The Pirate Problem

Somali pirates have claimed to be a Coast Guard. But no country's Coast Guard has a policy of "if you confiscate it, you can keep it or pocket the ransom."They claim to do good by protecting Somalian waters from polluters and illegal fishers. Internationally, they are recognized as responding to those crimes, but also as sea bandits. The pirates and their public image are examples of the corruption of the country, and the dire need for international intervention.

The pirates' argument, that they are not pirates, does not effectively defend their actions. There is clear evidence that the pirates respond to illegal fishing and oil spilling. This is relevant to the role of a Coast Guard. It is even likely that without the presence of pirates, the illegal fishing and spilling would be more of a problem. If that is true, then it suggests that the pirates protect the environment to some degree, whether directly or indirectly.

However there is also clear evidence that the pirates specifically target those ships that would provide the largest ransoms. This is relevant to the role of corrupt policemen. Like the cops in Mexico that are in league with drug cartels. Also like the cops and drug cartels, the pirates participate in a tree of beneficiaries from the loot. Pirates have financiers that receive a large share of the profits. They may support politicians who in turn back them. The UN believes that prostitution, drug trade, and sex trafficking are financed by pirate ransom money. This looks exactly like drug cartels, gangs, and mafias. In America, we typically combat these groups with the FBI, or other forms of law enforcement. However there is no domestic capability to combat the pirates in Somalia.

That is why I believe the most effective way to put an end to the pirating and related corruption in the horn of Africa is through international efforts. Any international efforts would need to have a multifaceted plan. Not only would the effort need to include an armed force to stop the pirates from illegal activity, but there would need to be courts set up. Currently the pirates handle illegal fishing and polluting either by violent force or by taking the perpetrators hostage. The proper way to handle such a situation is by bringing the perpetrators to court. The problem is Somalia is not close to having the institutions in place for proper due process of law. The solution could be to set up a court in a nearby, stable country backed by international support.

An additional problem to address is that the pirating would actively hinder the establishment of a proper government. The pirates are strong enough, through connections and money, to combat any attempts to establish a powerful government. The pirates thrive in an effectively lawless environment. Their actions - taking ships hostage, supporting drug trade and prostitution, and scaring away the chance for international trade - would undermine any government. I think the removal of the pirates needs to happen before Somalia has a chance to establish a government. Therefore I argue that if the international community has any interest in establishing a significant government then it should first focus on the pirate problem.

Once there are no longer pirates, and there is a government established, Somalia can effectively and fairly protect the fish and prevent the pollution in the sea. Then there will not be a guise for pirates to claim as their motivation and mission.

Pirates: Past vs Present

            When trying to define the word “pirate”, many probably imagine groups of rough looking men sailing around on wooden ships in search of buried treasure.  These classical figures are constantly being portrayed in movies, celebrated in festivals, and have even been granted their own international holiday, “Talk Like a Pirate Day”.  And while the historical representation of pirates is often revered in today’s world, modern pirates are typically regarded in an entirely opposite manner.  However, when comparing the two, one can see that today’s sea bandits are in many ways quite similar to those of the past.

               After listening to many of the arguments from Thursday’s discussion, I could not help but think about this connection.  Some of the quotes that regarded modern day pirates as heroes pushed me to primarily consider how different they were from those of the past.  The world was obviously a much different place then, and today pirates operate in an entirely different manner.  However, despite the defenses claiming that pirates, specifically those fixed around Somalia, serve as protectors of their State’s coastal territory, I feel that the vast majority of them are in it for the profits they gain, just as those of the past were.

            Although historical pirates are often romanticized in popular culture, the fact of the matter is that they mostly consisted of ruthless criminals that used violence to take what they wanted.  And as much as I want to believe that there were pirates like Captain Jack Sparrow, that in some ways leaned more to the side of good, sailing around in the Caribbean, this was not likely the case.  This same likely goes for pirates today.  While there may have been a number of incidences in the Gulf of Aden where pirates were specifically targeting foreign vessels preforming illegal activities, they probably make up a small fraction of the attacks on boats and ships that are purely made in hope of achieving financial gain.  

            What I have found interesting in making this comparison deals with the characteristics of piracy in the past that eventually made it the subject of fascination that is today.  Many famous historical pirates such as Blackbeard and Calico Jack have become regarded as legendary figures in many respects.  And while these figures may be ultimately remembered for the terror they struck across the seas, classical pirates still usually seem to be held in a positive light.  When considering modern day pirates and how they will be remembered in the future, it may be entirely different.  Despite arguments that claim they are protecting the sea from dumping and overfishing, there do not seem to be many elements of piracy today that might help lead it toward the same outcome.  However, it is difficult to make predictions about the future, and although it is probably highly unlikely, perhaps modern pirates may one day be considered environmental heroes. 

Defining Piracy and Terrorism

For this blog, I’m going to draw some of the material I’ve gathered from the terrorism studies minor. Many of the aspects of Somali piracy share similar elements with some aspects of terrorism. A particularly important and interesting one is the difficulty in defining it.

The United States has several working definitions of terrorism, several from several agencies or acts, and they are all a little different. The Patriot Act, the FBI, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army Manual all have different definitions of terrorism and going beyond that, every scholar writing on the subject defines it differently. There are disagreements as to whether an act counts as terrorism if a state carries it out rather than a non-state actor (e.g. Assad in Syria and sarin gas). There are also debates among individuals about what the motives behind the act have to be and who the target was. The United Nations has made attempts at defining the term but it is impossible to come up with a definition that pleases everyone. There is this concept that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” We can apply this to piracy as well. To us, Somalian pirates are being just that- pirates, but to them, they are protecting their waters and attempting to make a profit.

We encounter the same problem with terrorism and piracy in that the individuals whose acts are are defining do not consider themselves terrorists or pirates. In class, we discussed several quotes where pirates were justifying their actions- declaring that they were defending their waters and acting as their own coast guard. In one quote in particular, a Somali pirate acknowledges that holding innocent hostages is a crime, but what they are doing is not a crime because they are stopping illegal fishing and waste dumping. Some of the reading offers a fair perspective of a pirate and even almost forces the reader to sympathize with their cause. There are similar instances in literature on terrorism, specifically religious extremism, where hearing about the conflict from the terrorist’s perspective offers a wider view. Members of Islamic extremist terrorist organizations will justify attacks on the United States because of the involvement of the United States in the Middle East and their Western influence on the world. A terrorist can justify their acts and beliefs the same way a pirate can. A terrorist will say that killing innocent civilians is wrong, but Jihadists don’t necessarily see anything having to do with Western influence as innocent at all.

Also, pulling from the “freedom fighter” quote above and in relation to the adversary’s perspective, there are historical examples where those who were labeled terrorists under the current regime that we do not consider terrorists now. In South Africa, when it was still operating under the apartheid regime, Nelson Mandela was a member of the militant wing of the African National Congress, an organization dedicated to increasing the rights of black South Africans. They carried out acts considered to be terrorism, but no one would consider the organization a terrorist organization or the people involved to be terrorists now. The context of the situation and conflict certainly shape our definitions of terrorism and piracy. Obviously, Somalia and the United States are run very differently; the United States has a functioning and present Coast Guard, unlike Somalia. But, if a foreign ship were to enter the United States water, fail to cooperate, dump waste or illegally fish, and we were forced to board a ship and take control of it, we certainly wouldn’t call ourselves pirates. We would say we were defending our waters- acting as a coast guard, which is exactly what a pirate would say, and we have read quotes such as that.

So, in conclusion, both can be difficult to define- perspective can mean everything. We also discussed that both are labels that no one wants to be associated with, so they are labels associated with enemies of sorts. If you don’t share the same viewpoint as your enemy, which you probably don’t, that makes defining each other’s acts even more difficult.

Somali Piracy is Based Purely on Profits

There are many theories on why Somalia has become the world’s center of piracy, including the poverty hypothesis, the failed state hypothesis, or the Somali fishing piracy hypothesis, among others. Each upholds it’s only reasoning as to why piracy has escalated in the past 10 years and become detrimental to the international trade system. However, at the end of the day, I believe piracy is purely opportunistic and centered around the draw of economic gain.

            The poverty hypothesis states that piracy is seen as a means of survival for many who are suffering beneath the poverty line in weak or failing states such as Somalia. While this is most likely a contributing factor, this is not the only reason Somalia has fallen into piracy. This is also seen in the New York Times interview of Somali pirates. These statements were most likely aimed at tugging on the heartstrings of the Western world to justify their acts of piracy or make it more acceptable.

Poverty is widespread throughout the country, though piracy is only in certain sects. It is also very expensive to pursue piracy initially when factoring in the costs of owning and operating speed boats to access large ships, fuel costs, weapons, technology, hiring interpreters to negotiate with English speaking companies. From this perspective, better off countries would be in a better position to pursue piracy rather than weak Somalia.

            This leads us to the second hypothesis that piracy is allowed to flourish due to low legal enforcement and a weak or nonexistent government. While weak enforcement of laws and a lack of conflict have created an enabling environment for piracy, it is not the only reason for piracy in Somalia. If this prediction were true, most failed states with coastline would engage in piracy of some sort though this is not the case. For example, Somaliland has weak government enforcement but little to no signs of piracy because it is extremely socially unacceptable. This speaks to the impact of the moral economy in a society and social policing rather than legal enforcement.

            Some say that Somali piracy started with Somali fishers attacking foreign ships that were infringing on their fishing rights. Since there is little legal enforcement in Somalia, individuals taking the issue into their own hands is permissible. While this may be how piracy began, it is certainly not what is currently happening. Ships are being held ransom for months on end requesting millions of dollars, resulting in billions of dollars lost. This huge disruption is the main draw of piracy since ransom stories get international attention and are more likely to be profitable. Many piracy operations are operated in a capitalistic, business model with pirates competing over potential profits and pirates tend to entrepreneurial in essence.

            With all factors taken into account, I think it is justified to say that most piracy is pursued purely for opportunistic gains, much like wildlife or drug trafficking. Though these factors all contribute to why it is being sustained, I believe Somali pirates have capitalized on their geographic position and lack of legal enforcement to increase personal profits, much like a traditional business model. The most effective way to decrease piracy is to make it socially impermissible or instate international law, though this has many implications that need to be taken into account by the international community.  

            

The Need for a Legitimate Somalian Coast Guard

          The issue of piracy in Somalia is a complex one, and not something I have considered very thoroughly in the past.  When I hear the word “pirate” I think of Captain Hook and Black Beard, the traditional pirates who scavenged ships for money and their own personal gain, leaving behind no survivors.  The Somalian pirates make an interesting case for the legitimacy of their actions; claiming that protection of environmental resources on the Somali coast and feeding Somali people make them more of “Coast guards” than pirates.  They even turn and the tables and claim that the individuals dumping in Somali waters and fishing without permission are the true pirates. 

In a country like Somalia, with an immense lack of government control, the need for citizen-led patrolling of coasts almost seems to justify the pirates’ actions.  Despite this, there are several factors that prove the pirates are not quite as selfless as they claim to be.  I think the solution would be to form a legitimate coast guard in Somalia, supported by international powers and the United Nations—this would take away any legitimate claims Somali pirates have for pirating, while helping protect Somalia’s environmental resources.

            I am a bit of an idealist, and I would love to believe that Somali pirates are really just misunderstood “Robin Hoods” of the sea, trying to feed poor villagers and protect the environment from international ships attempting to exploit Somali waters.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.  At the end of class Professor Shirk and others debunked the pirates’ claims that they are just a “Coast Guard” by pointing out that they are more prone to target large ships with expensive cargo instead of illegal fishermen, and that their activity has expanded far away from Somalia’s coast.  In addition, the pure fact that they use violence and kidnapping makes them much less legitimate in my eyes, and the eyes of the international community.

            Still, according to our readings and the perspective of villagers, parliament members, and the Somali pirates themselves, the pirates are Somalia’s only real mechanism for patrolling their water.  Though their means are questionable, villagers seem to depend on them for food and the government lacks resources to protect their coast from fishing and dumping by unauthorized ships.  Unfortunately, piracy is not an appropriate solution to this problem.

            International regulators from the United Nations and the United Kingdom frame this issue as almost a “terrorist” problem.  They call the Somali pirates’ actions a “stain on the world.”  I don’t believe this is the most effective way to frame the issue.  I also don’t think that targeting the pirates and calling for them to be stopped is the most effective method of ending Somali piracy.  I think the true solution requires digging down to the source of the problem: Somalia does not have a legitimate coast guard and their coasts are being over-exploited.  The pirates use this as an excuse for piracy and attempt to justify their actions because of the need for a coast guard.  Therefore, if a legitimate coast guard is set up by international powers and universally recognized and respected, the pirates can no longer justify their actions.

            I think a more effective solution would be for the UN and other international powers with effective coast guards and Navy’s, such as Norway and the United States, should help set up and enforce a coastal patrol body in Somalia who enforce the rules and the exclusive economic zone through legitimate means.  Obviously, Somalia on its own cannot set up and enforce an effective coast guard, but if the UN and powerful countries aided them and supported their exclusive economic zone, the international community would follow suit.  This would also help control pirating because pirates could no longer use the excuse that they are working as a coast guard in an area where there is none.  Instead, any acts of pirating in the region would be just that, illegal piracy without any legitimate purpose.

The Reinforcement of the Resource Curse by Developed Nations

I mentioned in class the idea that oil refineries produce more high-skilled jobs than collecting crude oil, but here I will develop that idea into an argument that relates both the conflict and economic parts of the resource curse.

I think that the resource curse explains the violent conflict in some countries very well, but misses in others. Specifically, it seems like it takes a widely adapted definition of violent conflict to make the theory work for the more developed nations. I think that natural resource-rich countries with significant downstream industries have less violent conflict than natural resource-rich countries without downstream industries. I think the violence that the countries with downstream industries participate in is outside their borders, while in the other natural resource-rich countries violent conflict takes place within state borders. Further, I think it is not the dependence on a resource that hurts a country, but the dependence on raw materials as a large share of total exports.

For example, depending on crude oil creates an unstable economy, as Ross points out that fluctuations in either supply or demand can change prices enough to create a dire economic situation. Add in an oil refinery downstream and a country can now export any of the many products made from crude oil. This diversification allows for a more stable economy, and one with higher quality products. The United States rich in natural resources, but does not experience as much violent conflict within its borders as many other natural resource rich countries. I think the conflict is in the countries that export raw materials as a large share of their exports.

One of the problems of the countries exhibiting violent conflict is their trade relationship with their buyers. The countries buying the raw materials have an incentive to add value to the natural resources domestically. This means the developed nations have an advantage if they can encourage the sellers not to invest in downstream industry. The way the developed countries can do this is through import tariffs-taxing any value-added imports more than raw material imports. But if the countries using import tariffs on value added goods are the same countries promoting global economic development, they are basically working against their own goals. What can the countries with the natural resources do? They can implement export tariffs such that it is more expensive to export raw materials than it is value added materials. The problem is this plan discourages foreign investment, which is often needed to establish the industries needed to add value to the natural resources. The foreign investment is discouraged because the investors, usually developed countries, can go to the next country selling raw materials.

Therefore I think much of the foreign influence from developed countries causes the conflict in the natural resource-rich countries that have no significant way to add value to their product. This is because the developed countries prevent the natural resource-rich countries from diversifying, and make economic growth harder to come by. The bad or even negative economic growth is associated with more violent conflict according to Ross. In my opinion, the result of this situation is that a country like the United States encourages these countries to export raw materials while sending many of them aid aimed at economic development at the same time. I think it is better to use economic tools, in addition to cash and other aid packages, to allow countries to have access to fair markets.

These international trade, natural resource, and violent conflict forces are much too complicated to be figured out in this blog. However, I think it is apparent to see the hypocrisy of sending money to a country to support its economic development, while keeping that country from the incentive to establish value-adding industries. I think those tools would work better together.

Is the Responsibility of the International Community to Help Countries Suffering from the Resource Curse?

The resource curse and its international implications are always shocking to me since from an outsider's viewpoint, it is logical that highly profitable resources would benefit a country rather than deter their development. However, as we have discussed in class, a country's possession of oil or another valuable resource tends to have a negative effect on their economy. This can create governmental corruption if the profits tend to go solely to the elites, an unaccountable government since most of their revenue is not based on taxes so they do not have to be responsible to their people, and weak government systems. One of the suggestions in the Ross article is for countries in the international community to become more involved in encouraging resource dependent countries to diversify their trade and to hold their governments accountable. Ideally if a country's trade prospects on the international stage were compromised by a domestically corrupt government, a country would be highly incentivized to manage their resource industries. This, however, is not the case. This proposition calls my attention to the role of the international community in regards to resource industries. Is it the responsibility of the international community to hold these governments accountable?

            One argument for greater international responsibility is the direct or indirect impact of conflict or increased poverty as a result of weakened governments. Governments that are less accountable to their citizens tend to provide few social services and infrastructure which decreases the citizen’s trust in the government. Less trust among the people makes conflict more likely since many will be left in extreme poverty and do not feel they can rely on their government for basic services. As we have discussed in class, this may also be a tactic of corrupt governments since it is easier to distract citizens from the problems of the government if they are fighting one another.

While it can be argued that these conflicts do not affect the international stage, but they can have major implications on international aid efforts, refugee populations fleeing to surrounding countries, and the potential for larger conflicts to arise between nations. Conflicts can also have major implications on international trade. As we are seeing in the Ukraine conflict, Russia’s power over major energy sources is affecting not only Ukraine but also many European countries. Just as the current conflict is creating huge effects, conflicts in resource rich areas like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and others can have impacts on the international markets.

There are many reasons why countries are not interfering with corrupt governments or that there has not been the creation of international standards regarding trade from corrupt nations. The most obvious and widely used is the need to respect a country’s sovereignty and ability to run their government the way they see fit. While this is both reasonable and necessary to avoid conflict, it is used often to justify a country’s actions when the ultimate goal is to obtain greater economic gains. In my opinion, the most common reason for noninterference is that other countries, particularly developed countries, want to reap the benefits of the resource being on the global market without worrying about how it is affecting the people of the country or taking human rights issues into account. This can be seen in the current crisis in Ukraine. Due to Russia’s control over energy sources, many countries in Europe are being affected by the current issue and fear conflict with Russia.

Ultimately, the international system is ruled by trade and economic gains and is usually driven by the needs of developed countries. The internal effects of resource rich countries are rarely taken into account, though with depleting energy sources and many internal conflict creating effects on the international stage, perhaps international organizations will be pushed to create higher human rights and governmental standards from countries high on resources and low on development.