Somali Piracy: Stop Declaring Branding Wars and Start Relying on Trials and Errors

By: Rebecca Kim

            Perception plays a critical role in people’s everyday lives. Because perception of a certain object, place, or person greatly impacts one’s decision, companies invest vast amount of money on branding and marketing. The process of branding and marketing also works in politics. Depending on the way a policy or an issue is framed, the public can either support or go against the said policy or issue. Therefore, trying to view issues in the most objective manner is critical.

            The objective lens can also be applied with the issue of Somali piracy. From the eyes of the developed country, the Somalis, who have held their citizens hostage and have sold goods from the hostage’s ships, are seen in a negative light by identifying such Somalis as pirates or thieves. On the other hand, Somalis view themselves simply as coastal guards. Given their unstable government that resulted from their relatively recent civil war, many Somalis could reasonably desire to guard their own country’s coastal lines. After all, many fishing companies from developed countries were fishing along their coastal lines without the Somalis’ approval.

            In order to, or at least attempt to, resolve the issue, developed countries and Somalis have heavily relied on branding their opponent as the enemy while painting themselves as the victim in front of the international community. Nonetheless, tactics such as naming and shaming, where its primary focus is to deter certain state’s actions by isolating from the international community, is ineffective when both sides believe that they have strong arguments.

Yes, the developed countries’ desire to seek justice from the Somalis for holding their fishermen hostage is reasonable. For taking such an extreme measure to deter developed countries from illegally fishing along their coastal lines, Somalis should be condemned. However, Somalis’ choice to show discontent against the developed countries is justified since the developed countries were not respecting Somali’s sovereignty. 

            When trying to look at a conflict from an objective viewpoint, the Somali and developed countries should not be blamed for wanting to seek justice from each side since both sides have caused harm to one other. The criticism that Somalis and developed countries should be held accountable for is their irrational decision to strategize branding as a way to resolve the issue; there could have many multiple solutions that could have taken without raising so much tension along the Somali’s coastal lines in front of the international community.

            For instance, given that developed countries have great economic and political influence, they could afford to try out many options to achieve an understanding with the Somalis. The developed countries could have paid the Somalis to stop holding their hostages and gain approval to allow them to fish along their coastal lines. Of course, it is understandable if the developed countries feel reluctant to pay the Somalis since they are individuals instead of representatives from the Somali government. However, paying Somalis to alleviate their grievances towards the developed countries and stop the pirates from holding their citizens hostage will provide better results than worrying about possibly getting involved in bribery.

            Furthermore, if developed countries do feel as though it is more in their interest to avoid possibly being involved in a bribery scandal, they could stop many of their companies from fishing and traveling through the Somali coastal lines. Taking alternative routes and fishing alternative places to avoid confrontation with the Somali “pirates” could be a way to alleviate the issue.

            When dealing with a conflict from an unstable country that is not functioning under a government, developed countries needs to consider and implement many different solutions on a trial and error basis. Like the searchers from foreign aid, following a trial and error method allows developed countries to essentially set up a feedback system, which increases the chances of creating a practical solution.

Figuring out the best solution on a trial and error basis, on the one hand, does consume a lot of effort, time, and financial means. Perhaps such investment on time and none is not worth the effort because Somalia does not hold a significant amount of political power in the international arena. However, considering that government’s main priority is to protect its citizens, opting to invest a bit more time and money should be less valued when such approach could save their citizens’ lives. 

Branding the opponent as the enemy while framing itself as the victim only adds fuel to the fire of the conflict. Instead of declaring branding wars, states should systematically test out solutions to solve the issues surrounding the Somali piracy.

Let's Play the Blame Game

What causes a person to take on a dangerous lifestyle? There are a multitude of reasons for this. For some, it may be the need to provide for themselves or their family. Individuals act each day in order to have food, shelter, or the capitol to purchase either for their own safety as well as others. For some, this could be working as a farmer to grow food to eat and trade for other necessities. Others may work a 9 to 5 job at a computer to earn a paycheck to provide the same. And in other cases, individuals may take drastic options like piracy to make ends meed.

To understand the issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia, one needs to look at the circumstances that make up life in the area. The nation of Somalia borders on the ocean, where fishing remains one of the most profitable economic endeavors. Since the beginning of the 21st century, foreign parties have fished in areas around the country taking creatures such as lobster, tuna and shrimp. These foreigners make fishing more difficult for locals who historically relied on fish stocks to maintain their way of life.  Since 2005, a number of pirate-based attacks have targeted large shipping vehicles throughout the coast. Thefts are estimated to cost nearly seven billion dollars worth of damages each year. Pirates target these larger ships with more valuable cargo rather than smaller fishing ships.

There are two parties that have formed in response to these pirate attacks. One group beleives the issue is one entirely of security; they are not concerned with the root cause of piracy. To them, the solution to piracy will come from heightened protection against pirates. The natural extension is a growth in spending on security as well as growing attacks from pirates to achieve their goals, both costing more money and lives as the conflict continues. Another group sees the pirates as victims of international circumstance. With foreign powers taking their way of providing for themselves via fish, the pirates have turned to another method of providing for themselves. In this scenario, the root of the problem is entirely with the foreign influence on their own ecosystem and economy, and addressing the root would end the conflict.

It would be difficult to absolutely link declining fish stocks to foreign fishing operations, and even further that these piracy events occur because of the lower fish stocks. Despite this, I personally believe the issue at hand stems from both viewpoints, and a solution must take both into consideration. Given the opportunity to provide food and resources to locals using historic fishing, it is possible that some who use piracy to provide for themselves may take the less dangerous way of making money. It would seem probable that many want to have money with the least possible labor or the least deadly means of making the money.  That being said, it is impossible to know the motivation for all pirates. The availability of fish resources may deter some, but it is no guarantee that piracy will be prevented. While the security arms race may end up with simply increasing costs of shipping companies as well as lives lost, increased security can help to prevent pirates from taking resources.

Looking to each side of an argument has the benefits of taking the recommendation from both sides. In reality, there is no one explanation or best practice for preventing future attacks. The best policy makers can do is to use a multitude of tactics to address the issue on several levels.

Explaining Forest Conflicts Through Prisoner's Dilemma

            Forest conflicts in Brazil, Sudan, and Sierra Leone may seem to be very different from one another. However they each find their source in the same problem- poor management of resources. Whether there is an abundance or a scarcity of resources, without proper management conflict will arise. This stems from the idea that humans are selfish and will always act in their own interest, even if cooperating with one another will leave everyone better off. The prisoner’s dilemma has relevance to all three cases of forest conflicts, and provides insight as to how these conflicts could be avoided.

            The prisoner’s dilemma is a scenario that demonstrates that two individuals are likely to choose to not cooperate with one another, even if it appears in their best interest to do so. In the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, each person will be punished with more jail time if both do not cooperate. If both members do cooperate, they will both receive less jail time. The prisoner’s dilemma also helps to explain why a social contract, or a form of government, is needed to maintain order and conduct. A social contract helps to avoid a state of nature, which is seen by many to be a state of complete anarchy.  Although a state of nature allows more freedoms, as everyone can do as they please, it is also a state of complete chaos that will typically lead to war. When individuals agree to a social contract, they are giving up some of their freedoms, but with the creation of rights and obligations everyone is better off. 

            Each of the forest conflict cases can be viewed as arising in many respects as a state of nature, as the political instability in each location does not offer proper management of the resources. This results in conflict and corruption over the resources. In the case of Brazil, economic and population growth are creating a strain on resources from the Amazon rainforest. Conservationists and social activists stress the importance of protecting the Amazon and its indigenous people, while farmers and loggers want to clear-cut the forest for its timber and to create grazing land for cattle. The dispute has caused ongoing outbreaks of violence, and has even caused more than a thousand leaders of the conservation movement to be murdered. This is similar to the state of nature in that too much freedom is causing some groups to destroy rainforest lands for rangeland that is of marginal long-term value and, in doing so, creating a state of chaos in the lives of others and society as a whole by removing an important source to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. In this case each party seeks different resources from the forest. With better management practices and stricter enforcement, logging could become a sustainable commodity and lands appropriate for grazing could be diverted to that use. Compromise would stop the killing of conservationists by those who seek to exploit the lands for short term economic gains, including illegal ranchers and loggers. Under stricter policies each side would experience some loss due by giving up some demands and by making concessions. Parts of the Amazon would not be protected and only portions of it would be developed for harvesting of timber and for the creation of rangeland. In the end, each party would be better off by avoiding conflict and violence. The conservationists would achieve protection for a large portion of the most environmentally valuable land while ranchers and loggers would have legal standing to pursue their activities without future pressure on them from the state to stop the activities in which they have made a financial investments.

            The conflicts in Sudan and Sierra Leone have similarities to the conflict in Brazil- poor management of resources is resulting in violence and corruption. In Sudan conflict over water rights and benefits from the Nile River are a source of conflict as well as competition. A cooperative plan to allocate scarce water resources is needed to allow all involved parties to get a fair share. An emerging conflict arises between Sudan and South Sudan over the exploitation of oil reserves. Does Sudan have the right to this wealth as the oil must be transported across its lands to reach end users, or should South Sudan have the primary right to the revenue as the producing areas are within its borders.  Both sides would benefit from a peaceful resolution and the citizens would be better served by allowing revenue from the sale and transportation of oil to improve their lives.

In Sierra Leone, better management of the mining and the selling of diamonds would likely result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and eliminate the warlords who wreak bloodshed in their attempts to control this valuable commodity. A stronger state that received the economic value from the diamond trade would be able to return some of the wealth to those who control the mines and some of the wealth to the miners. Some wealth would trickle-down to the people as a whole through better infrastructure. But security would be the greatest return.  A stable system would inure to the benefit of all if armed conflict were stopped.

Although these three countries have a wide variety of resources to make their countries stronger for all, they each suffer an inability to assert control over their resources through better management and stricter enforcement of resource allocation.  Without that control, individuals will band together to exploit those resources on their own terms through armed conflict or the corruption of political leaders.

            The prisoner’s dilemma helps to explain why proper management of resources is necessary. Unless there is strict enforcement from the government, individuals and private groups that have banded together will act in their own ways. The end result will often be war and violence.  Brazil, Sudan, and Sierra Leone need to first strive for stronger and more stable governments. Achieving this will result in stronger and stricter resource management policies.

            

How can Piracy be Deterred?

     Piracy in Somalia, is endemic to their citizens and offshore peoples. The piracy has been blamed on many different reasons. However, most times, the pirates blame their actions on protection of their own resources. The piracy has been blamed on over exploitation of the fisheries in the area and also illegal dumping of toxic wastes into the waters (further depleting the fish populations due to habitat destruction). Somalia has been characterized as a “failed nation” by many other countries and unable to help them. Somalians are extremely dependent on their fishing resources not only to feed their citizens but for profit. Fishing is one of the only resources they depend on to profit their economy.

            Piracy is a problem not only economically but also ethically, especially in terms of human life. Piracy has cost many fisherman, crew-members, sailors and those held hostage their lives. The problem needs to be solved in a way that can be attainable and quick. The UN needs to be a large supporter of humanitarian relief.

            One of the first solutions should be to help educate and provide knowledge to that State about how to form a government capable of supporting their people. The government also needs to learn how to cut off the piracy community. If the government can propose plans to provide for the nation in ways other than fishing, the citizens will focus less on that one resource for economic relief. The State can stop piracy at it’s root. The pirates need to come to shore for supplies and to transport their cargo. There needs to be more support on land as well as at sea. If the pirates have no way of sustaining their at sea locations, piracy can become a limited business.

            The humanitarian relief by developed countries will also be a big relief to the country while they are trying to stabilize themselves. One of the biggest problems and fears of all citizens in the country if of starvation. Once people are less worried about starving, they can focus on organizing a working government and procedures to reduce piracy. Humanitarian relief should also be provided in the form of environmental recovery. Piracy has taken a toll on the habitat of this large fishing area. It seems like the solutions need to take place hand in hand. While the citizens get back on their feet, the government organizes, the environment can take time to repair and replenish its fish stocks.

           

            Military relief can and should be provided by those countries developed enough to support the country. Even developed countries have been effected by the pirates, when their ships get attached, hijacked and hostages are taken. If films, such as “Captain Phillips” are being release in the United States, this should be a sure sign that it is time to invest more in relief not only to Somalia, but to our own citizens.

The difference between these pirates and terrorist seems to be their motive. These pirates, although committing horrible crimes, seem to be driven by the poor health of their nation. These factors, therefore, should increase the motives of developed nations to support and help Somalia. Reports show in many cases, that although ships are hijacked and ransomed, that actions on the ship are peaceful. The pirates are seeking money and relief for themselves and people because of the “failed” aspect of their own nation due to the illegal fishing and toxic contamination of their main resource. It is the duty of other countries, which also benefit from the trade routes around the African horn, to provide relief. Hopefully, in future years, Somalia can organize itself and reduce piracy problems for all. 

Do Violent Conflicts Create a Cycle of Scarcity?

The reading on conflict in Sudan brings up many issues related to the environmental destruction that follows many environmental conflicts.  It demonstrates that conflict can lead to a self perpetuating cycle of scarcity and violence which in turn leads to increased scarcity. In an attempt to protect themselves against environmental scarcity, the people in these conflicts actually create more scarcity in many cases.  Interestingly, this is not an isolated case and this pattern can be seen in many environmental conflicts in several developing countries.

In the case of Sudan, the area is plagued by both small and large scale conflicts.  These conflicts often result in acts of violence and environmental destruction.  Most importantly, these conflicts are spread over large expanses of land.  In addition, because violent conflicts in the Sudan last for years, these large areas of land are adversely impacted for many years.  This creates a cycle of environmental degradation that in turn reduced land availability.  As indicated in the reading, the tools of warfare also act as a source of environmental degradation in Sudan.  Landmines that are left unmarked and abandoned make the land unusable for other purposes and therefore reduces the amount of usable land.  All of these instances indicate degradation and land use choices that would not have occurred without violent conflict.

Ideas expressed about conflict driven degradation in Sudan can be applied to a wide range of violent environmental conflicts.  For example, after colonialism, many other African countries, instead of thriving and developing, fell into the same cycle as the Sudan.  These countries include Ethiopia and Uganda where land and resource conflicts have a huge impact on the land.  In Ethiopia especially, a large portion of the people rely on the land for main sources of income and their overall livelihoods.  Ethiopia’s water supply has declined after the independence of Eritrea left them landlocked.  This creates scarcity within Ethiopia and aggravates its violent conflicts with Eritrea.  By resorting to violence, Ethiopians and Eritreans actually create more scarcity within their borders.  Violent conflict reduces the amount of land available for agricultural activities.  This creates a cycle of poverty and scarcity within these countries by preventing the people of Ethiopia from accessing resources they need for survival.

The case of Chiapas, Mexico, as discussed in class follows a similar pattern as the one followed by the aforementioned African countries.  Peasants, in response to scarcity issues, take over the land that they feel has been taken from them.  In the process they often nonviolently camp out on the land and essentially take it back from the government and industry.  This type of protest contrasts strongly with their other types of protests that include the burning and destruction of the land.  This demonstrates that violence creates more land scarcity in these types of protests.  Also, this case illustrates that violent conflicts are more likely to continue the cycle of scarcity when compared to nonviolent protest methods.  In addition, it was mentioned in lecture that because of their participation in peasant rebellions, there are fewer farmers available to farm the land.  This indicates that not only does violent conflict create increased land scarcity, but it also reduces the number of people available to work the land.  This has the potential to lead to other types of scarcity.  For instance, a lack of knowledgeable farmers could create food scarcity in peasant communities.

Often, people resort to violent conflict as a last resort in response to scarcity.  In order to cope with the effects of scarcity or in some cases, to attempt to get their resources back, many engage in nonviolent or violent tactics.  In these cases, however, violent methodologies often lead to increased environmental scarcity and destruction.  In these cases, the violence leads to increased scarcity in ways that nonviolent protests that do not rely on weaponry do not.

The Issues with Ingenuity

One of the early beliefs of human growth and development is focused on the idea that humans are adaptable creatures. Faced with adversity in our environments since the first homo sapians were born, humans continue to use their superior intellect to fashion tools for survival. These practices began with basic tools and fire, but continue conceptually as we continue to develop new ways to produce food and energy. Named for the Greek god believed to give the gift of fire to mankind, Promethean thinkers believe that population growth is one of our most powerful tools to prepare for the future.

This idea is explored in regards to environmental policy as well. Homer-Dixon described social ingenuity as "ideas applied to solve practical social and technical problems" and claimed it key to the creation and reform of policies impacting public goods. These ideas are linked in with cultural factors. Homer-Dixon explores the idea that educated individuals contribute towards combating environmental problems, specifically dealing with scarcity of resources. In short, he believes that as more educated people are created, humans will be better equipped to deal with the issues of scarcity that face us. I have issue with Homer-Dixon's ideas for two main reasons - his inability to acknowledge ingenuity outside of a developed, western idea as well as using his definition of social ingenuity in real world policy discussions. These issues are explored Hartmann's excerpts in the book Violent Environments

First, the definition of the word. Even in his paragraph-long definition of what "social ingenuity" is, Homer-Dixon defines something so broad it is functionally useless. This is an issue we often hear with the word "sustainability" - a term that has had several definitions, each consecutive one including more and more within its terms. When sustainability became broadly defined as "meeting the needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow," people realized that this phrase could be used to justify almost any action as sustainable. The same holds true for this social ingenuity. There's no specific identification of this - just the idea that people will contribute ideas that help. What types of ideas are these? Are they result from scholastic endeavors or real world learning?  Furthermore, who are the people that contribute to these ideas? In Homer-Dixon's world, he seems to exclude the endeavors of those that do not come from a non-western, non developed individuals. As Hartmann points out, Homer-Dixon implies that those not operating along those lines are only detriments to the environment. His theory does not allow for these individuals to contribute and discredits much of the work those in developing countries may supply/

Second, this definition of "social ingenuity" holds little water in the world of politics. When deciding how to operate, states must weigh options relating to money, natural resources and representation. Facing issues such as climate change and resource scarcity, it is not possible to truly quantify the value of social ingenuity. When comparing the costs of different management plans, we can see how much money the practices will cost. When deciding on trade off between pollution and damage, we can use economic principles to see if the benefits outweigh the needs. Social ingenuity does not fall into these quantifiable lines because of such a broad definition. Definitions by nature require an understanding of the phenomenon being explained - it's clear Homer-Dixon doesn't have a grasp on what he wants.

Social Ingenuity is a concept we can benefit from. Humans have a capacity to overcome obstacles and thrive. It is only when we blindly assume that ingenuity will save us that a problem arises. We should continue to look for solutions instead of assuming that future populations will have a better understanding. This is especially true in environmental policy, which benefits from starting earlier rather than waiting for supposed solutions in the future.

Alternative Energy: A Possible End to the Natural Resource Curse

   By: Rebecca Kim

       

 In environmental politics, many scholars argue that abundance of resources leads to conflict and, at times, poor economic development. One form of abundance that scholars are keen on is the natural resource curse. The natural resource curse refers to a theory that countries with abundance of resources, especially nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil, minerals), result in worse development outcomes than countries that do not have such resources. In other words, because many of the nonrenewable resources that are abundant are high in demand, countries that possess such nonrenewable resources tend to solely depend on them to drive their economy. Furthermore, since nonrenewable resources’ prices can be volatile in the world market, such dependence exposes the host countries to experience economic instability.

            Unfortunately, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that many of the nonrenewable are controlled by the elites; the disproportional distribution of wealth, therefore, increases economic grievances from the mass that do not benefit from the resources, which increase the chances of an uprising to occur. Given the many economic and political implications from abundance, one of the main questions to ask is: what can be done to eliminate the political and economic instability that stems from abundance of resources?

            One of the major mechanisms that links abundance of resources to conflict and poor economic development is corruption. Due to the poor institutions (e.g., taxation) in many of the developing countries that possess abundance of nonrenewable resources, politicians in those countries able to hide the wealth that they have gained from such resources. Therefore, increasing governmental transparency could be one of the solutions that can, at least, alleviate the detrimental effect that abundance of resources can have on countries’ economy and politics.

            There couple of ways that scholars have suggested in trying to increase many corrupt countries’ transparency. One possibility that could increase transparency is an international economic embargo. An economic embargo could eliminate the source of the many corruption; without the wealth that the corrupt leaders gain from trading the nonrenewable resources with many powerful states, those leaders will be less incentivized to continue with their corruption. On the other hand, the economic embargo could backfire on the powerful states since the nonrenewable resources are so high in demand; limiting access to oil, for instance, could drastically affect the United State’s economy since most of its energy is fueled by oil.

            Given that an economic embargo cannot work because of the high dependency from developed countries, such situation suggests that another energy market must be made. To explain, theoretically, an economic embargo will be an effective solution to end political elites’ corruption from the nonrenewable resources because powerful states will no longer provide the wealth that they will be hiding. By creating another energy market (e.g., solar energy), the developed countries will be less dependent on nonrenewable resources, making an economic embargo possible.

            Yes, enlarging alternative energy resource market to reduce the oil industry seems very unlikely, given the great amount of political influence that oil companies have in many developed countries. However, many developed countries have the funds and technology that could enlarge the alternative energy sector. Thus, citizens from developed should be educated in the implications that oil dependency can have in world politics and world economy. By educating the citizens, the government from developed countries will be more incentivized to support alternative energy companies, decreasing their dependence on nonrenewable resources as sources of energy.

            Although enlarging alternative energy resource market is highly improbable, it is not impossible. Educating the citizens regularly by incorporating environmental politics in high school curriculums is the first step towards incentivizing developed countries to support alternative energy. The shift towards alternative energy will then allow an economic embargo against developing countries for the many corrupt acts committed by their leaders. The embargo will hopefully eliminate the corruption and alleviate the political instability that is triggered by the abundance of nonrenewable resources.