An Objective analysis of Piracy, its root causes, and international approach, so far

[NASSIR]

Somalia's piracy offers lessons on Governance

 

The unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1851, in December 2008 authorising members to take all necessary actions against Somali piracy has been cited as a rare instance of the Councils' decisiveness and unity.

International anti-piracy operations off Somalia have attracted multinational media attention and have largely been heralded as a noble effort to protect the global commons. The unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1851, in December 2008 authorising members to take all necessary actions against Somali piracy has been cited as a rare instance of the Councils decisiveness and unity. A closer consideration of the issues involved, on the contrary, reveals it to be pyrrhic victory that masks long-term failure in local and international governance that would ensure continued insecurity.

 

The wave of piracy off Somalia began in 1991 following the collapse of the Barre regime. Dumping of toxic and hazardous wastes by international companies (possibly with organised crime involvement) increased. Unlicensed foreign fishing vessels eagerly targeted Somalia`s fish-rich waters.Local fishermen claimed that foreign boats use intimidation tactics such as ramming and hiring local militants to harass. them. In response, disaffected fishermen then began attacking foreign vessels in the early 1990s, ultimately leading to full-scale piracy and hostage-taking. In 2005, a UN agency estimated that 700 foreign fishing vessels were operating in Somali waters, many employing illegal and destructive fishing methods.

 

In 2006, the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), a coalition of Islamist courts (that had sprung up to provide local law and order after 1991) seeking to create an Islamic state, seized power in most of southern Somalia. They reasserted some control over Somali waters: foreign incursions and piracy declined. Ethiopia (supported by the USA and the West) invaded Somalia in order to oust the ICU. After the ICUs ouster the chaos off Somalis increased. Fishermen fruitlessly complained to the UN about renewed poaching and dumping. Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, UN Special Envoy for Somalia, in July 2008 called the situation ...a disaster off the Somali coast, a disaster (for) the Somali environment, (and) the Somali population. The situation that developed has been described by Peter Lehr, of St. Andrews University, as a resource swap with Somalis taking $100 million annually in ransoms while Europeans and Asian poach $300 million in fish. What began as a defensive movement by local fishermen has evolved into a complex amalgamation of banditry, organised crime, freebooting, and insurgency targeting all types of vessels from fishing trawlers to oil tankers. Somali waters emerged as the hotbed of piracy, accounting for close to 32% of attacks reported globally between January and September 2008. Some fishermen independently attack foreign vessels, others join well-organised pirate groups consisting of criminal gangs, warlords, and clan militias who in turn attack foreign vessels, local fishermen, and each other.The failed governance of the country also comes into play. Officials from Somalia`s semi-autonomous region of Puntland issue licences to foreign vessels that then employ pirates as security.

 

With local and Diaspora businessmen and clan leaders providing logistics and capital to pirates Puntlands coastal cities are experiencing a piracy fuelled economic boom. Pirates masquerade as Robin Hood-like defenders of Somalia, supposedly protecting the country from exploitation.The surge in piracy warrants immediate security measures, but ultimately calls for a comprehensive approach that mixes hard and soft measures, similar to that advocated by counterinsurgency experts. In this case, such an approach should have a long-term focus on seeking a political solution to Somalis turmoil, effective governance and promoting economic development. Intermediate efforts would focus on assisting Puntland which is the epicentre of piracy and has a somewhat dysfunctional government. In his briefing on Resolution 1851, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon did emphasise, Anti-piracy efforts, therefore, must be placed in a comprehensive approach that fostered an inclusive peace process in Somalia and assisted the parties to rebuild security, governance capacity, addressed human rights issues, and harnessed economic opportunities throughout the country. The Secretary-General also noted that he appealed to 50 countries to commit resources for a broader multinational force for Somalia, yet he could find no state willing to take the lead.

 

The international response has been almost entirely naval. At least 20 countries have committed or promised ships for what, on the surface, looks like a 19th century punitive expedition where the strong collude to protect their economic interests while protecting civilising efforts (in this case delivery of food aid). While over half the nations contributing ships are major global or Indian Ocean fishing nations; none have offered significant resources to help address the deeper roots of piracy. This military-centric approach erodes the legitimacy of international operations and instead creates anti-imperialist responses that help fuel extremism and discontent.

 

**Al-Jazeera**, for instance, has taken up the Robin Hood theme reporting that ...pirates were victims of a US-EU run system that still uses the developing world as a dumping ground for toxic waste. One commentary posted on 12 June, 2008 alleged: The dumping continues to this day, even though we have been assured that were living in a post racial era following the election of Barak Obama...that rule doesn`t apply to the many black and brown people who still find themselves in the imperial crosshairs.

 

 

The fact remains that the UN has failed to include in its Resolution 1851 the enforcement of Somalia`s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) or the relevant convention that bars dumping of toxic waste. What insights can be gleaned from this situation? A cynical view suggests that the powerful still prefer military approaches to problems rather than measures requiring broader, multifaceted solutions. A more charitable assessment would suggest that, intent and rhetoric to the contrary, the capacity and will to tackle every problem comprehensively does not yet exist. Reality undoubtedly lies somewhere in the middle.

Three points stand-out. First, it is now assumed axiomatic that ungoverned or under-governed spaces have become breeding grounds for rogue groups threatening the international community and global economic system. However, this assumption is incomplete. Weakly governed and failed states are often themselves victimised by foreigners. Second, that the nature of warfare has changed is another accepted truth. War is no longer characterised primarily by conventional clashes between states, but fought amongst the people by combatants including not only states but hybrid networks of, criminal gangs, insurgents and international terrorists. In this situation military force alone is not sufficient to combat such threats; it should be employed to support political solutions and human security. This, however, requires non-military capabilities, resources, patience, and political and public will that are often lacking. Third, despite the prevalence of rhetoric about preventing threats through human security, states often resort to application of force in pursuit of short-term self-interests.

 

Ultimately, the will and capacity to pursue comprehensive strategies that protect both the winners and losers of globalisation appear insufficient. This begs the question of whether the global commons really can be secured for the common good. Yet such a question must be answered soon as global inequalities, economic recession, degradation of and competition over natural resources, climate change, and demographic pressures threaten not just the weak but all humanity.

 

(The writer is Associate Professor, National Security Affairs, at the US Naval War College.

 

from Yale Global Online)©

[Mintid Farayar]

^^^ "Intermediate efforts would focus on assisting Puntland which is the epicentre of piracy and has a somewhat dysfunctional government "

 

Even the articles you fellows post contradict the idea of this mythical Puntland. The gig is up - the world understands what's going on and who's behind it for easy shillings!

[General Duke]

^^^The importance is that the world is looking to "assist" Puntland and thats what makes your whole argument hot air. Is it perfect but its better than most areas of the south.

[Mintid Farayar]

Calm down, Duke! You're safe in North America unless some money was sent to you through Amal Express. Currently, most of the financial investigations in the West are concentrated in the UK. Good thing you moved from there in the nick of time

[General Duke]

^^^loool. The desperate sounds of a failed group. "America destroy Puntland for us" the Pirates are an issue that will give Puntland much advantage as one has highlighted to you already the American strategy has Puntland in it as Secretery Gates indicated. The US has courted the admin as hihglighted by the warm embrace Faroole recieved in Nairobi.

 

Now one has to stay with facts and all this anger and envy because of the cash making Pirates is undertsandable, but quite boring.

[NASSIR]

Mintid, the fact is Puntland needs help, for its Government still lacks the full capacity to deal with pirates that have now grown more powerful and stronger.

To deal with the issue, help, or at least try to, strengthen Puntland security forces, which is admitted to be stronger and more legitimate than the fragile TFG in Mogadishu.