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.

Deudney's Delusions: How the DRC Shows That Environmental Degradation Is An Actual National Security Threat

     There are many logical linkings exsiting between national security and the manner in which it is affected by environmental resource use. In The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security, Daniel Deudney discusses his reasons for believing the claim to be invalid. However, an examination of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the various issues the conflict-ridden nation has been facing over the past decade clearly shows the ways in which environmental degradation acts as a national security threat to this developing nation.
     The economy of the nation is heavily dependent on subsistence industries, agriculture in particular. However, other harmful practices that run rampant in the land include deforestation, poaching of wildlife, mineral extraction, and oil drilling. It is also essential to note that since the early 1990s (and in truth, really, since its independence in 1960), the country has been ravaged by much political strife. Many rebel groups have taken over rule of the nation’s weak transportation infrastructure, and many manners in which economic diversification is available for populations, such as through ecotourism, or even various extractive industries, such as mining or logging, are often hindered by the presence of these violent factions.
     Degradation of natural resources, whether by local or domestic forces, presents a threat to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, not only in terms of greatly working against economic growth, but also from a security perspective. Industries dependent on healthy environmental conditions, for instance, ecotourism and fishing, are unable to thrive if certain industries (ie; oil) are allowed to expand within the nation. If one is defining security as “the state of being free from danger or threat,” and as encompassing aspects such as economic, physical,  resource, and non-use well-being, then environmental degradation surely impacts the ability of a state to promote its interests, both in comparison to other states, and alone as well.
     Environmental degradation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the potential to harm many communities in a number of manners, as well as cause international conflict. For instance, oil reserves surrounding the Virunga National Park have the potential to pollute the nearby Lakes Albert, Edward, and Kivu. Populations in the bordering nations of Rwanda, as well as Uganda, both depend on the bodies of water for food supplies. The militarized groups in these regions could be expected to affect neighboring regions, should a third-party interfere with their livelihoods. It is also crucial to recognize, specifically in regards to the eastern region of the DRC, that there are still many refugee populations displaced by conflicts occurring in the last two decades. Thus, harming these bodies of water could not only create domestic conflict, as impoverished populations struggle to find new modes of subsistence (it should also be mentioned that agricultural capabilities within the DRC is quite region-dependent, given the size of the country), but also cause international conflict as pollution seeps to negatively affect its neighbors. In this manner, one can consider it almost the existence of a resource war.
     Deudney’s statement, “The fact that so many resource-poor countries, like Japan, are very wealthy, while many countries with more extensive resource endowments are poor, suggests that there is no clear and direct relationship between abundant resource availability and national wealth,” quite clearly sums up the condition of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The biodiversity within the nation is one of the highest levels worldwide; there is enough arable land in the country so that if it was utilized properly, it would be able to feed the entire African continent; and the country has numerous deposits of valuable minerals such as gold, tungsten, bauxite, iron, and uranium. Because the national infrastructure is so very frail, the environment exists as a fallback for the majority of the peoples within the country. The layout of the nation does not allow for many sites of westernized commerce, especially in reference to rural farming populations. Therefore, the Congolese have a strong reliance and dependence on the environment for their basic needs and services. Degradation in developing nations such as the DRC also involves the realm of environmental justice, primarily because the firms involved are foreign, and do not reinvest the resources back into community development. That, combined with the weak hand of the largely corrupt government does not allow for exploitative resource use to exist positively within the nation.
     In conclusion, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s current state is one of many examples as to why environmental and resource degradation has implications serious enough that the actions can be considered a national security threat. Interstate violence cannot be disconnected from resource utilization and availability, and a state that wishes to promote its interests by harnessing the “emotive powers of nationalism” to protect resources is in no way upsetting or undermining any sensibilities. The environment is the determining factor for many nations’ prosperity, and to discount its importance by claiming that it is not connected to national security is to adopt a rather naïve, narrow-minded perspective.


Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/11/soco-oil-virunga-national-park-congo-wwf
http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/democratic-republic-congo-facts/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16394635
http://www.unep.org/NEWSCENTRE/default.aspx?DocumentId=2656&ArticleId=8890
Deudney, Daniel. The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security. Green Planet Blues: Four Decades of Environmental Politics.

Homer-Dixon: Is Scarcity Really The Reason? Or Is It Competition?

Homer-Dixon believes that scarcity if the root of conflict, to say that the lack of resources and goods is what causes conflict. Homer-Dixon ignores the real root of all these conflicts, which is actually competition. The thing that Homer-Dixon does not address here is what exactly Homer-Dixon means by the word scarcity, he does not accurately define the word.  Scarcity is a good or resource that is in short supply, or simply a shortage. Homer-Dixon does not really define or delve into this idea which is where the whole problem with his theory arises. Is scarcity an abundant resource that can’t be reached? Or is it a resource that is actually in short supply? Other factors such as government structure, monopolies, technology, etc show up and can actually be the reason why something is scarce or simply hard to find. Homer-Dixon fails to even properly define the word scarcity and misses the true root of conflicts, competition.

Homer-Dixon’s argument of scarcity continues to fall apart when you examine all of the other factors that show up when you examine his data sets. Homer-Dixon completely ignores things such as labor control, politics, prestige, revenge, cultural differences, and countless others. His theory of scarcity and conflict may be linked, but he chooses to make scarcity the main or only reason when at best it falls under the umbrella of competition or is just a factor among countless others. It can also be noted that every single state looked at by Homer-Dixon was already in a state of conflict when examined, which Homer-Dixon claimed was stated by conflict. As stated before, Homer-Dixon ignores the other factors that could cause conflict in these states and fails to see how the idea of competition is the root cause of many of these conflicts.

Competition is a much more logical reason than scarcity since it can actually be defined and can exclude outside factors. Scarcity itself leaves too many holes in its argument such as the aforementioned technology, government structure, and business monopolies, among others. The real reason why these conflicts starts is because of competition since it shows up in every single type of state from rich to poor, democratic to authoritarian, and abundance to actual scarce resources. The truth is that there is not a concrete answer as to what causes these conflicts since things like cultural history, economic status, privilege, politics, and labor control all come into play. Scarcity can be one of these factors but not the main or only one as stated by Homer-Dixon. Even so, competition would be a much better fit for this idea.

            

Competition will always be prevalent in society no matter what. Even if a resource is abundant and there is more than enough to go around, there will still be competition. States, actors, and corporations will always want to possess the most of whatever resource or good is available. Things like access points to the resource, amount of the resource, and technology are extremely prevalent when discussing scarcity, but not with competition. Competition allows more factors to be taken into account or excluded and is a much better fit for why conflicts stat, rather than scarcity. Competition fits into any society, state, actor, or government regardless of political ideology, scarcity, abundance, wealth, labor control, or any other factor. Scarcity is not properly defined by Homer-Dixon and his support for his argument is full of holes. Scarcity cannot be easily defined as shown by Homer-Dixon, but competition can and is full of much more testable hypothesis and data.

I am not saying that environmental scarcity cannot be a cause of conflict, but it is not properly explained by Homer-Dixon. Homer-Dixon does not acknowledge that his definition of scarcity is completely undefined which can leave the reader confused. Also, competition can cause scarcity of a resource if it is overused, (e.x. tragedy of the commons), or it can be a result of scarcity since competition can arise when a resource is in short supply. Competition shows up in every single type of state, government, country, corporation, colony or area of abundance or scarcity. Competition is an idea that permeates every single aspect of society. It is one of the things that make up human nature. It is the kind of things that ignores wealth, poverty, upbringing, and location. Since competition shows up everywhere, is more easily definable, and isn't a theory broken up by factors that hurt the scarcity argument, it is a much better fit for why environmental conflict starts. Homer-Dixon fails to properly define the term scarcity and his research supporting the theory itself ignores other factors that can be more localized and better show why conflict starts. Competition is a much better theory and properly shows why environmental conflict begins.

Sources

Peluso and Watts, “”Violent Environments” VE, Ch.1, p.1-30

Hartmann, “Will the Circle Be Unbroken: A Critique of the Project on Environment, Population, and

Security”. VE, Ch.2

The Problem with Conflict Diamonds

Competition for desirous goods can wreck havoc on a developing society. Numerous African nations have suffered due to their abundances of diamonds especially since Western colonization. The West’s desire for these priceless gems has created chaos among African governments, rebel groups, and Western jewelers. Today, those diamonds that have been unjustly mined and sold to fund violent conflicts have been marked as “conflict diamonds.” These conflict diamonds have funded civil wars, killed millions of people, and left regions completely impoverished.

 For the past few decades, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and social responsible companies such as Brilliant Earth have worked relentlessly to educated people on the issue of conflict diamonds. These organizations have influenced a wide variety of people and businesses from Tiffany and Co. to Hollywood that produced the film “Blood Diamond.” This film, which was released in 2006, accurately portrays the violent struggle between multiple actors that fight to gain control over diamond mining in Sierra Leone.

The film focused on a fictional story between a miner and a South African smuggler. According to the film, conflict diamonds make up 15% of the international diamond market. This percentage may not seem like a big amount, but for a multi-billion dollar industry that means millions of dollars worth of profits are made from conflict diamonds. These profits help fund rebel groups so that they can fight violent and bloody civil wars. The movie, as well as facts alone, makes it clear that the issue of conflict diamonds is one that is quite difficult to solve. It is practically impossible to stop the mining and selling of these conflict diamonds because of the vast amount of actors involved. The primary actors involved are the African governments, rebel groups, involuntary miners, Western governments, smugglers, and major corporations. All these actors have different desires and compliance is nearly impossible.

However, since the end of multiple African civil wars such as the one in Sierra Leone, governments and jewelers have been trying to work on a solution. One of the most widespread solutions has been the enactment of the Kimberley Process. According to Amnesty International, “the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) imposes requirements on participants to certify that shipments of rough diamonds are conflict-free.” However, the Kimberley Process imposes limitations that are too detailed. It’s definition of what constitutes as a conflict diamond is so limited, that conflict diamonds still move freely within the diamond market. According to Brilliant Earth, “due to the severe limitations of the Kimberley Process, diamonds tainted by human rights abuse are widely sold and certified as conflict free.”

This process has failed to solve the deeper issue of widespread human rights violations. The process may deal with the violent conflict of civil war but it does not ultimately deal with general human rights violations. The process “ignores human rights abuses, worker exploitation, and environmental degradation” (Brilliant Earth). The process ignores these issues because of its severe limitations and the fact that, “it does not require diamonds to be traced to their mine of origin, allowing smuggled diamonds to obtain conflict free certification and enter world markets” (Brilliant Earth).

Today, the Kimberley Process concludes that practically 99% of the world’s diamonds are conflict free (Allen). However, this is a hugely undermining statement, especially since the Kimberley Process does not take into account the way governments treat their people in regards to diamond mining. According to the Human Rights Activist Rafael Marques, the Kimberley process has given “legitimacy to corrupt governments that abuse their own people” (Allen). Popular jewelers also disagree with the success of the Kimberley Process. According to a trade group that represents Tiffany & Co. and Zales, the Kimberley Process should “either figure out a way to incorporate human-rights monitoring into its oversight of member countries or invite an outside organization to do it for them” (Allen). An oversight committee would be a great way to monitor the diamond industry, especially since the majority of the actors in the diamond industry cannot be fully trusted.

Conflict diamonds are still hugely popular in Africa, especially in countries such as: Angola, Zaire, and the Democratic Republic the Congo. In these particular nations, peasant diggers have been enlisted to mine these diamond regions since Western colonization and occupation. Since then, these regions still produce diamonds that fund conflicts, unjust governments, and civil wars. There is also a huge issue of smuggling and corruption, for example “over $2 billion in diamonds have been stolen by political allies of Zimbabwe’s president since 2008” (Brilliant Earth). This corruption as well as the fact that a large of amount of mined diamonds go unregister contributes to a large loss of tax revenue for these governments. This loss of tax revenue hinders development that could better political and economic systems.

Conflict diamonds are an issue of scarcity and abundance simultaneously. These diamonds are abundant in these regions, however technology has yet to make it efficient and safe to mine these regions. These diamonds are also scarce — they are scarce because they are not commonly found in the rest of the world outside these developing regions. This scarcity has led to diamonds being extremely desirous to Westerners.

Americans and Europeans use diamonds as status symbols, usually completely unaware of where they really came from. There is a huge disconnect between all the actors involved in diamond mining.  These actors are completely incompliant and even struggle to know what they themselves want. In a scene from the film “Blood Diamond,” Leonardo DiCaprio who plays a smuggler explains the different roles of actors involved in diamond mining. He states that governments want to stay in power long enough to gain wealth so that they can move faraway into exile, that rebel groups fight for power that they are not sure they even want, and that Peace Corps quickly realize they can not do anything to help. This realization is obviously pessimistic, but eerily true.

Those on the international stage have tried to find a solution especially with the enactment of the Kimberley Process. However, the limitations of the process have done very little to solve the root of this issue. This issue is rooted the relationship between the haves and the have-nots. It seems that no matter who is in charge, there is a disparity between authority and civilians. The issue of conflict diamonds is more related to the difficulties between international and local institutions than to scarcity and abundance. Until these developing regions create a strong political and economical infrastructure so that common people can gain from diamond mining, little will change and governments will still be corrupt and uncompromising.

Sources:

Film - “Blood Diamond”

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/business-and-human-rights/oil-gas-and-mining-industries/conflict-diamonds

http://www.brilliantearth.com/conflict-diamond-facts/
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704198004575311282588959188

Colonialism and the North/South Divide in the Modern Day

The Issue with Colonialism and the Modern Day Environmental Movement

One of the biggest issues with current North/South divide is the lingering idea of colonialism and how that affects the modern day environmental politics. One of the biggest issues in the modern day is getting the Southern or third world and developing countries to take the assistance of the "Northern" states and actors. While these countries may need or want the assistance of more developing countries, the way it is gone about is not working. Many of these developing countries, particularly in Africa, have many similarities to colonialism in the past. The idea of "becoming civilized" was prominent in colonialism and seems eerily similar to the idea of "helping" the Massai tribe with their land rights and preservation. Whether you refer to the countries as North or developed or southern and developing, the modern day process seems entirely too similar. Barging into these countries and telling them to change their way of life that they have had for thousands of years is just like colonialism from the past. Even though more developed countries may sugarcoat it and try to make it look different, they are still forcing countries to change a system that isn't broken.

Examples of Modern Day Colonialism in the Environmental Movement

One of the most common and blatant examples of Modern Day Colonialism is how the Massai tribe is currently being treated. I all started when the British were colonizing in the early 10--'s and first manipulated the Massai through a treaty in 1904. The British focused on negotiations with a few select chiefs and got the Massai to give up land on two more occasions while eventually getting them to leave the Serengeti for less valuable and livable land. This was the start of colonialism and how the Massai began their distrust of developed countries or outside influence. As soon as Kenya got independence they began with an idea of saving wildlife and the environment, but really it was for the economic opportunities. Just recently, the idea of land privatization became prominent among some Massai, and their land is being bought up and they are once again being told what to do with it. The real reason for this is economic opportunity and it's eerily similar to colonialism of the past. The process of contacting the tribe, pretending to benefit, economizing their private assets, changing their way of life, and having false motives is prevalent in both colonialism of the past and the modern day privatization or exploitation of Massai resources. The Massai are properly concerned with this trend since they were so taken advantage of by the British and now the same thing seems to be happening, with a different Northern actor.

How to solve the North/South Divide In Environmental Politics

With the memories of colonialism still lingering in many countries, the Northern states and actors have to be careful when they actually want to help these Southern or developing states. Even if the intentions were pure from these Northern countries and they actually wanted to help and not economize or take advantage of these people, the way they go about it is completely wrong. First off, maybe it is best to leave these people alone. Many of these cultures and tribes have been around for hundred or thousands of years, they know what they're doing.  They live off the land the the resources it provides, pushing through every drought and lack of animals or resources that came about. These cultures have shown repeatedly that they care about the environment and preserving it for future use, and have the ability to fix many issues on their own. 

On the other hand, if there is an issue that Southern actors or tribes like the Massai can't fix on their own, storming in or trying to take advantage of them is not the way to go. Using eco-toursim, changing land rights, or just blatantly lying are not good ways to build a relationship, When intervening in these countries and tribes, the North needs to offer help and try to work with these people. If the North really wanted to help these countries and people they would not try to turn them from their ways and economize their way of life. By offering help with things like dought, disease, lack of resources or any number of other factors, the North can build a better relationship. By taking advantage of these Southern actors and their plights and not being honest with their intentions, the North is destroying any future of relationships. If these people need help they will ask for it or it can be offered, it should not be pushed down their throats or try to change their way of life which has obviously been working. By forcing their way in and changing the way of life, these Northern actors are essentially bringing back a new form of colonialism and opening old wounds. There is a sharp North and South divide in global environmental politics and part of that is because of colonialism and its origins. If Northern actors don't start working better with these Southern actors and countries, they will reopen the old wounds of colonialism and permanently damage relationships with these people.

Possibly the best example of colonialism and the modern day environmental movement is the Massai tribe of East Africa. 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-new-colonialism-foreign-investors-snap-up-african-farmland-a-639224.html

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/maasai.htm

Shrugging Off the "Resource Curse": A Comparison of Developing Nations

     It comes of no surprise that the phrase “resource curse” conjures up mental images of exploited citizens in oil rich nations; corrupt, politically unstable nations practically ruled by a certain mineral or export. And this would not be an incorrect typecasting. Nations such as Nigeria, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo are all countries still suffering from wealth that fails to disseminate to local populations, resulting in gross levels of inequity, and startlingly low Human Development Indexes. A combination of dishonest business practices, ulterior political agendas, and undue influence on the part of third party consumers has led to not only to numerous political collapses, but additionally, economic deterioration that has set the countries terribly far back in terms of market competition on a global scale.

     However, what can be pinpointed as the cause of such disastrous results? Is the presence of such a tempting venture always necessarily bad? Take for instance, Fiji, whose economy has largely been revitalized by the presence of several large mining corporations: Vatukoula Gold, Dome Gold, and Lion One Metals. Last month, Lion One received a thumbs up from the Fijian mining commission to continue on in developing several new processing plants. These externally-owned mines have been vital in bringing revenue in for the county. Another metal, Bauxite—a type of aluminum— is also harvested there, which brought in over $40 million in 2013 alone. Additionally, bauxite mining companies are working to provide assistance to families and the community helped jump start local economies centered around the mining facilities. Not only do the companies employ the local people, Fijian farmers are able to sell their crops to the workers from other islands on coming in to mine, which creates incentives for local agriculturalists, and has been essential in the movement from subsistence to commercial agriculture.

    The African nation of Angloa is another example of what could potentially be considered a developmental success—or at least a success in progress. While, admittedly, in the early 2000s, a civil war killed and displaced a large number of the populous, since then, the nation has taken positive strides. Though the president still has the ability to exercise an unfortunately large amount of power, there is still a National Assembly which is elected by a general, democratic vote. Unfortunately, this has been the primary advantage that Angola has incurred thus far, as poverty reductions have not been terribly drastic. But outside influences pushing the nation to enable its citizens have been helpful in the political realm—now actors must enable indigenous populations by promoting trade outside of the oil industry, and exporters must focus on building communities that will generate funds in supporting enterprises.

     Perhaps the stages of success can be attributed to the lessened outflows-- something largely prevalent in struggling African countries. The Fijian government works to ensure that funds return to the island, and are not entirely lost to their business partners, nor stay tangled up in an oligarchic few. Additionally, the limited number of external national influences also could be the reason for the reaches of success. Vatukoula is headquartered in London and both Lion One Metals, Dome Gold, and numerous Zinc mines are forefronted by Canadian companies. Bauxite mine in the province of Bua are owned locally, and have an agreement with a Chinese mining enterprise trading exports for numerous millions of dollars. On a sustainable note, the restrictions in this area can be linked to Fijian desires to ensure exploration occurs in a sustainable fashion and does not greatly overwhelm other social markets.
    Fiji stands out as having overcome what would typically be known as a “resource curse,” and though colonial ties can still be seen in the ownership of many mining corporations, it is one of the most prosperous nations in the Pacific island region. Angola still has many obstacles to overcome in order to ensure that it will not fall victim as so many other nations have, and its sponsors should use the nation of Fiji as an example of a positive feedback loop of investment. Though oil and gold are both essential in allowing many small, struggling economies to enter international markets, shifts towards commercialized agriculture, and the increasing of political involvement are the real treasures that must be sought after in the developing nations.


Sources:
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=190825
http://www.liononemetals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=679860&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=Lion-One-Receives-Environmental-Approvals-For-Construction-And-Development-...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/23/africa.resource.curse
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/opinion/opinion-angola-development-elections/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2012-10/12/content_15814026.html

The Problem With Conservation Measures - The Lost Opportunity Mentality and Its Negative Effects

It is very easy to say things like: “Conservation measures should be about the environment first and foremost”. However, history has shown us that most conservation efforts have been anything but the selfless measures they are supposed to be. The “Lost Opportunity” mentality that led many of the early colonialist forces to explore and exploit the natural resources of faraway lands made sense during those times. However, that mentality is still very much alive today. Today, when people know a lot more about the long-term devastations caused by the unscrupulous exploitation of resources. Lost Opportunity is disguised under the cover of conservationism and that poses many problems for the environment and the world in general. The difficult in identifying countries’, and other relevant actors’ true intentions in crafting and carrying out conservation measures is a reason for us to adopt a more skeptical stance on environmental conservation efforts.

Countries and companies are almost always led by some kind of self-serving interest in their conservation efforts. How could it be otherwise? Borrowing a little from the rationalist scholarship in international relations, countries will always be concerned with their interests first. Everything else comes second. That mentality proves problematic for matters that require international cooperation, such as the environment. How to justify the costs of conservation efforts (in other territories than their own) to countries when they cannot “get anything out of it”? In this case, that “anything” means something tangible such as economic profit or security. From that perspective it is easy to see why countries adopt the Lost Opportunity mentality when dealing with conservation measures targeted at underdeveloped regions. It makes sense to argue that their resources are being badly managed, or even wasted, due to their lack of governmental sophistication and financial power, and, because of that, it warrants international intervention. Natural resources, such as forests, create the premise that allows countries to justify their interference in another’s sovereignty under the guise of protection of something that is of global interest. This interference often exacerbates the problem by providing underdeveloped governments with the funding necessary to oppress their people. Lost Opportunity is then a tool used to justify a sort of environmental neo-colonialism, and it is also what makes conservation measures usually fail.

The Lost Opportunity notion came about with the first colonialist efforts. That was a time when countries were most worried about riches, and the environment received little to no consideration. There was not a whole lot of knowledge about the effects of deforestation on the environment, or how the extraction of some minerals could damage water sources. There was also very little respect given to local peoples and how they were affected negatively by the butting in of foreign powers for their own selfish reasons. However, we know better today. That makes the fact that countries are still driven by this idea of opportunities being lost by people who do not know how to take advantage of them all the more disturbing. Conservation measures need to be subject to severe scrutiny before being implemented to assure that their purpose is to protect the environment. It must take into consideration its impact on local peoples. We can no longer get by with any kind of self-serving, colonialist project disguised as conservationism. We have to get smarter.