The two sides to piracy

One of the most interesting concepts brought to my attention about Somali piracy came up at the very end of lecture.   Professor Shirk posed the question, or really the observation, that this is one of the only cases where many in the west are stating that an environmental issue is not legitimate, and that a developing country is claiming that there is a large environmental issue at hand. This point of view is seen in the Hansen reading. Hansen seems to believe that other countries and vessels over fishing the waters is just a way to make the pirates seem locally legitimate, but that in all reality, piracy is profit driven.  

My issue with this view is that it separates the environmental and profit factors that may contribute to people wanting to engage in piracy. In my opinion, a combination of both of these is what drives people to piracy. I think that people started getting frustrated with the over fishing and dumping of waste in their waters. Because of the instability of their country’s government, people felt like the only way to protect themselves was to take matters into their own hands.  After protecting themselves in this manner for some time, people began to realize how profitable holding these vessels hostage could be for them. Therefore, environmental issues led to the knowledge of how profitable piracy can be, and I think that while Somali pirates are holding vessels hostage for the money, while they are doing this, they are remembering why they started in the first place.

As far as the actual debate as to whether the Somali’s are actually pirates, I agree that by definition this group of people is pirates. However, I do not understand some of the vapid opinions regarding the pirates.  My group had the Dave Cameron quote, and while I understand his anger and frustration that such a small group of people can hijack vessels from some of the most advanced and developed countries in the world, I do not think he should have spoken out so strongly against the pirates. I do not know the entire context of the speech, but those two sentences assigned to my group completely delegitimize any claims the pirates have regarding the environment. I think that to be working towards the worlds best interest, leaders need to be looking at the issue in Somalia and figuring out policies that can be put in place that make them feel safer and less alone.  Instead of just openly condemning the pirates, it would be much more effective to understand how and why the people turned to piracy in the first place, and try to come up with solutions to those issues.  While people in Somalia need to know that piracy is not the correct way to fix their problems, I do not think people will ever understand this unless they are given other solutions that just as effectively or more effectively fix some of their problems.  This is seen with the country's economy. In all reality, I do believe that right now piracy has to be boosting the countries economy. I agree with the argument that even if pirates are not directly giving money gained from hijacking to people, they will be putting some of the money into local economies that would not have been present in the past.

Finally, one of the arguments made in class that really bothered me the most was the opinion that they have no right to protect their waters because there is no legitimate and effective government in place in Somalia. To me this point of view just punishes the Somali people for things that are completely out of their control. If they do not have the right to protect their own waters, than who does? Should they just be told to let other vessels come through with weapons, dump waste, and over fish while standing by hopelessly because their government does not know how to take care of them? While I do not think that piracy is the way the Somalis should deal with their issues, I do not blame them for feeling like this is their only option. Many of us could not even fathom the awful things some of these pirates have been through, and while people can always make the choice to take the high road, I cannot imagine that taking the high road comes easily when you know that hijacking a ship will prevent you and your family from dying of starvation.

Why Somali Pirates Do Not Have a Legitimate Claim

            During our discussion in class yesterday I was torn between whether I believed the Somali pirates have a legitimate claim to piracy or not. On the one hand in my opinion Somali has been neglected on a global scale in terms of political and economic infrastructure, which has lead to food and environmental issues. However does this permit them to commit these acts of piracy and should they be considered local heroes? After researching this topic more in depth I have come to the conclusion that while there are legitimate issues in Somali, I do not think the pirate’s actions are legitimate.

            The first reason is a point that was brought up in class – does Somali actually have claims to these waters they are pirating in? The main issue in question is if the government is actually legitimate. This is debatable because Somali government has been very turbulent, yet the United States has acknowledged the government most recently in 2012 when the president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud was elected by the Somali parliament. Assuming the country does have claims to these waters, we must abide to international guidelines of what this means. According to precedent a country has a claim to waters up to 200 nautical miles from their land. As we saw in the map of attacks in class a majority of these attacks were occurring past this 200-mile mark and therefore not within Somali’s territory. This is only scratching the surface of the issue.

            Another reason the pirate’s actions are not legitimate is because their reasoning does not line up with their actions. They claim they are committing piracy because of illegal environmental degradation and a lack of food. However according to the World Food Programme, in 2007 one of their ships was attacked after delivering food assistance to the Somali port of Merka. This ship was not committing a crime against the environment and furthermore was there to help Somali in the very problem that these pirates are citing. By attacking this ship these pirates were in no way helping Somali. In fact WFP’s Executive Director stated, “this attack underscores the growing problem of piracy off Somalia which, if unresolved, will sever the main artery of food assistance to the country”. If assistance and food for their country is actually what these pirate’s are looking for they will not achieve this by attacking aid ships.

            According to the Los Angeles Times in another instance Somali pirates hijacked the yacht of an American couple distributing Bibles. The United States Navy tried to negotiate the release of these individuals but they were eventually murdered. This completely contradicts the article we read for class in which the Somali pirate’s representative states they do not have the intention of hurting anyone and just want food. And again, the Americans were not harming the environment.

            I think both of these instances show that the Somali pirate’s motives are not for the best interests of their country. Instead I believe they are for the personal gain of the individual pirates. Their previous actions have exhibited this, as well as data collected by various researchers. According to Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, “as the ransoms rise, so do the number of attacks”. From this data we can conclude that the pirate’s do have a significant interest in the money they receive from these attacks, as opposed to the benefits for their country.

            I also think it is important to note that even if they were committing this piracy for the actual reasons they say, I do not think it is legitimate. In my personal belief violence, kidnapping and murder is not an appropriate way to respond to any type of unrest. Think about it this way: if a homeless man holds you hostage in your house because he has no money to live off of is he right for doing so? I think we would all agree this is in no way acceptable. In addition to being immoral, this type of action also draws attention away from the action problems of the country. Instead of helping Somali, the international concern is focused on how to stop this “terrorist organization”. All in all I believe these pirates are more concerned with their individual interests and in the process are making the issues within Somali worse.

            However I still think western countries can do more to improve our response to these pirates. We need to supply more food aid and help Somali create its own government and police force so they can start to solve the lack of nutrition and environmental degradation. Once these issues are improving the pirate’s claims will become increasingly invalidated amongst the Somali people and the government will be able to enforce themselves over these pirates.

1. Finnegan, Michael. "Somali Pirates Hijack Yacht of U.S. Couple on Bible Mission." Los Angeles Times. 19 Feb. 2011.

2. May, Clifford D. "Do Somali Pirates Have Legit Gripe?" Daily Republic. 27 July 2011.

3. "World Food Programme Fighting Hunger Worldwide." Somalia. 25 Nov. 2014.

Conflict in the Developing World

Conflict in the Developing World

By Jon Burnsky

Many of the cases we have seen concerning environmental conflict are in developing countries. Scarcity and abundance seem to lead to various types of conflict in these countries yet similar causes do not tend to lead to same effects in developed countries. This could be used as evidence of a Neo-Colonial situation, such that in the global market, buyers do not compete against each other as much as suppliers do for their chance to sell. However I think a deeper cause is the institutional weakness or instability in these nations that allow conflict to escalate.

In another class of mine (GVPT 280) we learned that the most logical and effective way to democratize and also develop as a developing country is to fist consolidate as much power as possible in the central government and allow for very little contestation from the people. The second step is to then hear different people’s wants and serve as many constituents as possible. The final step is to try to incorporate them into new institutions and disperse power back to the people.

Scarcity causes a conflict of interests between people which can lead to physical conflict as has been seen in the cases of Thailand, Honduras, Sierra Leone, Mexico, and Somalia. Without effective institutions the haves and have-nots cannot legally settle their disputes and often crime or civil war arise. Political Ecology offers the most comprehensive explanation of why these conflicts arise, stating that it is a combination of environmental and political factors. I feel that solutions that focus solely on the environmental factors will not solve the long-term problems and will not prevent similar future problems from arising. So the best way to resolve these conflicts is try to solve the overarching political issues by implementing stronger institutions.

Somalia is an interesting case in that the first step has been a failure. The government, or whoever, it could very well be the pirates, needs to successfully consolidate and centralize power. While this may cause conflict in the short-term it is a long-term investment in stability. With an effective and democratic governing body in place, though it may be years down the line, the problems of piracy, overfishing, and dumping should be able to get solved more efficiently and without violent conflict.

The cases of Sierra Leone and Mexico are perfect examples of how the state, in an attempt to democratize and develop centralize authority (the first step) but fail to accommodate conflicting interests, such as those of the RUF miners and the marginalized indigenous people. This is a failure of the second essential step. The government believes that it still must maintain tight control over the economy and not allow for the people’s voices of opposition to ring loud. This allows the conflict to grow until it becomes violent. The solution in these cases is to follow the progression of development; integrate the peoples’ views and interests, and then disperse the centralized power back down to the masses.

Similarly Thailand and Honduras have failed to enact the third step: giving power back to all of the people and properly establishing stable and accountable institutions. These governments are corrupt and favor those that are rich landowners. In theory they can mediate disputes, but because corruption and bribing are so entrenched in the system, institutions become weak and ineffective in practice. New institutions based more on compromise and equality under the law are the necessary to deal with the scarcity driven problems here.

Of coarse fixing the institutions only increases the chance that conflicts will be resolved before escalating to violence, it does not take care of the root cause of the conflict, which I believe is usually scarcity or abundance. However, it could be that proper mediation is all that is needed in the end.

How to Reduce the Severity of Overfishing

How to Reduce the Severity of Overfishing

By: Justin A. Carlisle

                Not long ago the oceans and seas of the world were considered so vast as to be beyond depletion. However, as the article we read about from the economist mentioned, fishing got easier and we are now depleting global fish stocks. The article champions the idea of giving local fishermen certain rights and privileges to make them feel like owners. The idea is that the fishermen will have an incentive to protect their property and the viability of the waters they fish. In developed countries this could take the form of dividing portions of the quota so long as enforcement is possible. In less developed countries such a strategy is less effective than just letting local fishermen manage things for their selves. This is a very direct approach that attempts to influence the decisions of fishermen by giving them more authority in the hopes that they will spontaneously decide to change their habits. But it will not work.

                This approach doesn’t affect the incentives that the fishermen face. Ultimately it will come down to supply and demand. If demand is high and supply is low then prices will be high and overfishing will occur even if people are given authority because it is in their best interest to sell when prices are high. The opposite is also true so if supply is higher than demand prices will drop and there will be less of an incentive to overfish. Thus any approach that hopes to reduce the overexploitation of a resource must either reduce demand, or increase the supply of either substitutes or of the same good but from other sources. Fortunately we have readily available techniques and technologies at our disposal that can solve the issue of overfishing rather easily.

                Aquaculture is the practice of growing fish in containment facilities. It is a rapidly growing industry that has the potential to replace wild capture fisheries as the primary source of seafood. By increasing the amount of fish produced by aquaculture it is possible to increase supply by providing a substitute (I consider farm raised and wild caught fish to be different so I don’t consider it to be providing the same good from a different source but that is personal opinion). This increase in supply will create lower market prices for seafood which will likely increase demand somewhat (only somewhat because even if fish were free most people probably wouldn't eat them for every meal of everyday). However, this extra demand can easily be met by further increasing the use of aquaculture. The goal is to get the price down enough so that commercial fishing become less profitable. This would make overfishing less profitable and thus lessen the incentive to continue doing it. However, there would no doubt still be a market for wild caught fish as they would likely be considered a luxury item. However, since the price of the wild caught fish would be higher fewer people would want to buy it if they have a readily available substitute (farm raised fish) that are significantly cheaper. This would result in a decrease in the demand for wild caught fish specifically and thus reduce the incentive for people to overfish because they would not be able to sell more than what the market demands (it would spoil resulting in wasted input costs). So Commercial fishermen would see a decline in both the prices received for the fish they catch and in the number of fish that they can successfully sell to distributors. It should also be noted that this would have the added benefit of providing more fish to the people of world (high supply + lower price = greater access for poorer people) which would help promote food security and reduce world hunger.

                This solution doesn’t require much action at all. The trend is already occurring and should be encouraged rather than slowed (assuming it can be slowed). This approach doesn’t withhold rights from fishermen or tell them how to go about their business which avoids nasty conflicts over who should be in charge of the decision making process. It goes beyond the fishermen and attacks the incentives they face directly which will then influence their decisions without the need for regulation. The downside is that the commercial fishing industry will be hit hard and many commercial fishermen will lose their livelihoods. However, this type of structural unemployment is unavoidable. As technologies improve certain jobs will be displaced and people must adjust and find new occupations. Additionally, there is a possibility that the oceans will be devalued by this approach. Effectively this approach would make it so that oceans were no longer important for providing food for humanity. It would still be important for other things like hydrologic cycles, being a carbon sink, providing most of the world’s oxygen, tourism, shipping, recreational activities and etc. But it will have lost its value as a provider of sustenance.