Flags of Convenience

Flag of convenience registries and statistics (of ships of 1,000 GRT and greater)
Registry Ships Registered Foreign-owned ships Percent Foreign Foreign-owned ship profile Remarks
Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda International Shipping Register[3] 1,257[4] 1,215[4] 97% Germany 1094, Denmark 20, Netherlands 17, Latvia 16, Estonia 10, Iceland 10, Norway 9, Switzerland 7, Turkey 7, US 7, Greece 4, Lithuania 3, Russia 3, New Zealand 2, Poland 2, Albania 1, Colombia 1, Mexico 1, UK 1[4]
The Bahamas Bahamas Maritime Authority 1,160[5] 1,063[5] 92% Greece 225, Norway 186, US 109, Canada 96, Japan 88, Denmark 69, Poland 34, Germany 30, Cyprus 23, Netherlands 23, UAE 23, UK 18, Saudi Arabia 16, Bermuda 15, France 15, Malaysia 13, Sweden 11, Finland 8, Monaco 8, Singapore 7, Angola 6, Belgium 6, Guernsey 6, Spain 6, Thailand 4, Hong Kong 3, Ireland 3, Turkey 3, Indonesia 2, Jordan 2, Montenegro 2, Nigeria 2, Australia 1, Brazil 1, Croatia 1, Italy 1, Kuwait 1, South Korea 1, Switzerland 1[5][6]
Barbados Barbados Maritime Ship Registry 109[7] 83[7] 76% Norway 38, Greece 14, Canada 11, UK 6, Iran 5, Sweden 4, Lebanon 2, Syria 1, Turkey 1, UAE 1[7]
Belize International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize 247[8] 152[8] 62% China 61, Russia 30, Turkey 16, Latvia 9, Ukraine 6, Singapore 4, Syria 4, UK 4, Italy 3, UAE 3, Greece 2, Norway 2, Bulgaria 1, Croatia 1, Estonia 1, Iceland 1, Lithuania 1, Netherlands 1, Switzerland 1, Thailand 1[8] China refuses diplomatic relations with Belize
Bermuda Bermuda Department of Maritime Administration[9] 139[10] 105[10] 76% US 26, Germany 14, Sweden 14, UK 14, Nigeria 11, Greece 8, Norway 5, Hong Kong 4, Israel 3, Japan 2, Monaco 2, France 1, Ireland 1[10]
Bolivia Bolivia 18[11] 5[11] 28% Syria 4, UK 1[11] Bolivia is a landlocked nation
Cambodia International Ship Registry of Cambodia 544[12] 352[12] 65% China 177, Russia 50, Ukraine 35, Syria 22, Turkey 15, Hong Kong 10, South Korea 10, Lebanon 5, Cyprus 4, Egypt 4, Singapore 3, Canada 2, Greece 2, Indonesia 2, UAE 2, Belgium 1, Estonia 1, French Polynesia 1, Gabon 1, Ireland 1, Japan 1, Taiwan 1, UK 1, Vietnam 1[12]
Cayman Islands Cayman Islands Shipping Registry[13] 116[14] 102[14] 88% US 57, Japan 23, Greece 9, Italy 7, Germany 3, UK 2, Switzerland 1[14]
Comoros Maritime Administration of the Union of Comoros 149[15] 73[15] 49% Russia 12, Ukraine 10, Turkey 8, UAE 8, Pakistan 5, Syria 5, Bulgaria 4, Greece 4, Cyprus 2, Kenya 2, Latvia 2, Lebanon 2, US 2, Bangladesh 1, China 1, Kuwait 1, Lithuania 1, Nigeria 1, Norway 1, UK 1[15]
Curaçao Curaçao Directorate of Shipping and Maritime Affairs 120[16] 101[16] 84% Netherlands 52, Germany 32, Turkey 8, Angola 2, Norway 2, Cuba 1, Denmark 1, Estonia 1, Hong Kong 1, Sweden 1[16] Figures are from most recent World Factbook data listed for Netherlands Antilles.
Cyprus Republic of Cyprus Department of Merchant Shipping 838[17] 622[17] 74% Greece 201, Germany 192, Russia 46, Poland 24, Netherlands 23, France 16, Japan 16, Norway 14, Iran 10, UK 7, China 6, Denmark 6, Estonia 6, Italy 6, Spain 6, Slovenia 5, Sweden 5, US 5, India 4, Belgium 3, Ireland 3, UAE 3, Ukraine 3, Canada 2, Hong Kong 2, Portugal 2, Angola 1, Austria 1, Bermuda 1, Philippines 1, Singapore 1, Turkey 1[17]
Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Guinea 5[18] 1[18] 20% Norway 1[18]
Faroe Islands Faroe Islands 37[19] 28[19] 76% Norway 13, Sweden 11, Iceland 4[19]
France French International Ship Register[20] 162[21] 151[21] 93% UK 39, Cyprus 16, Bahamas 15, Luxembourg 15, Malta 8, Belgium 7, Marshall Islands 7, Panama 7, Norway 5, Hong Kong 4, US 4, Morocco 3, Singapore 3, Ireland 2, Italy 2, Netherlands 2, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2, South Korea 2, Taiwan 2, Bermuda 1, Canada 1, Egypt 1, Indonesia 1, Mexico 1, unknown 1[21]
Georgia (country) Georgia 142[22] 95[22] 67% Syria 24, Turkey 14, China 10, Ukraine 10, Egypt 7, Romania 7, Russia 6, UK 5, Hong Kong 3, Italy 2, UAE 2, Bulgaria 1, Israel 1, Latvia 1, Lebanon 1, US 1[22]
Germany German International Ship Register 427[23] 6[23] 1% Finland 3, Switzerland 2, Netherlands 1[23]
Gibraltar Gibraltar Ship Registry 267[24] 254[24] 95% Germany 123, Norway 46, Netherlands 34, Sweden 11, Greece 8, Denmark 7, UK 6, UAE 5, Italy 4, Morocco 4, Finland 2, Belgium 1, Cyprus 1, Iceland 1, Jersey 1[24]
Honduras Honduras 88[25] 47[25] 53% Singapore 11, South Korea 6, Bahrain 5, Greece 4, Japan 4, China 2, Egypt 2, Lebanon 2, Thailand 2, Canada 1, Chile 1, Israel 1, Montenegro 1, Panama 1, Taiwan 1, UAE 1, UK 1, US 1[25] China refuses diplomatic relations with Honduras
Jamaica Jamaica Ship Registry[26] 14[27] 14[27] 100% Germany 10, Greece 3, Denmark 1[27]
Lebanon Lebanese Bureau of Shipping 29[28] 2[28] 7% Syria 2[28]
Liberia Liberian International Ship & Corporate Registry 2,771[29] 2,581[29] 93% Germany 1185, Greece 505, Russia 109, Japan 110, Taiwan 94, US 53, Hong Kong 48, Italy 47, Norway 38, UAE 37, Israel 34, UK 32, Netherlands 31, Switzerland 25, Singapore 22, UK 22, Brazil 20, Saudi Arabia 20, Turkey 16, Poland 13, Sweden 12, Ukraine 10, Chile 9, Cyprus 9, Denmark 8, India 8, Monaco 8, Slovenia 7, Gibraltar 5, Latvia 5, Qatar 5, Bermuda 4, China 4, Indonesia 4, Nigeria 4, Egypt 3, Romania 3, Canada 2, South Korea 2, Angola 1, Argentina 1, Australia 1, Belgium 1, Croatia 1, Lebanon 1, Syria 1, Uruguay 1[29]
Malta Transport Malta 1,650[30] 1,437[30] 87% Greece 469, Turkey 233, Germany 135, Norway 96, Iran 48, Italy 45, Russia 45, Denmark 34, US 34, Cyprus 32, Ukraine 29, Poland 21, UK 21, Switzerland 20, Estonia 16, Bermuda 15, Bulgaria 8, France 8, Latvia 8, Spain 8, Angola 7, Belgium 7, Romania 7, China 6, Croatia 6, Lebanon 6, Canada 5, Japan 5, Libya 5, Oman 5, Hong Kong 4, Ireland 4, Singapore 4, Slovenia 4, Syria 4, Finland 3, India 3, Israel 3, Kuwait 3, Luxembourg 3, Monaco 3, Netherlands 3, Portugal 3, Saudi Arabia 2, South Korea 2, Azerbaijan 1, Egypt 1, Malaysia 1, Sweden 1, UAE 1[30]
Marshall Islands International Registries, Inc. (Marshall Islands) 1,593[31] 1,468[31] 92% Greece 408, Germany 248, US 200, Norway 75, Turkey 70, Japan 59, South Korea 41, Cyprus 40, Bermuda 35, Monaco 30, Singapore 30, Qatar 29, Netherlands 21, Latvia 19, China 14, Croatia 12, Switzerland 12, UAE 12, UK 12, Jersey 11, Malaysia 11, India 10, Canada 8, Taiwan 8, Denmark 7, France 7, Ireland 6, Slovenia 6, Russia 5, Hong Kong 3, UK 3, Iraq 2, Kuwait 2, Mexico 2, Romania 2, Belgium 1, Brazil 1, Egypt 1, Indonesia 1, Italy 1, Pakistan 1, Sweden 1, Ukraine 1[31] China refuses diplomatic relations with Marshall Islands
Mauritius Ministry of Public Infrastructure, National Development Unit, Land Transport, & Shipping (Mauritius) 4[32] 0[32] 0%
Moldova Moldova Ship Registration 121[33] 63[33] 52% Turkey 18, Ukraine 14, Egypt 5, Russia 5, Syria 5, Yemen 4, UK 3, Israel 2, Romania 2, Bulgaria 1, Denmark 1, Greece 1, Lebanon 1, Pakistan 1[33] Moldova is a landlocked nation.
Mongolia Mongolia Ship Registry 57[34] 44[34] 77% Vietnam 33, Singapore 3, Indonesia 2, Japan 2, Russia 2, North Korea 1, Ukraine 1[34] Mongolia is a landlocked nation
Myanmar Department of Marine Administration (Myanmar) 29[35] 2[35] 7% Germany 1, Japan 1[35]
North Korea North Korea 158[36] 13[36] 8% Syria 4, China 3, UAE 2, Belgium 1, Nigeria 1, Singapore 1, South Korea 1[36]
Panama Autoridad Marítima de Panamá 6,413[37] 5,162[37] 80% Japan 2372, China 534, Greece 379, South Korea 373, Taiwan 328, Hong Kong 144, Singapore 92, US 90, UAE 83, Norway 81, Turkey 62, Russia 49, Vietnam 43, Denmark 41, UK 37, Syria 34, Spain 30, Bermuda 27, Italy 25, Germany 24, India 24, Switzerland 15, Chile 14, Venezuela 13, Kuwait 12, Malaysia 12, Egypt 11, Jordan 11, Monaco 11, Saudi Arabia 11, Indonesia 10, Oman 10, Portugal 10, Peru 9, Ukraine 8, France 7, Bahamas 6, Bulgaria 6, Canada 6, Netherlands 6, Nigeria 6, Thailand 6, Mexico 5, UK 5, Argentina 5, Bangladesh 5, Cyprus 5, Iran 5, Philippines 5, Australia 4, Albania 4, Yemen 4, Brazil 3, Burma 3, Ecuador 3, Lithuania 3, Pakistan 3, Romania 3, Colombia 2, Croatia 2, Cuba 2, Finland 2, Lebanon 2, Maldives 2, Malta 2, Sweden 2, Tanzania 2, Belgium 1, Gabon 1, Gibraltar 1, Ireland 1, Israel 1, Luxembourg 1, Qatar 1[37] China refuses diplomatic relations with Panama
São Tomé and Príncipe São Tomé and Príncipe 3[38] 2[38] 67% China 1, Greece 1[38] China refuses diplomatic relations with São Tomé and Príncipe
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines SVG Maritime Administration (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)[39] 412[40] 325[40] 79% China 65, Greece 42, US 18, Latvia 15, Norway 13, Turkey 13, Ukraine 12, Russia 11, Sweden 10, Bulgaria 9, Denmark 9, Lithuania 9, Syria 9, Croatia 8, Estonia 8, Switzerland 7, Belgium 7, UK 6, Hong Kong 5, Singapore 5, Italy 4, Cyprus 3, Germany 3, Israel 3, Japan 3, Poland 3, UAE 3, Egypt 2, France 2, Guyana 2, Kenya 2, Lebanon 2, Monaco 2, Austria 1, Azerbaijan 1, Bangladesh 1, Bermuda 1, Czech Republic 1, Dominica 1, Netherlands 1, Romania 1, Slovenia 1, Venezuela 1[40] China refuses diplomatic relations with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sri Lanka Merchant Shipping Division (Sri Lanka) 21[41] 8[41] 38% Germany 8[41]
Tonga Tonga 7[42] 2[42] 29% Australia 1, UK 1[42] International registry suspended in 2002.[43]
Vanuatu Vanuatu Maritime Services Limited 77[44] 72[44] 94% Japan 39, Poland 9, Russia 7, Canada 5, Greece 3, Singapore 2, US 2, Belgium 1, China 1, Norway 1, Taiwan 1, UAE 1[44]

cc: creative commons

WetLand in Process

1) Why is the title WetLand? Do you remember where you were when you thought of it?

I’m concerned about the slow erasure of wetlands around the world as an important ecosystem that breeds aquatic and terrestrial life, protects the mainland from storms, and naturally cleans the air and waterways. They are often drained for large building projects and result in areas that flood, destructing homes and infrastructure in a loss that is for some unrecoverable. The largest loss is ecosystem diversity, which has tremendous reverberating effects throughout the natural world, and in the end makes the planet a worse place for us all to live. So I wanted to bring more attention to the necessity of wetlands, and pair it with a sinking house to describe causation through a symbolic artwork. I was also thinking about the combination in a very literal way: wet and land, to describe a watery, sinking future.

2) What’s the process of creation in such a work? Can you take us through some of the steps from idea to construction to opening?

Yes, in this piece I began considering the natural zone between the river and urban space. In many cities, it’s a space that is either overlooked or that undergoes a process of quick development. It’s a place where we must consider nature, because we are so close to it and dependent on it. Reconnecting the water with a row house puts many of us in the place of the inhabitant. I was spending a lot of time thinking about how we live in a social system that allows us an illusion of disconnect from nature. We expect our food to be in the grocery store, we are accustomed to clean water coming from the tap, but those are expectations most of the world doesn’t have, and they are things that we can’t always be dependent on. Marrying nature to the city directly describes these food, water, and energy systems we depend on. So the process involved many meetings, from high school students to community garden groups. I’m currently in the process of collecting materials to build with. Later this summer we will build the structure at Pier 9 and then float it to Penn’s Landing where we will begin inhabiting it. Along the way there are many other steps, including permits and insurance that we will work out.

3) I think in Chinatown, Jack Nicolson says, “The man had water on the brain.” How did creating work on water become what seems to be your dominant creative medium? How do habitat, water and art connect for you?

These things are all necessities for me, and I need one as much as the other. As artists we often work with our own needs and sometimes those are universal. Water has always been a particular concern for me. I grew up in an area that continually flooded, and where the drinking water contained dangerously high levels of agricultural runoff, having long-term effects. I understood the world much better by watching bottled water become a popular commodity and through learning about Bechtel and the World Bank’s privatization of water in Bolivia, which was eventually reversed through long protests.

4) You’ll be living on Wetland. Why is this important? What does having a person living in the environment affect the overall work? Additionally, there will be workshops and community-creating events there—and not just visitors—why is having communities being active within Wetlands important?

Living on WetLand is an essential part of an experiment that needs to be played out in real time. Like a form of performance art it’s an exploration through endurance, and we also keep the living systems running. It’s an act of creating an ecosystem from which three people will eat, drink, shower, work, sleep, learn from, and share.

4a) There is an interesting relationship between the very “outsider-y” aspect of an artist living in her artistic construction floating on the Delaware for a month or so, and creating programming within Wetlands that seems aimed to build a new kind of community. How do you see this relationship between the solitary artist and the need to construct a community?

Well like many people, I thrive on both solitude and solidarity. I believe we need to make more time and physical spaces to be together in, to strengthen the ties we have found in the virtual space and regain those that have been lost because of those separations. We need to make a better world to live in and when we are confined to inside spaces it’s easy to forget about the larger world around us, and how something we do here affects someone across the world.

5) There seems to be a distinct “manmade-ness” of Wetland; it is clearly a manmade structure in its visually striking appearance, and its materials, recycling of resources and how it uses natural processes—as oppose to a more “living in nature” situation. Why this choice?

Yes, it’s important for me to distinguish this work from doing something in a “back to land” context. Many times people leave cities because they want to be closer to land, and because they can. But many people cannot. Leaving the city in most cases is a luxury that allows for a different perspective. We want to be able to have more chances for some of that perspective here in our cities, and bringing nature and natural living systems to a city’s periphery is a way I’ve thought to do that. Living in a city is such an asset. There are always people around we can turn to, learn from, and work with. I believe that our urban centers will need to be the future sites that produce our daily necessities (especially food, energy, and water) and we need to strengthen citywide projects that focus on that production, on small scales with our neighbors, and on larger scales of our entire city. When we are solely dependent on a large supply chains for our daily needs, then we are beholden to them and it’s virtually impossible to see a larger picture, about how these systems exploit the environment and many different forms of human labor.

6) Do you have any advice for visitors to WetLand? Suggestions about how they should experience WetLand?

There are many ways to experience it. We will be there during the day and people are welcome to come by and stay for a while. Coming to an event is also a way to experience the space while participating in a workshop or attending a performance, and we will have events posted on our website and distributed in print.

 

On Land

FB: Artist from the Land Art Movement in the 60’s and 70’s desired to connect people to the land and bring art out of the gallery setting. Do you think the objective of your art overlaps with this aspect, or any aspect, of the Land Art Movement artists, such as Robert Smithson or Andy Goldsworthy? Why or why not?

MM: Smithson described site and nonsite, nonsite referring to the gallery. I’d add that site and nonsite blend together now more than ever as site and history is just as relevant to the gallery as well as to the spaces outside. The center and periphery blur and switch places as the engine of capitalism continues its colonization and expansion. As artists, we can’t ignore this as a particular context in which we place the work, ignoring all that came before it. In relation to Land Art I refer to Ana Mendieta who dismissed associations with Land Art, a category she associated with the brutalization of nature in order to glorify industry, and the modernist tradition in turn. I’m really looking through a context of pre-modern conditions, specifically as it relates to the interdependence between geography and land, animals, nonhumans, and humans.

FB: Oscar Wilde wrote that, “The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.” Looking at the process you went through with your own work, particularly the Own-it.us project, do you agree with that? What were you trying to express? Would you like for individuals to take action based on this expression?

MM: Our languages and actions are interdependent and symbiotic. One affects the other, so utilizing (and respecting) all of our available languages (verbal, gestural, symbolic) in concert is important. Our ability to express them together forms our own empowerment. It’s also necessary to recognize and account for the fact that languages change; they can become ineffective and lose their meaning. To me this means we don’t abandon them but rather need to continually rearticulate them.

FB: Your On Land exhibition causes one to look at ‘place’ in a new way. Do you feel a sense of place is important in your work? If so, when do you feel that it’s strongest?

MM: Yes, place is very important to me in my work. It evokes particular and specific stories that describe time, land, environment, social systems, and indirectly the fetishization of these things. In a way that was what a lot of the photographs were about, merging the relationship of one place to another in photographs through collage or objects out of their original context. Sometimes I evoke unspecific place, and this is just as important to me. It reinforces the relationships between the processes of production, distribution and consumption.

FB: In one of your videos, you mention how it is inevitable for the artists on the Waterpod to become part of an organism. Why was this important to you? Also organisms play a role in a physical environment, again, that notion of ‘place.’ How are the artists, as organisms, connected to that environment/place?

MM: Yes, I was referring specifically to our bodies partaking in a compact living system, where what we ate would directly affect the compost we made and the food we would grow the following season. But it could be a metaphor for many things, the energy of a living sculpture for example.

Working through the phrase “I’m interested in” based on a 14-page paper written by Steve Lambert

In a process called Growing Dialogue, I’ve been asked to respond to a paper written by Steve Lambert in dialogue with Harrell Fletcher, Jim Duignan, Jonatan Habib Enggvist, and Lars-Erik Hjertröm – as well as moderators Elizabeth Grady and Deborah Fisher. We answer to the responses of one another, so I will continue to update this post as we go. The full content can be found here: http://www.abladeofgrass.org/blog/growing-dialog/
Click here for Steve’s paper: I’m interested in

My response:

In agreement with Steve Lambert’s call to action, I believe it’s important to consider historic frameworks to help recognize the ideologies we work within. Using passive proclamations like “I’m interested in” run counter to the way most artists work: with compulsion, urgency, and deliberate intention. Instead, that phrase reads as ambivalent and denies our agency as artists. This ambivalence can be interpreted as part of an historic lineage, though. The more we comprehend these frameworks, the more we will be in a position to move past them.

Centuries of oppressive histories defined by mass media’s ability to proliferate autocratic propaganda have led people to continually redefine their social, political, and personal selves. During and after WWII, people worldwide carried a deep aversion to anything that resembled state ideology. Fears of authoritarianism have led to strong countercultural movements proclaiming the authoritarian voice to be out of touch with reason.

Later, as a more egalitarian media began replacing the singular voice of mass media, it proliferated all kinds of social space. An example of early “democratic” media can be found in “The Democratic Surround” by Fred Turner. He connects this type of media display to an exhibition of documentary photography in 1955 at the MoMA curated by Edward Steichen, “The Family of Man”. Here the viewer encountered an exhibition that provoked participation and paired disparate content through hundreds of photographs. This type of new media was especially important because it didn’t tell participants what or how to think.

Over time though, much political personhood would come to be replaced by a more liberal personality that was based on individual interests and forging independent pathways. Later, by a tolerant, free trade ideology and the illusion of limitless consumer choice (I’m thinking about Chris Anderson’s term “The Long Tail”). It’s clear today that the dispersal of a fragmented “democratic” media has continued to lead many people away from a political consciousness and towards a self-consciousness. Just think about all of the times we’ve chosen to avoid talking politics. It’s also clear that with current states of democracy that bridge authoritarianism, many people have given up the value of being heard.

Media, propaganda, and art have worked in dialogue for hundreds of years. For many of us today, a type of media (and mindset) dominates that is interactive yet focused on individuation. In exchanges online, in a museum, and in physical public space, we are both in control and controlled. We conveniently choose what we want to experience – and what we want to ignore. Individuation makes it hard to come together to achieve social change.

The position of being interested in something is a comfortable one in our current context of neoliberal expansion, where everything and everyone is a commodity. Being interested in something points to a detachment and furthermore a belief that we are liberated, autonomous actors. This seems to be what “democratic” media wants us to understand, yet we are never truly autonomous and always informed by the larger political field. These are all things to be aware of when we ask ourselves: Can we together build a world where we connect through differences, instead of indifference?

Harrell Fletcher Responds HERE
Jonatan Habib Enggvist, and Lars-Erik Hjertröm’s respond HERE
Jim Duignan responds HERE
Steve “What do we really want” HERE
Harrell “Breaking out” HERE
Jonatan and Lars “Protecting Ambiguity” HERE
Me “Collective Power” HERE
Jim “Time Traveling” HERE