Somali Piracy: No Longer An Environmental Issue

Matthew Burk

Piracy In Somalia No Longer An Environmental Issue

            When piracy first began in Somalia, it was based on the idea of protecting their waters and way of life, in short an environmental issue. The government in Somalia is for the most part weak and corrupt, allowing outside actors to bribe their way into power or simply ignore their orders. Rampant piracy and overfishing of resources in Somali waters along with toxic dumping was completely ignored, forcing the people to act. The locals of the area eventually had to turn to piracy seeing how their entire way of life to make money, along with their environment, was destroyed. At the start of the piracy, it was purely for environmental and economic means, but it seems that the idea has gone to the wind. Until the Somali pirates go back to their territorial waters and focus on their original goals of protecting their environment and economy, they will not be able to make a permanent difference.

           

            When the piracy began it was taking place immediately off the coast of the Somalia, in relatively close waters. Many of these piracy attacks took place directly off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden where much of the pollution and overfishing was taking place. As stated earlier, the pirates at first held these ships hostage and for ransom since these same boats had overfished their waters and dumped toxic waste in them, completely destroying their way of life. As a direct result of these companies and countries overfishing and toxic dumping, these people completely lost any chance of income or a job. The pirates absolutely had to deal with this economic and environmental issue, and ransoming ships was the way to do so.

           

            In the beginning the effects were immediate and well known. After a short time ships were avoiding the Gulf of Aden and Somali waters, taking longer shipping routes. If this was a truly environmental issue for the Somalis they would have continued to police their own waters, but they did not. According to the map from the financial times, the pirate attacks have occurred over 1000 nautical miles away from Somali shores. In 2008 the pirate attacks occurred in Somali waters and in the Gulf of Aden but since then the range has done nothing but increase, taking away from their cause. You can’t hijack a ship in international waters over 1000 nautical miles from your shores and then claim that you are doing it to protect your country and way of life, it makes no sense.

           

            These piracy attacks may have started with the best intentions but have certainly changed for the worse over time. What started as an issue regarding a corrupt and weak government that could not provide for its people and their subsequent actions and uprising, has turned into a for profit ransom business. In more modern times the Somali pirates have been linked to Al-Shabab, also known as the branch of Al-Qaeda in the region, which destroys any credibility that the pirates had in the beginning. If the pirates once again brought the range of their attacks into their waters and affected areas, this would once again be an environmental and economic issue.

           

            The pirates have already accomplished their goal of getting ships out of their waters and reducing the overfishing as well as toxic waste dumping. Their presence and attacks have had the desired goal, so why not go back to their old tactics? Expanding their raids to 1000 nautical miles away completely undermines their entire cause and ruins any improvements they have made. Continued action such as this will result in more international presence in the waters and possible military action. The only way to make a permanent environmental and economic impact is with international support and cooperation. These raids and piracy operations 1000 nautical miles away make the international community and those who have the power to make a difference regarding waste dumping and overfishing shun all of their efforts. What was once a possibly noble defense of life and environment has turned into a for profit piracy operation with ties to international terrorists. The Somali Pirates started out as a noble effort to defend their environment and lands from their own corrupt government, those who overfish, and dump toxic waste into their waters. These once seemingly noble efforts have quickly turned south with the expanded raids and even terrorist ties. Until the Somali pirates take this back to an environmental and economic issues within their territorial waters, they will be labeled as terrorist and lack the international support and cooperation needed to make a permanent different. This is what needs to be done to protect their environment and way of life.

1.)    Gettleman, Jeffrey. “Q. & A. With a Pirate: ‘We Just Want the Money.’” The New York Times, September

30, 2008.  http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/q-a-with-a-pirate-we-just-want-the-money/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.

2.)    Waldo, Mohamed Abshir. “The Two Piracies in Somali: Why the World Ignores the Other?” Wardheer

News, January 8, 2009. http://wardheernews.com/Articles_09/Jan/Waldo/08_The_two_piracies_in_Somalia.html.

3.)    Hansen, Stig Jarle. “Debunking the Piracy Myth: How Illegal Fishing Really Interacts with Piracy in East

Africa.” RUSI Journal 156, no. 6 (2011).ELMS

4.)    http://world.time.com/2014/01/06/did-2013-mark-the-end-of-somali-piracy/

Somalia's Problem Isn't the Environment

Conflict arises in Somalia due to poor institutions and weak economic development. The environment aids in the chaos that surrounds the seas of Somalia but it is neither the sole instigator of violence nor the root of the country’s instability. The state of Somalia is in chaos due to the fact that it does not have a sovereign government or stable institutions. Since it does not have either a stable or legitimate government, its economy has been unable to develop.

Somalia has suffered through civil wars and bloody conflict for ages, since 1998 the country has been under the military rule of Colonel Abdullah Yusuf dubbing Somalia the Puntland State of Somalia. Due to conflicts between different ethnic groups, those represented by Yusuf’s government and those not, Somalia continues to struggle with crippling conflicts. These issues with ethnic conflict have little to do with the environment; instead they grow under a government that lacks a sufficient amount of institutions. Due to the lack of a civilian executive power and an overall sovereign government, the militarized government is not internationally legitimate. Since foreign actors do not consider the government legitimate, groups such as pirates have struggled to find their role in grand scheme of things.

Piracy is a huge issue for Somalia. Due to the canal separating Somalia and Yemen, the only waterway from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea, conflict and violence arises between Somali pirates and foreign water vessels. These pirates consider themselves coast guards who work to protect their seas. However since their government is not considered internationally legitimate foreign ships do not consider these men has an actual coast guard but rather violent pirates. If Somalia had a stable and legitimate government with efficient institutions then foreign ships would be more willing to comprise with the Somali pirates.

The issue with piracy stems from a lack of stable Somali institutions. These Somali pirates are lost between the disconnect of their illegitimate government and the international stage. They want to protect their borders and develop some kind of economy for their country, but since they do not have a sovereign or legitimate government their efforts are looked as hostile on the international level. These pirates consider their hijacking of foreign ships as their job and duty. Especially, since this foreign ships come into Somali seas and over fish and pollute Somali fisheries. According to the New York Times interview we read for class, these Somali pirates do not want to be violent instead they want to protect their seas. A good point was made in class, if a foreign ship came into U.S. waters with an excessive amount of military grade weapons then the United States would without a doubt seize the ship along with the weapons. This would not be seen as piracy, because we have a stable and efficient government with working institutions. The only reason why these pirates are not considered as a legitimate coast guard is because Somali does not have a legitimate government.

Somali may not be seen as having a legitimate government, but these pirates are surprisingly efficient. It is unfair to dub these pirates as groups of angry hijackers especially since they are extremely organized.  According to The Economist, Somali pirates have an actual organization to their expeditions and the money that they seize from foreign vessels. This shows that Somalis have the ability to run efficient institutions; they just need to develop a basis for a stable executive government.

Without a legitimate government and efficient institutions, Somalia still struggles with terrorists groups – such as Al Shaabab – and conflicts with foreign states. These struggles have little to do with the environment especially since the same conflicts that occur at sea also occur on land. If the state of Somalia had a sovereign government they would be able to create strong institutions that would in turn allow them to combat the influence of terrorist groups and work to compromise with international actors at sea. Illegal fishing obviously causes chaos on Somali seas, but it would not be an issue if Somalia had the ability to discuss maritime and environmental policy with international actors. But, since it is not considered as a legitimate government is unable to bargain and compromise with the great powers of the world. The environment is a factor in these sea conflicts but it is definitely not the ultimate cause – the lack of a stable government with efficient institutions (a working political culture) is the main cause of Somalia’s history ridden with conflict and violence.

http://www.c-r.org/accord-article/endless-war-brief-history-somali-conflict

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/q-a-with-a-pirate-we-just-want-the-money/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

http://wardheernews.com/Articles_09/Jan/Waldo/08_The_two_piracies_in_Somalia.html

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21588942-new-study-reveals-how-somali-piracy-financed-more-sophisticated-you

Somalia: Poor Little Orphan Pirate "State"

Naruto: the ultimate orphan archetype
 being bullied by his community
 who sees him as an irreparable trouble maker. 

We have all been exposed to the orphan archetype in movies and other kinds of media. The child with no one to look after her interests, who ends up having to protect herself against everything else. For the sake of argument let’s generalize a bit on how the orphan child’s story usually develops: the orphan kid is considered fair game to be picked on by other kids, they suffer in the hands of evil adults, and they eventually grow up to a life of crime. Replace “orphan” with “failed state” and the archetype could work as a model of reference in international relations. Failed states, like Somalia, who have weak, decentralized, or nonexistent governments, are at the mercy of neighboring countries and international community to do with as they please. Having the orphan-failed state comparison in mind, let’s look at what is wrong with the way we are looking at the piracy issue off the coast of Somalia.

Somalia has for a long time been the image of all the nasty evils associated with high seas piracy. These pirates are often seen as inherently evil people; an international extension of the “criminal complex” that plagues so many societies in the western world. This “criminal complex” is what I will use to refer to the idea that permeates in societies that those who have committed crimes, especially crimes of a more heinous nature, are subverted into a different kind of being, a subspecies of sorts. This socially constructed second-class (international) citizen image has devastating effects on how we think about issues and how we deal with problems. By labeling Somali pirates as vicious, lawless, and deliberately criminal people who deserve to be cracked down on mercilessly by international powers, we not only undermine Somalia's problems as a state, we also dehumanize its people.

Anti-Semitic Cane
 in exhibition in the Austrian Museum
 of Jewish History.

The construction of the “other” is hardly a new notion. Nazi Germany used its powerful propaganda machine to build the image of their “other” – the Jew. Americans during the Spanish-American war used yellow journalism to paint the “other” image of the “Spanish Brute”. The modern day terrorist can be seen as an example of the construction of the “other”; the image invoked by the word terrorist is: a person with brown skin, who has a beard and uses violence in the name of Islam. This construction of “otherness” is what allows countries to take measures that would otherwise be considered out of the norm, or even illegal. The “other” is used to unite people under the common goal of defending themselves. This is exactly what has been happening in Somalia right now; the international community has built the image of the “other” in the Gulf of Aden – the Somali pirate. Under the pretense of protecting the region from the criminal actions of Somali pirates, the

Offensive depiction
of Spanish during
Spanish-American War.

international community excuses itself from any of the responsibilities it carries in creating the problems in Somalia that caused the emergence of piracy to begin with. The problems cited in this week’s articles (overfishing in Somali fisheries by illegal foreign vessels, dumping of waste in Somali waters, etc.) can all be attributed to foreign nations with more stable governments that see in Somalia the opportunity for exploitation. The international community has bullied Somalia into piracy, and now holds it responsible for all the problems in the region, and that is incredibly disturbing to realize.

To be sure, Somali pirates are criminals and they do need to be stopped, there is no questioning that. However, the international community must look deep into the causes of the problem and not simply the products. The first step is for the international community to acknowledge its responsibility in creating the problem in the first place, and aim for solutions that reflect that acknowledgment. 

Going Overboard to Protect Subsistence Fisheries

     In light of a changing global economy, the impact of sound fisheries management in both developing and developed nations cannot be underestimated in its value to both current and future populations. For many communities within Southeast Asia, fishing exemplifies much more than a tradition. One particular region of interest is the numerous smaller cities and villages surrounding Indonesian capital of Jakarta.
     The history of the region is interwoven with seafaring; from hauling in mackerel, tuna, and even shark, fish has long been an important part of both Indonesian culture and additionally, the economy. Indonesia is ranked within the top ten global fish producers, and the industry employs over two million people. The nation’s fisheries exports exist at well over a billion dollars, and over 700,000 registered fishing boats dot the shoreline and open water. Additionally, nearly 40% of all Indonesian fishers are engaged, at least partly, in some form of freshwater pond aquaculture. Many individuals rely on the fish for commercial purposes, but approximately 10% of the population is dependent upon subsistence fishing for their daily food intake. Unfortunately, in recent years, much commercial overharvesting has threatened the hauls available to this portion of the population. 
     Within the United States, the largest amount of subsistence fishing is done by communities living in remote/rural Alaska, and amounts to approximately 57,000 people, which, compared to the entire population of the United States, is just about 1%, comparatively. However, when examining just the state of Alaska as a whole, it comes out to approximately 10%. Though the United States’ Alaska and nation of Indonesia both have very different cultural histories and legacies of development, the health of many populations in both regions is largely reliant on their respective governments’ abilities to manage and promote proper usage of fish stocks, and to allocate harvest numbers in a manner that will allow for subsistence fishers to maintain livelihoods, while still encouraging local economic growth.
     However, if such a large part of Indonesia's fishing economy is reliant on inland aquaculture, why does the nation encounter large amounts of controversy surrounding open sea fishing in the region? The answer can be attributed to regimes that have deteriorated in their ability to conserve local fisheries for local populations.
     Subsistence fishing in Alaska is primarily governed by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, which determines when it is necessary for larger commercial vessels to restrict harvests, as subsistence fishers are given priority. In Indonesia, it is managed largely by imposing quotas and total allowable catch numbers, as set by the Directorate General of Fisheries, and various provincial managers. Yet open-water fishing in Indonesia exists primarily in the small scale, even from a commercial perspective, and unfortunately suffers due to a lack of effective legal enforcement. Neighboring nations additionally play a large part in depleting open-water fish stocks.
      The Indonesian government is attempting to change this, however, by announcing within the last week that it planned to declare a “war” on illegal fishing. Much of this occurs from fishers in nearby nations such as Malaysia, but results in over $20 million losses. The President, Joko Widido, has advocated sinking the ships (after rescuing crew members) in order to send a message that the nation values and will continue to be strongly protective of its fish stocks. New military (Coast Guard) forces are also planned to assist in ensuring that Indonesia’s fish are captured by Indonesian fishers. This stance may seem overly harsh, yet these drastic steps may be necessary in order to place their marine economy back on track,
     Though Indonesia and Alaska both rely heavily on fish, from both a subsistence and commercial perspective, divergences management regimes have greatly influenced the development of local economies and cultures. Relationships with foreign actors have also played a large part in determining the commercial ventures available, both domestically, and internationally. Following the example of successful management initiatives may offer valuable venues through which developing nations can promote domestic economic growth, but developing nations must prioritize indirect investment in their markets. In conclusion, Indonesia has an obligation -- not only to the portion of its population depending on fishing for subsistence, but also to its economy as a whole-- to ensure accountability and to promote the interests of its people before that of foreign commercial activity. Given the stance it has taken on the issue, it surely seems as if this goal will be achievable.


-  -  -
Sources
-  -  -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/19/us-indonesia-fishing-idUSKCN0J318O20141119
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/11/19/jokowi-declares-war-illegal-fishing.html
http://seawildearth.com/tag/sustenance-fishermen/
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21591905-government-tries-preserve-fecund-part-coral-triangle-plenty-more-fish-sea
http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/idn/profile.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/travel/jakarta-maritime-travel/index.html

Calm Down Klare

In Resource Wars, Michael T. Klare argues that after the Cold War, new conflicts between nations will be centered on resource security. The need to make sure that a nation has enough natural resources to sustain its economy will lead to increasingly militarized conflicts between nations fighting over finite resources.

There are several things I find problematic about Klare’s argument. The first one is that the idea of nations fighting over resources is hardly new. Even before the Cold War, natural resources were already causes for conflict on top of other more pertinent things such as ideologies, ethnicity, etc. Germany and France had for a long time fought over mineral resources in Alsace and Lorraine, Russia has fought over the oil-rich fields in Romania, and many other older examples can be found in history including during exploration campaigns to the new world. Even when the issue of scarcity was not yet an issue, countries were already willing to fight over control of resource-abundant areas. Klare does recognize that resources alone are not enough to justify how certain conflicts have broken out. However, he does seem to believe that in the future, resources will the most important reason for conflicts. If we look at history as an indicator we can make a case arguing that it will not be the case. So as far as reasons for conflict go, resource is not a brand new one as Klare suggests.

Another factor to be taken into consideration is that more powerful countries waging wars to protect their interest is not something new. Countries waging wars to have access or control over resources will simply be a further extension and representation of the balance of power, whatever that might look like at a certain point in time. Resources are no different than, say, security or ideology as far as reasons for conflict go. So knowing that resources are finite, and assuming that states do not find alternatives in time, resources can explain conflict under the same framework of reference used for security issues.

With that said, there is something else to take into consideration. Klare seems to suggest that as the situation tightens up, countries will be willing to use whatever means necessary to obtain what they need, including depriving other countries of resources in order to protect their own interest. That sounds reasonable enough if one looks at the issue from a purely realism perspective. However, it is important to consider that countries are increasingly interconnected economically due to the globalization of industries. It is difficult to imagine a country making decisions to guarantee its access to resources at the cost of ruining another country economically. This kind of future cut-throat competition scenario proposed by Klare is not reasonable. If one of the major power falls due to its inability to sustain its economy due to lack of resources, all other countries in the system will feel the hit. This notion of “if I fall, so will you” is, in my opinion, enough of an incentive to guarantee that nations will be actively looking for alternatives to the energy problem.

Finally, there is the idea discussed in class presented by the Prometheans. If we look at the history of humanity we have always saved ourselves from seemingly unavoidable crises by technological and scientific advancements. The famine that many predicted in Asia in the 60’s was avoided by advances in agriculture and genetically modified crops. Many diseases that threatened us as a species have been dealt with by scientific advances. The current climate problem will more likely than not follow the same pattern. Things will get really bad before we are forced to find an alternative, but what matters is that we will.