I understand that this is an emotional topic, but I felt compelled to express my thoughts and examine it within clear terms and boundaries. While I won't claim to be neutral on this issue, I hope to present some valid arguments for consideration.

A seafarer who sails into a war zone under state orders, on a ship that the enemy is trying to sink, has participated in that war. However, most countries still do not recognize that person as a veteran.

The term "veteran" encompasses more than just a medal; in some countries it determines access to medical care for injuries, pensions for widows, participation in remembrance ceremonies, and inclusion in official history records. For over a century, merchant seafarers have fought for the recognition that comes with this word, often advocating for it posthumously for those who earned it.

The common argument against considering certain individuals as veterans is straightforward: they were civilians, they were paid, and they could choose to refuse the voyage. Airline crews who transported troops to the Gulf during the conflict in 1990 and 1991 are also civilians, and there is no significant debate about them being classified as veterans. By comparing these two cases, we can better understand where the line is drawn. The definition of "veteran" can be broken down into three key questions: what type of wartime service or exposure the individual experienced, what their legal status was, and what recognition and support they should receive.

Since 1914, merchant ships have been intentionally attacked in every major conflict, as their cargoes, routes, and continued operation can influence the course of a war. Their crews also face the same risks during these attacks.

The statistics are striking. During the First World War, Britain lost 3,305 merchant ships and 17,000 seafarers. In the Second World War, the losses increased to 4,786 ships and 32,000 seafarers, according to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The Tower Hill Memorial in London commemorates nearly 12,000 merchant and fishing crew members from the First World War and almost 24,000 from the Second World War; those who have no known grave, which is why these totals are lower than the overall losses.

In the United States, the Congressional Research Service estimates that around 8,500 mariners were killed and 11,000 wounded during the Second World War (CRS R44162). Testimony before Congress indicated that the death rate for merchant mariners was approximately one in every 26, which is higher than any other military branch (House hearing, 2007).

During World War II, the Belgian Merchant Navy lost 78 of its 117 ships. A total of 855 Belgian seafarers died, which is about one-third of its entire complement.

The pattern did not end in 1945:

In each instance, the seafarers were considered civilians under the law. They were also involved in the conflict, operating from platforms that the enemy had specifically targeted for destruction. This combination distinguishes them from most other civilians who support a war effort.

Where merchant seafarers have won veteran status, it usually took decades and a fight. The three cases below show how uneven the result still is.

United States. After 1945, Congress passed no law recognising merchant mariners as veterans. Opponents argued that mariners were free to refuse a voyage or leave service, and that they earned more than Navy sailors (CRS R44162). The GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977 then allowed the Defense Department to grant "active duty" status to civilian groups whose wartime service resembled that of the WASP ferry pilots, the first group accepted. A review board judged each application on military control, military discipline, and how unique the service had been.

On those grounds, oceangoing mariners were refused in 1982 and again in 1985. Only the crews of the Mulberry blockships sunk off Normandy were accepted in 1985.

A group of Second World War mariners, including Stanley Willner, filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Air Force, Edward Aldridge, who reviewed these applications on behalf of the Defense Department. The case, Schumacher v. Aldridge, centered on the issue of consistency. The mariners argued that they met the review board’s own criteria more effectively than several civilian groups that had already been accepted. They also contended that denying their applications contradicted the Secretary’s previous decisions. In response, the Air Force claimed that the mariners had misunderstood the criteria. In 1987, the federal district court in Washington, DC, ruled in favor of the mariners, stating that the Secretary had made an error by rejecting the oceangoing crews and those who served during wartime invasions. However, the court did not grant veteran status itself; it sent the applications back to the Secretary for reconsideration.

In January 1988, the Secretary reversed the refusal and granted active duty status to oceangoing mariners. This status serves one purpose: eligibility for VA benefits. The mariners remained civilians and were never considered members of the armed forces.

The recognition is also narrow in scope (CRS R44162):

Even for those who qualified, recognition came about forty years late. They had missed the GI Bill education benefits and decades of disability compensation and medical care. According to CRS, bills for a one-time payment of 25,000 dollars were introduced in each Congress from 2003 onward, and none had been enacted when it reported in 2017.

United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence defines a veteran as anyone who served at least one day in the armed forces, or a merchant mariner who has seen duty on legally defined military operations (GOV.UK). Those operations include Korea, Suez, the Falklands, the 1990 to 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (Seafarers UK). A British seafarer whose ship supported the 1990 to 1991 Gulf operation can qualify as a veteran under that definition. An American mariner on a Ready Reserve Force ship in the same campaign could receive the Merchant Marine Expeditionary Medal, but has no VA benefit eligibility for that service.

Belgium. Belgian seafarers who sailed for the Allies from 1940 to 1945 received an annuity of 50 francs a year for each month on a Belgian or Allied muster roll, under a 1954 royal decree (Kamer, 1960). At the fixed exchange rate of the time, 50 francs was one US dollar. A seafarer with 60 months of war service received about 3,000 francs, roughly 60 dollars a year, or about 750 dollars a year in today's money. Fishermen who faced the same dangers had to ask Parliament for the same benefit. In 1978 and 1979, MP Dries Claeys tabled a bill noting that every other Belgian category who took part in the war had received a status of national recognition, while merchant and fishing seafarers had been handed the lesser status of zeestrijder almost as charity (Kamer, 1979). Belgium has no equivalent of the UK definition for seafarers in later conflicts.

The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) was set up in 1951 as a contract between the Pentagon and US airlines. It was activated for the first time on 18 August 1990 (DoD report). According to US Transportation Command figures, commercial aircraft flew 3,309 missions and carried 321,005 passengers and 145,225 tons of cargo: 64 percent of the passengers and 27 percent of the cargo moved by strategic airlift (Air Mobility Command). Airlift as a whole moved only about 15 percent of the non-petroleum cargo. The rest went by sea (Air War College study). The carriers were paid about 1.5 billion dollars for it (Democracy Now, citing the New York Times).

How CRAF works explains the status of its crews (AvGeekery):

These crews took real risks, and some flew into airfields within Scud range. Their service was direct support to military transport. Compared with seafarers in the same war, their exposure to deliberate attack on the platform was generally less sustained: their operational exposure was shorter and less continuous than that of crews aboard ships repeatedly exposed to attack.

The usual case against seafarers relies on three arguments:

All three apply equally to the CRAF crews. If those arguments were decisive, the WWII mariners would never have won even the partial recognition of 1988. The comparison suggests that civilian status, pay, and voluntary participation cannot, by themselves, settle the question.

The nature of the mission, the degree and duration of exposure to hostile action, and the legal framework governing the service all need to be considered.

"Veteran" bundles three separate questions. Treating them as one is what lets governments refuse all three at once.

Wartime service and exposure. Did the person perform a role in support of a military operation, or were they exposed to hostile action because of their civilian work? These are different circumstances, but both may justify formal recognition. Military tasking establishes a direct connection to an operation. Deliberate attack, injury, captivity, and sustained exposure provide separate grounds for recognition and support. CRAF crews gave direct support to military transport, with generally less sustained exposure to hostile interdiction or deliberate attack on the aircraft.

Legal status. Was the person a member of the armed forces, a recognised auxiliary such as the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, or a civilian supporting military operations? Most merchant seafarers fall in the third group, and international law already says so. Article 4A(5) of the Third Geneva Convention entitles crews of the merchant marine, "including masters, pilots and apprentices", and crews of civil aircraft to prisoner-of-war status if captured. That provision has limits. It applies when crews of a party to an international armed conflict are captured. It confers no domestic veteran status, pension or medical benefit. Its point here is narrower: international law already recognises these crews as civilians with a defined place in wartime. On legal status, the seafarer and the CRAF pilot stand in the same place. The difference between them has to come from the other two questions.

Entitlements. What care, income, survivor support and commemoration follow? These should depend on the harm and exposure the person suffered, not on the uniform. A seafarer burned in a missile strike needs the same care as a sailor burned in the same attack.

When viewed from this perspective, the argument shifts from asserting that "seafarers deserve the same status as soldiers" to making three more specific claims, each of which can stand on its own: first, that their wartime service or exposure was genuine; second, that their legal status is partially established; and third, that their support should correspond to the harm they endured. Additionally, the evidence indicates that the US and UK have significantly different approaches to treating comparable seafarers in the same conflict.

The situation in the last row is particularly challenging. The crew of a bulker, such as the Eternity C, was not dispatched by any state, yet they endured an attack that lasted for 16 hours. They faced wartime violence as civilians, which is distinct from participating in a military operation. Their legal status is determined by more than just the ship's flag. Veteran status does not apply to them; they are civilian victims of conflict. Their claim is for compensation, which includes defined care for injuries sustained during captivity as well as benefits for survivors, all within a consistent framework.

The objections merit a straightforward response. Seafarers receive war-risk bonuses, while soldiers are compensated with combat pay and retain their status as veterans. Although seafarers have the option to refuse a voyage, many soldiers in modern armies voluntarily choose to enlist. However, neither of these points alters the experiences they faced at sea.

The proposal consists of two separate tracks that should remain distinct. Veteran recognition rewards service that a state has requested. On the other hand, compensation for civilian victims of conflict addresses harms faced by individuals who had no obligation to take risks. Keeping these two tracks separate addresses the concern that every civilian harmed in a war would be classified as a veteran.

Track 1: veteran recognition, for state-tasked service

Track 2: compensation for civilian crews attacked without state tasking

Applied to airline crews and contractors, the same test gives a graded answer: CRAF crews supported the war effort, while most seafarers in conflict served inside it.

Tower Hill already records the merchant seafarers who died in war. The law should no longer leave those who survived without a clear path to recognition and support.