Responsibility at sea - global conversation hots up

by Nancy Knudsen on 6 Jul 2010 The global conversation about responsibility at sea is hotting up, with the French Government about to enact a bill that will require adventurers to pay for their rescues, and an ex-White House aide asking why Abby Sunderland's parents should not be sued for Child Endangerment.

In France the debate has resulted in a proposed law, put forward by a government tired of having to foot the bill, that would enable the state to demand reimbursement for 'all or part of the costs … of foreign rescue operations' if it deems that travellers had ventured knowingly and without 'legitimate motive' into risky territory.

Last month Australia and France paid for the return of Abby Sunderland, the teenage sailor who got lost at sea and whose rescue is estimated to have cost up to $300,000.

According to the foreign ministry, the bill is an attempt to encourage a 'culture of responsibility' among French travellers at a time of frequent kidnappings, hijackings and civil instability across the world. The ministry hopes that the prospect of being saddled with paying costs such as emergency air fares home will make people think twice about venturing into territory classified as dangerous. There is no question of ransoms being included in the cost, unsurprisingly, as France insists it never pays them.

Several French-led overseas missions in recent years have sparked debate over who should shoulder the financial burden for holidays gone drastically wrong.

Last year, several French yachts were hijacked by pirates off Somalia, with one of the commando raids culminating in a man, Florent Lemacon, being killed. Officials expressed exasperation that the sailors had been warned repeatedly of the region's dangers but sailed on nonetheless.

It is unclear which, if any, of these rescue operations would have been affected by the legislation, which applies to 'people who have deliberately exposed themselves, without a legitimate motive stemming from their professional situation or a situation of emergency, to risks of which they could not have been unaware'.

Similar steps have been taken by other countries, including Germany, where last year a court ruled that a German backpacker taken hostage in Colombia in 2003 should pay €12,000 (£10,775) to cover the cost of her helicopter rescue.

But the law – approved by the senate in May – has its critics. Many feel it is the state's duty to help its citizens in need, no matter how reckless their activities.

But the government insists that neither journalists nor aid workers would be affected by the law, which would be applied 'case by case'. 'Obviously journalists who take risks are protected … They are excluded, aid workers too,' said Kouchner.

It is unclear to what extent the French law would affect adventure seekers and extreme sports participants, whose daring exploits and dramatic rescue stories provoke sporadic rows over whether the taxpayer should foot the bill for the recklessness of a minority.

Abby Sunderland's exploits pale in comparison with those of Jim Shekhdar, a Briton who had to be rescued twice while trying to row solo from Queensland to Cape Town in 2003. Both operations are believed to have cost six-figure sums

USA Debate:

At the same time in the USA, ex-White House aide Robert Weiner and Noah Merksamer, policy analyst for Robert Weiner Associates, have weighed into the furore caused by Abby Sunderland's rescue in the Indian Ocean. They are asking why Lawrence and Marianne Sunderland are not being prosecuted for endangering their daughter, a minor, by allowing and expediting her extremely high risk, life-threatening solo boat voyage around the globe.

In a column in the July 4 Ventura County Star (California), the paper near the Sunderlands, Weiner and Merksamer say, 'On June 10, sixteen-year old Abby Sunderland of Thousand Oaks, CA nearly lost her life -- with her parents' permission. Instead of merely questioning the decision of Laurence and Marianne Sunderland to place their daughter in the middle of the Indian Ocean by herself during storm season, the media should be asking why legal action has not been pursued.'

The authors cite California Penal Code 273: Any parent who 'willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered' can be charged with Child Endangerment.
Weiner and Merksamer continue, 'The young would-be world sailor became stranded in a remote part of the ocean when a storm wrecked her boat, Wild Eyes (even the name is a message). Waves and hurricane force winds left her helpless in the broken sailboat.'

'If leaving an infant in a hot car for too long is considered a felony by California's child endangerment laws, shouldn't sending a minor on an enormously high risk, solo voyage across the globe, with no rescue boat or plane nearby, qualify?'

Weiner and Merksamer include the possibility that Abby's voyage was a publicity stunt for the parents -- the father engaged in discussions for a reality TV show but so far has turned down the contract.

Weiner and Merksamer assert, 'Parents are supposed to guide teen know-it-alls. None of us is that far removed from our teenage years, when we thought we had judgment but later realized we hadn't. That's what parents are for. We fondly look back and remember our parents saying 'No.'

The question of reimbursement for the rescue was not at issue, as her rescue occurred outside of American waters.