Post 4- Piracy

When most people were children they pictured pirates as bearded men with swords on big ships that drank and make people walk the plank. Today in developed nations people probably associate piracy with illegally downloading music and movies than what’s going in places like Somalia. Somalia pirates attack or detain vessels that enter the waters near the country and loot whatever is valuable inside of them. The world sees these pirates as large annoyances that need to be taken care of for the good of all nations. However the circumstances around what’s happening in these waters are mostly ignored. A number of external and internal factors that leave citizens of Somalia living in poverty give Somalian pirates a reason or in some eyes an excuse to do this kind of work.

The international community looks at Somalia as a failed state due small and weak government and lack of infrastructure. Many of the citizens of this nation are impoverished which little means to make money and provide for themselves or their family through conventional means. This means that Somalia can be taken advantage of in ways that nations that stronger nations cannot.

Many countries infringe on Somalia’s control of their own waters without punishment. This includes illegally fishing and illegally dumping their wastes into Somalian waters. According to Waldo there has been massive illegal foreign fishing piracy that have been poaching and destroying the Somali marine resources for the last 18 years following the collapse of the Mohamed Siad Barre regime in 1991. Somalia makes most of its profits from fishing and polluting the waters has obvious detrimental effects to what is essentially the countries only industry.

Waldo then comments on the “usual double standards when such matters concern Africa, the “international community” comes out in force to condemn and declare war against the Somali fishermen pirates while discreetly protecting the numerous Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing fleets” (Waldo 2009). Somalia does not have the political clout to raise concerns over what’s going on in their waters and thus does not have the ability to be heard by the international community.

Some parts of countries population along with some members of the country’s parliament view these pirates as providing a service. To them the pirates serve as means to defend Somalia’s resources from outside invaders. Mohamed Mohamoud a Somali MP has gone on record stating “The pirates are... fighting the foreign ships that are plundering our fish and other marine resources” (Lecture 24). Other MPs described pirates as “heroes for keeping foreign fishing fleets away from Somali shores, and said they were acting as unofficial coastguards” (Lecture 24).  There are citizens within the country who do not support piracy and view it the way that the international community does. However, having the support of a portion of their countrymen can allow pirates to justify their action.

            However there are many that believe that Somalian pirates are only in it for the profit and that while other countries are illegal fishing, pirates are not attacking fishing vessels at the rate they should. Attacks on fishing vessels are highly successful but many pirates attack vessels that are carry much more valuable cargo. No matter which side of the issue you fall on it seems that the root of the issue are the high rates of poverty and resource scarcity within Somalia.

Post 4

               Earlier we read an article titled Turtles and Trade, which focused on new regulations implemented by the WTO in order to make the shrimping industry fair for all participating countries. It is well known that shrimp is a highly valued good, which is why the WTO found it necessary to make all countries with shrimp industries let the market work without any advantages. But what made shrimp so important? Obviously the WTO’s purpose is for fair trading, but why is Shrimp such a big deal? To me, it seems that the status of shrimp as a luxury good is the only reason there is conflict within that industry.

               Shrimp prices in the market and fluctuate for a variety of reasons. Mostly it is because who is catching all the shrimp. We spoke in class on how Thailand historically fished for shrimp, and it sometimes relied on donations in order to keep its industry thriving. They have little environmental impact and have little international attention. While these shrimp are used for international trade, the historical context of shrimping has led to less conflict. The economist article mentioned how developing nations do much better at not overfishing when control is given to a group or a village, which we can see in Thailand. The issue with little national attention to Thailand’s shrimping industry has led to volatility in the market. With pressure on other countries to do well, the outbreak in Thailand’s industry went largely unnoticed and caused a lot of volatility in the market.

The economist article also mentioned how developing countries have very little respect for fish stocks. I agree with this to an extent. Many developing countries exhaust fish populations in order to have steady revenue. This is evidenced in Honduras, where there are stories of shrimping companies forcing families to leave their homes so that the industry can continue to expand. With very weak infrastructure and enforcement of the law, the shrimp companies can continue to degrade the environment and marginalize some of the poorer citizens in Honduras.

Here we see the different levels of conflict in the industry. While it’s obviously preferred that there is no conflict at all, this isn’t the case. However, the conflicts in Thailand show us things like theft and assassination. While these are bad, the long term ecological impacts and potential displacement of citizens can be much more detrimental to a developing nation.

Since shrimp is a luxury good, providing it to the upper class can bring a lot of revenue. Especially the upper class in a developed nation. The status as a luxury good has caused overfishing of shrimp, which in turn can destroy the environment. While the obvious solution is to stop eating shrimp, that is impossible. All nations need to have the same amount of resources to produce shrimp and keep the market competitive. This can allow for prices to be stable, and maybe even make shrimp less of a luxury good.

Piracy in Somalia: Who's to blame and who can fix it?

Kevin Reilly

Blog Post 4

Piracy in Somalia: Who's to Blame and Who can Fix it?

In the dangerous and costly saga of Somali piracy, two sides of political theory have sensationalized when analyzing the offshore conflicts. The first finds that Somali pirates are seizing unsuspecting and maximizing profits through thievery or ransom. The second finds that these individuals are not pirates at all, but an unofficial coast guard that is exhausting its last possible option to save the waters from illegal fishing and waste dumping. The opposing theories find the same persons both guilty and victim, but regardless of who is right and who is wrong there must be effective and immediate change to the naval practices of Somalia waters. In analyzing the readings of Hansen, Gettleman, Waldo, and Bueger I will argue: both fisheries and the pirates of Somali need to change their practices; Somali government needs to overhaul its legal system; and the WTO needs to take an active role in creating a safe and profitable sea route.

No party in the conflict of Somali piracy is blameless, but first I will discuss the problems with the Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing fleets. Foreign nations take advantage of an instable, unorganized and developing Somali government that does not have the available resources to properly patrol their waters. Mohamed Abshir Waldo explains in a Wardheer News article that foreign nations are illegally invading the Somali waters and pilfering their fish supplies by using trawlers that drop off their yield at a mother ship and head right back to the water. These same ships have reportedly attacked smaller fishing boats and limited local access to the water. Possibly the worst part of the invasion of water comes with waste dump that is poisoning water, limiting fish access for everyone involved[i]. Foreign nations who fish in the region knowingly take advantage of a region without a proper governing body that could license or control their resource.

            Despite a frustrating invasion of water sovereignty, the response to foreign ships by the local Somali people is equally as wrong. At no point should anyone involved in hijacking a ship, holding a person hostage and waiting for ransom be seen as a sympathetic character, the way the subject of the Gettleman interview makes one feel, by arguing they are starving victims[ii]. Hansen argues that these incidents are not the cause of the piracy, but simply the Somali people seize any unsuspecting in order to turn a profit[iii]. The pirates claim to be an unofficial coast guard who are protecting the waters from foreign abuse. But why doesn’t Somalia establish an official international law abiding national guard?

            In order to fix these pressing issues, the first step is unlikely, but it would come from an overhaul of the Somali legal system and government. This would allow the government to profit by licensing the water.  They could create a reasonable tax on any transport ships. This would begin to bring order to the chaos., by creating a channel of communication between the country and other nations. Also by establishing a coast guard they could fix several problems. First, they could contain the pirates and disallow any more boat hijacking. Second, they would be able to patrol the waters and prosecute any boats without fishing licenses. Lastly, they could monitor any waste dumping and bring up charges against that company or country. The only problem with this plan is a chicken or the egg type conflict. In order to reestablish the government control they will need money, but the only way to use their rich waters to make money is through government control. Somalia would also need to improve their legal system to provide due process to anyone prosecuted. This would help fix two of the problems that lead to piracy described by Christian Beuger. These provisions would improve a weak law enforcement system and by helping fight poverty.[iv]

            If ever the Somali government can act in a developed manner, by disallowing bandits to patrol their water, they can expect more of a voice from international regimes. NATO and the WTO should take an active role in helping rebuild the waterway. NATO has yet to enforce any fishing restrictions on their leading members (France, Russia, etc..) in the Somali waters. As a leading power in the world that is an unexplainable mistreatment of a developing country. They are allowing the piracy problem to continue, by giving the pirates a rallying cry making observers sympathetic. If the pirates were only hijacking transport ships and not trawlers there would be no supporting argument for them. The WTO could then help the developing nation create a reasonable tax and trading system and even protect Somalia if its water is abused.

            The small African nation is a long way away from fixing their many problems, but if foreign nations take an active role in aiding their development, there may be a future without dangerous Somali waters.

---

[i] Waldo, Mohamed Abshir. “Two Piracies in Somalia: Why the World Ignores the Other. Wadheer News. Jan 08, 2009. Web (accessed November 2014)

[ii] Gettleman, Jeffery, “Q A with a Pirate We Just Want the Money” The New York Times. September 30, 2008. Web. (accessed November 2014)

[iii] Stig Jarle Hansen (2011) Debunking the Piracy Myth, The RUSI Journal, 156:6, 26-31, DOI:10.1080/03071847.2011.642682

[iv] Bueger, Christian. “Practice, Pirates and Coast Guards: the grand narrative of Somali piracy” Third World Quarterly. Vol. 34, Iss. 10, 2013

Christian Bueger 
Third World Quarterly 
Vol. 34, Iss. 10, 2013

Blog Post #4: The nature of scarcity

Blog Post #4: The nature of scarcity

                  The nature of scarcity is to cause conflict. When resources (which in turn become goods and services) become increasingly scarce, humans become increasingly aggravated. As seen in multiple case studies from around the world, scarcity has led to corrupt governments, piracy, a multitude of uprisings, and other forms of violent behaviors. The issue of scarcity will continue to be exacerbated as the world continues to warm.

                  Resources are necessary to survive. In other words, food, water, and natural resources such as timber and oil (along with many others) are essential to sustain life and make a living. Without these resources, humans are unable to live and prosper. Over the past few decades, the environment (and unequal distribution of resources) has become a more prominent issue, as global warming causes parts of the earth to wither, dry, freeze, or flood. This is turn causes the people who live in or around those areas to relocate and acquire a new set of resources to survive. However, a growing population of people in search for a deteriorating set of resources is a poor equation, and most of the time results in conflict.

                  It is not simply the scarcity of the resource that leads to conflict around the world – scarcity is more complex than that. The scarcity of a resource (and the conflict that arises from it) is usually coupled by other factors such as weak governance, ethnic tension, environmental degradation, increasing population, and/or religious strife (Lecture 21). As seen in the case in Chiapas, Mexico, conflict arose due to the environmental scarcity regarding agricultural land. However, this conflict (which ultimately resulted in the Zapatista Uprising in 1994) did not arise on its own; it was accompanied by cropland degradation and the inequitable distribution of land resources in Mexico (Homer-Dixon, 1996). In addition, “economic liberalization reduced the governing regime's capacity in Chiapas and provided greater opportunities for violent challenges by opposition groups” (Homer-Dixon, 1996). This combination of scarcity and along with weak governance and the unequal distribution of agricultural land is what led to the Zapatista Uprising in Chiapas, Mexico.

            Another example of how scarcity (paired with other factors) ultimately leads to conflict can be seen with the case study of Brazil: conflict over the Amazon Rainforest interacts with weak local governance and corruption to cause low levels of violence in the shape of assassinations and murders, in which over 1,000 environmental activists, religious workers, organizers, and rural workers were killed over a 2-decade long period (Lecture 22). The scarcity of the Amazon, coupled with the weak Brazilian government (which also faces its own set of issues regarding corruption) has resulted in violent crime and behavior. Resource scarcity can be extremely dangerous, and should be considered more carefully as global warming intensifies the degradation and availability of these resources.

                  Because resources are a necessary factor for human survival, it is not necessarily surprising that resource scarcity results in conflict (more times than not). Due to the nature of scarcity, and the requirement of resources to sustain a life (and a livelihood), conflict may continue to arise in societies around the world as the world continues to warm. In addition, as the global population continues to grow and as the existing stock of resources continues to be stressed and ultimately depleted, conflict such as uprisings, violent outbreaks, and even murder may become an inevitable part of society.

Post 4 - Scarcity and Abundance in the Shrimp Industry

The authors of Violent Environments suggest that the price volatility of the shrimp market, combined with disputes over property rights, is what leads to the violent conflicts that occur in conjunction with shrimping. They argue that the high value of shrimp, not scarcity as Homer-Dixon would say, leads to violence. However, I would argue that the high value of shrimp is a result of scarcity. Goods are more valuable when they are limited. When a commodity is difficult or expensive to produce, the cost of each additional unit will be higher than if the resource was abundant. Therefore, I conclude that the global scarcity coupled with local abundance of shrimp is what leads to the price instability that can cause conflict.

The price volatility of shrimp was evident in the summer of 2013. The authors mentioned ecological instability as another issue facing shrimp farming, as the farms more easily facilitate disease between the fish. This was the case last year, when many farms in Southeast Asia were seeing dwindling stocks due to disease. The situation was extreme, as it was considered an acute shortage. As a result of the disease limiting the amount of shrimp available to be sold on the market, prices were the highest they had ever been. In this instance it is clear that the market price for shrimp was directly impacted by scarcity. Southeast Asia is the foremost producer of exported shrimp, and as diseases persist in wiping out their available stocks, the prices will continue to rise. (http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/16/news/economy/shrimp-prices/)

Though I agree with the authors that ecological and price instability play a key role in the conflicts seen over shrimp farming, the underlying cause is scarcity. Shrimp are not universally scarce. However, they thrive in specific climates and are therefore not readily available globally. In climates where edible species of shrimp live, the stocks are abundant. This local abundance feeds into the abundance argument as an explanation for conflict. Southeast Asia is endowed with large shrimp stocks. The lack of industry and environmental regulations, coupled with the abundance of a high value commodity, can lead to intense competition and violence. On a regional level, the abundance argument makes sense, though if shrimp were abundant globally the price volatility seen on the market currently would not exist.

I believe the abundance argument, in almost any context, is only feasible when coupled with scarcity. Abundance is only problematic if the good that is abundant, say oil in the Middle East, is geographically isolated. Without global scarcity increasing demand and prices, abundance would not lead to over-competition and conflict. However, as seen in the shrimping industry, it is clear that the availability of a commodity in one region coupled with the increasing demand from areas without that resource leads to high prices and therefore the possibility of conflict.

Post 3

Scarcity occurs when something that is needed or valued is in short supply. This leads to competition for these resources. This applies to a number of situations that vary as far importance goes. There could be a limited number of tickets to see your favorite comedian or a limited number of new shoes at a store. There may be long lines to gain access to tickets but it usually do not lead to any sort of real conflict. However the scarcity of popular new shoes upon release has led to conflict and violence while people stand in line. If the scarcity of trivial items can lead to violence and conflicts then I believe that scarcity of necessities such as food, water, and other natural resources can lead to violence and conflict in the areas that need them.

Thomas Homer-Dixon argues that scarcity of needed resources leads to conflict while Michael Klare argues that the inevitable shortage of resources will lead to “resource wars” in the future. Both authors argue similar points. Homer-Dixon looked at developing countries and argues that the lack of resources that are necessary to survive like food, water, and land creates intrastate conflict. Klare’s research looks at the needs of developed countries. Energy sources like oil and gas what are needed for these countries to continue functioning the way that they are currently. As consumption increases these resources are going to become increasingly rare which will lead to developed countries getting into conflicts over them. These conflicts that Klare and Homer-Dixon observe are actually going on at the same time in some locations.

            Scarcity hits less developed countries the hardest. These countries have little to no infrastructure. This is usually due to some sort of corruption within the governments of these countries who keep the profits from natural resources and do not invest it into the country. This lack of adequate infrastructure can be linked to these countries having extreme high rates of poverty. This causes competition and often conflict over access to things like rivers which would be a valued water source. The lack of necessities stresses the citizens of these countries and can lead to them turning to other options such as rebel groups.

The dissent created by scarcity within these less developed nations gives outside nations a window to extract valuable resources that are scarce to them. Klare discusses this very thing in one of the readings.  He writes that the “competition for access to critical materials has also emerged as a major source of friction within states” (Klare 428). Klare goes on to state many of the disputes identified in the Western media as “ethnic or religious conflicts” in African countries “are in fact struggles between competing warlords, militias, and government factions for control “over mines, oil fields, timber stands, farmlands, and other resources” (429). Outside powers and giant corporations often become entangled in these struggles. It is not uncommon for these players to side with and fund one faction in order to maximize their extraction of valuable resources.

These kinds of conflicts show that scarcity plays a role in many types of conflict. It affects developed countries the most because these conflicts take place within them. However developed countries are affected by scarcity but usually use proxies within developing countries to settle them. However as these resources get more and more scarce, rival developing countries may get into more direct confrontations.

Scarcity

It’s hard to determine whether scarcity comes from conflict, which lead certain resources to be exploited, or if they naturally become scarce just from human activity. The debate is an interesting one, and many scholars consider their side to be correct. I think that both sides hold merit and that each one holds some kind of responsibility when it comes to the scarcity of resources, however, it is the lack of resources that lead to conflict.

It’s well known that conflict has led to resource wars. Nations are constantly gathering resources in hope that they can hold some value in an internationally anarchic world. In this race for resources, we are exhausting natural supplies. This can be seen in major conflicts like World Wars, where resources are used to provide for soldiers or to restore places that conflict has destroyed. Without these conflicts, the resources may not have been used up as quickly.

Thomas Malthus believed that scarcity would come from the exponential growth of the human population. I agree with this sentiment to a degree. Because of the large global population resources like oil, food, and water have become harder and harder to come by in countries with a lack of infrastructure. The struggle to obtain resources this century and the greed of authoritarian leaders has led the masses to remain impoverished. Despite these countries being rich in resources, most citizens continue to remain in poverty because of the privatization of the resources. This forces citizens to work for private companies, most of whom are corrupted by governmental leaders, leading to almost no economic mobility among the masses. This has led to conflict in resource rich nations like Nigeria and Central African Republic.

Klare’s argument directly disagrees with this school of Malthusian thought. While both agree that resources are finite, Klare believes that these sources would eventually run out regardless of population. I agree, as we will constantly use sources no matter what the population is; it’s just a question of when they will run out. Klare also acknowledged that the scarcity of resources will lead to an increase in their price and value. This is exemplified with oil, especially in the Middle East. While there are many debates about why countries hold a stake in the area, it goes without a doubt that oil plays some role. This has obviously led to mass conflict in the area. America, who already has a wealth of oil supply from its own land still valued the potential gains of that source. This shows that even though countries may be rich in a resource, gathering all of it can increase its worth. This is why many resources that have become scarce in areas are constantly becoming privatized.

What can we do to stop this conflict and slow down, and maybe eventually stop, the exploitation of these resources? Environmental groups, states, and investors have been working hard at this for some time. The United States has begun to use GMO’s to steadily increase the supply of crops and help alleviate potential food shortages. The rest of the world has been investing more money into renewable sources of energy. With transmission grids being updated, there may reach a point that these renewables can be beneficial not only to the country that they are being built in, but reach across to other nations as well. This promotes electricity trade between regions. All of these potential solutions to resource scarcity can help bring an end to conflict and even promote cooperation between states.