25 per ton with 6 days all purposes, while Hanjin has fixed M/V «Maria A. Angelicoussi» for 160,000 tons of cargo loading mid-July, discharging Rotterdam, at USD 6.30 per ton with 7 days all purposes. – Panamaxes in the East are ready to accept arrival pilot stations with ballast bonus instead of dropping outward pilot in order to secure employment for the vessels. PCL has fixed M/V «Azure» 64,230 dwt, built 1982, delivery Australia end June – beg. July trip via Persian Gulf, redelivery Muscat, at USD 5,500 daily and USD 115,000 ballast bonus. – More activity in the Atlantic, although rates dropped almost by USD 300 daily. M/V «Wilrider» 74,044 dwt, built 1995, with delivery Portugal end June for 2 laden legs via S. America, redelivery Atlantic, has fixed at USD 6,500 daily. – On coal cargoes, Keoyang has fixed Hanjin tonnage for 110,000 tons of cargo loading July 10-18 USAC, discharging Ireland, at USD 4.50 per ton with 2 days load and 25,000 tons discharge. The big difficulty here is that in the past, one could have defined a terrorist as someone who was using force without the sanction of a legitimate government, and that provided a neat definition. But the world has changed now, to the extent that in some cases there are areas of the world where there is no legitimate government, such as Afghanistan and Somalia. We also have become so interdependent that it is very hard for governments to control activities that are occurring within their own territories. It is very hard to know whether the activities of terrorists are sanctioned by governments or not. And, if you like, the old international order has broken down. The war in Sarajevo started in 1914 because a terrorist attack occurred and the Austrians were not satisfied with every aspect of the response the Serbs gave. They wanted an Austrian government official to participate in the court process to try the offender inside Serbia, and when that was granted the war started. There, at least, you had two states and they had agreed on most of the things except this last item they could not agree upon. Now, there isn’t even a common definition of the limits of what one state can do to another. For instance, Kosovo is part of sovereign Serb territory, and yet the international coalition felt it was entitled to intervene there militarily, in defiance of the wishes of the sovereign government. In other words, sovereignty was set aside to serve the purpose of the international coalition. But if we set aside sovereignty in that way, we are creating a situation in which we are also setting aside the basis that previously would have been used to define who was and who wasn’t a terrorist. In other words, a terrorist would have been a person that uses force without the sanction of a sovereign government. It is an unresolved dilemma which we must resolve. I believe that what should have been done was to have some form of an international conference in the immediate aftermath of September 11, and within two to three weeks to have a global agreement on what constitutes [terrorism]. And if that didn’t result in an agreement, then force could have been used unilaterally by the United States. Unfortunately they didn’t do that, they just went ahead and used force against Afghanistan – probably hitting the right targets, but not doing it on the basis of any international definition of what constitutes terrorism. Unfortunately, an opportunity to put such a definition in place was lost, and we now have to find other ways to reach such a definition of terrorism. It is an international responsibility; it is not just for Europe or the United States. There needs to be a definition of «terrorist» that is accepted by all countries like China, India, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority and Israel.