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.

Radical Realms of Environmental Violence

               The subject of environmental violence can often be thought of or described in a number of ways, and may additionally be attributed to a number of different factors.  However, one area of environmental violence that may take on a more literal meaning of the term deals with eco-terrorism.  While eco-terrorism is nothing new, I was actually pretty ignorant to this subject until watching If a Tree Falls, in GVPT273.  But after seeing this documentary, I found myself extremely curious about the world of environmental radicalism; not because I wanted to be a part of this movement, but because many of the issues that these people were fighting for were things that I also cared about, and I simply didn’t understand what would push them to such violent extremes.

               While the term eco-terrorism is controversial in itself, I would like to focus the topic of this blog on how this form of environmental violence ties into those dealing with conflict or scarcity.  It seems that the idea of environmental violence often centers on issues occurring within undeveloped States, and in many cases it can be thought of as the product of scarcity or environmental degradation.  Eco-terrorism, on the other hand, typically deals with violence that is carried out in developed States, as a direct measure to counter environmental degradation.  In most cases, acts of environmental radicalism occur on a local scale, usually in response to domestic issues.  And while it may seem to have nothing to do with issues occurring within the underdeveloped world, in some ways eco-terrorism can be thought of as a by-product of these more traditional scenarios of environmental violence.

               Although this concept might be a bit of a stretch, it deals with the idea of consumerism in the developed world fueling environmental violence occurring within the undeveloped world.  The indirect relationship between eco-terrorism and traditional forms of environmental violence is ultimately based on the economic ties that developed States have with undeveloped States, whether it deals with importing or exporting natural resources.  A hypothetical example might include an act of environmental violence taken upon a domestic oil corporation in a developed country that acquires much of its supply from a poorer country that deals with violence as a result of having such an abundant supply of oil.  And while such a relationship is particularly weak in most cases, in certain situations, this connection may be more apparent.