I Change My MInd

After reviewing the scarcity theory over the last couple of weeks I think it's safe to say that my beliefs about it has changed. If you had asked me two weeks ago about whether or not I thought scarcity causes conflict I would have said, wholeheartedly, that it does not cause conflict.  My understanding was that there are simply too many factors involved to deem scarcity as the main culprit. Instead, I thought that scarcity created competition and competition could lead to conflict. In my International Development and Conflict Management class one of our assignments was to do some research on a current conflict, domestic or international. I chose to research the conflict in Zimbabwe. This is what changed my mind about the scarcity theory. Now, I believe that there is sometimes a possibility that scarcity could create conflict. Likewise, scarcity can lead to the creation of different factors that could indirectly cause conflict. Whether or not it creates conflict is highly dependent on the nature of the situation. Also, Scarcity can be a national security problem.

In 1979, there was guerrilla warfare in Zimbabwe, which finally led to the country’s independence. In the year 2000,  a major conflict intensified within the country. This was also around the time of elections. The state security forces were committing violent acts against thousands of civilians, who opposed President Mugabe. To go along with the violent transgression that was occurring, Mugabe put in place several national policies, which caused the country to plunge into severe economic depression. President Mugabe encouraged the bloody takeover of large commercial white owned farms. This was a part of his campaign to redistribute the land to previously disenfranchised blacks, at the time of colonization. The campaign led to a huge decrease in the amount of commercial farms, from 4500 to 250. This further plunged the country into economic distress, causing a larger increase in the scarcity issue.

When the farm owners challenged to confiscate what was taken from them, President Mugabe would speak to the justification of the riots by the laws that he put in place. Shortly after, the president began to actually put in a deadline for the farm owners. They had to decide between either risking jail sentence or fleeing the land that they farmed on for generations. If the farm owners failed to leave they would face huge fines along with their jail sentence. In the media, the government failed to comment on the issue. The only comment that was made was that the land seizure were meant to correct the wrongs of the British colonization that occurred hundreds of years ago. Colonizers took over 70% of the land and the native people want their land back. Up to this day, Zimbabwe has been stricken with poverty and violence.

In Zimbabwe, farm land is not distributed evenly. Everyone does not have enough land to survive on. The average citizen does not freely have access to arable land to grow their foods. This scarcity led to the bloody riots and the attempts to illegally recapture land that British colonizers took. The issue in Zimbabwe is an excellent example of how scarcity leads to conflict, especially when the government is not taking an active role in maintaining peace and order. In my previous post, I spoke about my home country as an example of how scarcity leads to competition and how that competition then leads to conflict. I was very stock in my beliefs that there was an indirect correlation between scarcity and conflict, competition being the intermediate variable. However, After recently studying the issue in Zimbabwe, I concluded that whether or not scarcity leads to conflict is highly dependent on the nature of the situation. I takes an individual evaluation of each conflict to figure out what the causing factors are.

Piracy, looking at the bigger picture

          For quite some time these have been issues with piracy in certain parts of the world but it seems to be used as an excuse for pirates to make financial gains while looking like heroes to their people. More specifically, the pirates in Somalia and their citizens believe that they are not committing an injustice. There will always be some type of waste being dumped in the seas near civilians and this will always be off putting or the illegal usage of their water ways but that does not justify the piracy that is taking place although the pirates and citizens would disagree. But they are disagreeing on the basis that these pirates are protecting what the citizens and government rightfully own and should delegate. Yet they are doing more than just delegating their seas, they are stealing goods and holding innocent people hostage for ransom in order to make a huge profit. These are goods that are disbursed around the world, not just in Somalia. With these pirates hijacking ships with goods that need to be distributed, it creates a delaying effect on much of the world’s production. If the pirates of Somalia were tamed and made to understand that it is not just the illegal fishing in their seas that they are protecting but the global market they are ruining and holding hostage, it would set the tone to organize all the other faults that global trading experiences.

            This heroism complex that these pirates seem to have going for them is an excuse for their piracy. It’s great that there’s less waste in their waters and not as much illegal fishing but they are making billions of dollars off of all the other ships that they hijack and take hostage. These pirates could possibly be being advised by Al Qaeda, and that could explain their pirate behaviors due to Al Qaeda being the base for terrorism in the Middle East. More so, could the hostage money that the pirates are receiving be tunneled back to Al Qaeda for more terrorist endeavors? Possibly, but the point at hand is that there is nothing being done about it on their part because the pirates are seen as saints or protectors of the seas. But, the citizens would change their minds if they were educated on the facts of what more their savior pirates do. Millions of Somalians are dependent on humanitarian food aid but they will not receive this food in a timely fashion, or at all, due to their pirates that are protecting them and their seas. The pirates make a bigger issue people attempting to deliver food and other goods to people in need because they need protection to go and deliver the goods but if there is no one to protect them, the goods do not get transported to the people in need of them.

            It’s not just the seas and the straits that need protecting, but the people from themselves need protecting. While they are unknowingly supporting these pirates, they do not know that they are also supporting their lack of aid to their country and many other countries. With their government lacking in existence, this issue will continue on. But if the government can be rebuilt and educated on the issues at hand that these pirates are causing around the world and in their country alone, it would be a good start to end the heavy piracy in the area. This would make it easier for everyone around the world to get the goods they need, and for the people in Somalia to get assistance and grow again as a country.       

Somali Pirates, not Terrorists nor Coast Guard

     Somali pirates are pirates, but they are not terrorists. The Somali pirates cannot be considered protectors of their waters until a sovereign Somali central government gives them permission to patrol their waters.

     Piracy is defined as one who steals and ransoms other ships on the seas without the expressed permission of a sovereign state. The Somali are pirates because they satisfy this definition, but they are not terrorists because they do not attack ships with the intent to cause terror. Somalia is considered a “failed state” having had little government existence and relative anarchy with local warlords governing since 1991. Beyond failing to maintain control, the nearly non-existent central government has failed to maintain a central economy and support its citizens. Forced to survive in an anarchic environment, Somali families have turned to piracy to increase their chances of survival. Clans living on the coast of the Gulf of Aden began attacking cargo ships to ransom passengers and loot goods. The revenue from these activities allowed pirates to provide enough food and resources for their clans and families survival. Somalian pirates do not seek to cause terror on the high sea, and any violence is a means to the end goal of ensuring their survival. For individuals in Somalia, piracy and possibility of violence are a means to ensure their survival in a country that is better described as an anarchic territory with borders. The Somali’s are pirates out of necessity and cannot be classified as terrorists because their do not intend to injure and terrorize.  

     The Somalis claim they are not pirates rather they are serving as the coastguard and protecting the fisheries and other aquatic resources of the Somali coastal waters when they attack ships in their territory. However, until a sovereign Somali government gives these individuals the right to attack ships in Somali waters, they maintain the title of pirates and their “coastguard” claim continues to be an illegitimate rationalization for their attacks. Besides not having permission of the government, it is more likely that the Somalis realized how lucrative boarding and looting cargo ships and have increased their attacks and expanded their area of operation far beyond the boundaries of Somali waters. . Similar to RUF and the struggle over diamond mines, the Somali pirates have expanded from basic survival to seeking to control the market to improve their security and profit. International law states that a nation’s water territory extends 200 nautical miles off the coast. As attacks became more prevalent they have occurred in areas upwards of 1000 nautical miles off the Somali coast. Even if the Somalis had been given permission to protect their coastal waters, attacks occuring almost three times the distance of their aquatic boundaries from the coast severely hurt their “defenders” claim. The Somalis cannot expect to be respected as a legitimate arm of the military if they are committing attacks on innocent ships outside of their nations territory. If the Somalis pirates want to be considered just unofficial defenders of their coast, they need to stop attacking ships far beyond their territory. Pirates will need the express permission of a sovereign Somali central government if they want to trade in their title of pirates for the legitimate title of coast guard.

     The Somali are pirates because they satisfy this definition, but they are not terrorists because they do not attack ships with the intent to cause terror. Somalis should have the right to protect their waters. The anarchic environment leads to Somalis attacking ships in their territory in order to survive, not with the intent to terrorize. These activities are dubbed as piracy because no government can give the groups permission to defend their territory. The lack of sovereign government hurts these groups by delegitimizing their claims of serving as the “coast guard” because they have no official authorization to attack foreign ships in their waters. If the Somali pirates wanted evolve into the coast guard, they need to stop attacking outside ships outside of their territory and the central government of Somalia needs to be resurrected to legitimize the pirates’ claims.

The RUF and Somalian pirates: Blurring the Lines of Legitimacy

          The Revolutionary United Front and the pirates that operate off the coast of Somalia both began as honest groups of individuals that worked off the land to supply their needs and nothing more. The RUF began as a group of diamond miners that lost their jobs and resorted to exploiting the booming diamond market in Sierra Leone. The Somalian pirates began as fishermen that used the waters of the Somalian coast to supply their families and villages with food and resources, but due to outside competition, they resorted to piracy to meet and exceed their needs. Both groups attempted or are attempting to legitimize their intentions through merit, but their ideals have mutated into conflicting feelings of crime and community service.

          The RUF grew out of unrest after vast job layoffs and closing mines in Sierra Leone. The miners formed a sort of union to address growing unemployment and to influence the growing youth presence. These ideas would undoubtedly be reasonable in anyone's eyes. Their terms are fair, and any community should have a right to pursue these ends. Their legitimacy crumbled, however, once they answered the unemployment by exploiting the diamond market and using the money to fuel a war against the government while simultaneously addressing the growing youth by kidnapping and arming child soldiers. This is a far cry from the initial intentions of disgruntled miners. The RUF quickly became an organized criminal network that stripped the environment of its resources to fuel a violent revolution.

          The story of the RUF bears a resemblance to the case of the pirates in Somalia. Contrary to common arguments, these men are no longer protecting their waters from fishermen, or as one of the leaders of a pirate group said, "acting as a sort of coast guard." The pirates grew as a result of international companies pushing into Somalian waters and devastating the fishing stock, at which point the Somalians retaliated in an effort to save their waters and livelihood. Again, like the RUF, their actions can potentially be justified as self-defense and defending their loved ones from outsiders, but this legitimacy was ruined once their "defense" became an "offense" and they began robbing, plundering, kidnapping...piracy. There is no question that these Somalians used the facade of protecting their fishing stocks to justify what they quickly realized was a lucrative venture.

          The foundation of this issue is the simple debate over recognition in the international market. In the case of the RUF, at what point do you legitimize and recognize the RUF as an official government entity? How do you intervene in a war torn country to address the violent government that replaced the corrupt and ineffective government? As for the Somalian pirates, how do you identify a boundary that all parties can agree on? And even if these boundaries are recognized by all parties, who's to say the pirates will refrain from the robbing and kidnapping? Once a group taps into a lucrative endeavor such as diamond mining or looting ships, they reach a point where their power becomes legitimized simply because of their purchasing power in the region.

          These blurred lines in regards to legitimacy and recognition are difficult to address and when the cases such as the RUF and the Somalian pirates resort to violence and conflict with other entities, their legitimacy should come into question. Their initial intentions should be put on trial and addressed by the international community. Regardless of how each group interprets their intentions, the Revolutionary United Front was a criminal organization guilty of war crimes, and the Somalian pirates are exactly what they are labeled as...pirates.

Rwanda should be the blueprint for stopping Somali piracy

To say that a Somali pirate is on the periphery of the international economy is an unquestionable understatement. The entire country of Somalia is on the periphery of the African economy, which itself on the periphery of the international economy. Somali pirates are mostly native to the war torn southern regions of Somalia, which are on the periphery of the Somali economy. In other words, Somali pirates are on the periphery of the periphery of the periphery. These young men commit piracy out of desperation because they do not have other means of income. Even subsistence farming is impractical due to the lack of arable land in Somalia. In this situation, stealing and ransoming are the surest ways to support their families; and there are too few real incentives to dissuade these actions. The Somali pirates know what they are doing is wrong, they even admit that piracy should be a crime, but their situation has left them without other options.

South Somalis live without hope for legitimate prosperity, and their current situation does not alleviate the hopelessness. Prosperity must be facilitated from the outside, from foreign investment. More specifically, the world must look west of Somalia to Rwanda, where foreign investment and careful planning have made the central-African nation one of the most improved in the world. In the mid to late 1990’s, Rwanda looked much like Somalia does today. Their economy was in shambles due to a horrific war and there was wide spread hunger and hopelessness. International groups such as the World and IMF (and others) facilitated economic growth in Rwanda by investing in infrastructure and natural resource utilization. Building roads and schools has been a vital to the improved economy of Rwanda, but funding ways to effectively use Rwanda’s natural resources has been the engine that drives Rwanda’s economy. Rwanda is on a road to economic independence, despite being a resource poor country, because the have the tools to be use their natural resources efficiently.

This plan should and could be applied to Somalia effectively. Both countries have similar populations and their climates are relatively similar. While subsistence farming is more practical in Rwanda (they have experienced less desertification), Somalia has a wealth of natural resources that Rwanda does not. It is believed that Somalia sits on top of large oil and natural gas reverse, based mainly on the endowments of Somalia’s neighbors. If oil were ever found in Somalia, there would be enough economic incentive for Somalis to stop pirating. However, oil-prospecting companies will not risk the political instability of Somalia. This is where the international community must intervene, much like they did in Rwanda during the 1990’s. If the safety of oil companies can be guaranteed, then Somalia may finally be able to take positive steps toward improving their quality of life.

            The future of Somalia may come down to a simple waiting game. As oil wells dry up in the future, firms will become more aggressive in how and where they extract oil. If the international community does not act and Somalia remains as dangerous as it is today; eventually some oil company will risk the danger and start prospecting for oil regardless. This could lead to a situation similar to what is happening today in Northeastern Iraq, where a terrorist group (ISIS) controls oil wells and is able to fund their terrorist activities through the sale of oil. This is why it is so important that the international community gets involved in creating an infrastructure and guaranteeing the safety of firms.

The international community has the means to create stability in Somalia, which along with economic growth can create large enough economic incentives for Somalis to abandon pirating. The end of pirating would have the added positive effect of increased trade in Somalia because companies would no longer fear the loss of there cargo or safety of their crew. By providing safety and stability, the international community can create hope for the Somalis while at the same time gaining more access to oil. This has the potential to be mutually beneficial for all parties involved. Even if Somalia did not have the resources they were expected to have, the humanitarian positivity coming out of helping a country like Somalia should be incentive enough for politicians looking to stir up good will. With Rwanda as a model, Somalia could be on the road to stability and economic improvement in a matter of years. All that is left is for someone to do it.

Security Emergency

          In class we have been discussing the climate change efforts that have been attempted globally and they have all failed for the most part. Partly, because countries cannot come to a solid agreement of what needs to be accomplished and how to go about it. There are plenty of other questions at hand but one that I think would bring countries together to come to a compromise to move forward with climate change efforts is whether it is being justified as a national security threat or not. According to the article we needed to read on americansecurityproject.org, about 70% of the globe considers climate change as a national security threat. By finding a common ground by establishing that most nations have the same idea that it is a national security individually, this could possibly be the foundation for them to form a unity to begin enacting efforts to battle climate change globally.  

            Progress has not been able to be accomplished or even started because there have always been conflicts between countries as to what methods would work for the whole globe, how much each nation should contribute and on what basis, along with many other factors; none of which could be agreed on. But with more countries looking at the long term effects that are creeping closer as time goes on, more nations are seeing how climate change will heavily impact many things that help their country thrive like the infrastructure, the land where crops are grown, and the ships that come into port on nations shores. Not only does climate change impact the nation itself but it also impacts the relationships that nations have with each other across the globe.

            Climate change that impact nation’s environments in a way that would drastically diminish the growth of crops due to too much rainfall or severe droughts can hurt the economy of a nation that will prove to be difficult to bounce back from. There is also the problem of shore erosion that could hinder ships from docking in ports to transport imports. If countries are unable to export or import products, that not only damages their nations society and makes resources scarce and more expensive, but it does the same for the nation that will be lacking the exports it would be receiving. And if the infrastructures are damaged, that would delay how quickly resources can be exported or utilized within the country can lead to bigger issues over time.

            As these issues become more of a reality rather than a possibility, it is imperative for countries to figure out a compromise that will work for everyone or allow everyone to find a solution that works best for their country and work toward a mutually agreed upon end goal. By seeing climate change as a national security threat to many nations, and them building a comradery off of this basis, actions could be made with the interest of the whole globe instead of everyone’s individual national interest at the forefront of handling the impact of climate change. 

Geography, Scarcity, & Conflict

    I support the existence of scarcity exists and the proposition that it will cause conflict. Competition over resources caused by scarcity will lead to conflict because of the basic need to survive. I believe geographic location affects the development of this conflict especially how it occurs and to what extent. I think the political, social, and economic situations present in areas affect the extent of the conflict.

     Scarcity in urban areas such as cities and their surrounding suburbs leads to conflict because of an inherent lack of accessibility to resources in these areas. City dwellers require resources such as food to be imported from outside putting citizens at disadvantage to access food crops and other necessities. If nation fails to produce enough crops during a harvest then food supply drops and a scarcity develops. Cities tend to exhibit large gaps in social inequality and this inequality often leads to unequal distribution. Unequal distribution results in individuals with better socio-economic status having easier access to food and larger quantities of it. On the other hand, conflict can ensue because individuals living in poverty cannot access the food and starvation forces them to take drastic measures. The extent of these conflicts can range from individuals using violence to obtain food, or large groups fighting against a government who cannot feed them. This also harps on strikes upon how the existence of political corruption exacerbates the scarcity and conflict. Corruption often leads to bribery, skimming of money and resources, and unequal distribution of resources. For example, think how much easier a political leader living in a Nigerian city, with a ten room mansion and a swimming pool, can afford food compared to an unemployed goldsmith living across the city live in a shack made of metal bars and a plastic tarp. Less extreme versions also exist in industrialized nations such as in urban areas of Baltimore where food deserts develop. Families are forced to rely on easily accessible unhealthy fast food because healthier food options are not in the immediate vicinity and are less accessible. I believe lack of available resources whether it is food, water, or money leads to scarcity and eventual conflict in urban environments. The social inequality, and political corruption in some nations, exacerbates the scarcity and resulting conflict.

     In rural areas, scarcity can be caused by a lack of resources, but it is more often caused by an abundance of them. In rural areas, especially those containing large reserves of resources such as precious metals, abundance of a resource can lead to scarcity of necessities amongst the inhabitants. Good intentioned political action such as policy prescriptions aim to limit the amount of resource captured in these areas and prevent abundant reserves from diminished too quickly. Unfortunately, these prescriptions limit the harvests so severely that individuals cannot survive they adhere to the prescribed limitations. For example, Lahitti-dutt mentions how inhabitants of rural villages located next to precious metal mines will illegally harvest these resources in order to earn their livelihood and survive. Resulting uncontrolled extraction of resources, such as diamonds, can lead to conflict as individuals seek to secure themselves by obtaining as much of the resource as possible. This tragedy of the commons leads to the conflict amongst various groups who seek to control the resources and the accompanying wealth. Terms such as blood diamonds develop because of the violence associated with conflict caused by the abundance of a resource. I disagree with Theissen and believe that an abundance of resource can increase scarcity of the resource and of the necessities funded by profit from resource. The scarcity leads to conflict between groups seeking to control the resource and secure their ability to survive, especially groups living in rural areas.

     The existence of scarcity in a society will cause conflict, and I believe that how the scarcity and conflict develop depend on the geographic region. Additionally, I believe that the social, political, and economic situations in these regions will affect how extreme the conflict can become.