Wednesday
Apr152009
Combating Somali Piracy: How Many People Can We Afford To Kill?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 18:12
Related Post: After the Rescue: What Now with Somalia?
“Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates” – Mark Twain
You don’t have to be a serious news junkie to know that there is currently a lively debate ongoing in the media on the issue of combating Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. Commentators from across the political spectrum have laid out countless detailed plans for fighting the pirates both at sea and on land, and some such as CNN’s Jack Cafferty and Rick Sanchez have even put the question directly to their audiences. However, all of the solutions presented seem to involve some level of military force used against Somalia, specifically US military force, and the major differences between the plans are over questions of financial cost and political willpower. To put it bluntly, the real question at hand is how many Somali people we really feel like killing right now.
But why do we insist on making this debate so narrow and yet still complicated when it doesn’t have to be either? Unlike the conventional wisdom of US military violence and nation building, which has an atrocious rate of success, there is a myriad of solutions available which have not yet even been attempted with Somalia, yet are far more likely to produce the desired long-term stability. Given the huge challenges facing the United States from its two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis, isn’t it time we explored some of these other options?
The conventional wisdom is very simple. While they all agree that the Navy SEAL snipers killing the pirates was really cool, the generally liberal, realist, soft power crowd is pushing for an increased naval presence, that is ships with weapons, in the Gulf of Aden, the hawkish, bold-faced imperialist folks are asking for air strikes and special forces strikes against pirate sanctuaries in Somalia, and the population at large is especially craven, calling for public hangings of pirates and shoot-on-sight rules of engagement for US Navy ships in the region. Typically when presented by experts and commentators, these plans will also feature a data set debunking the other side’s plan, which means that when put side by side, they cancel each other out with no shortage of irony.
The consequences of these plans are also simple. The end result of all of them, no matter whether they succeed or fail, is that the US is going to kill a lot of Somalis. None of the plans even attempt to address the root causes of piracy in the gulf, like hellish poverty, illegal over-pollution, and the absence of basic human services in Somalia. So in order for these options to succeed, you’d have to believe that these desperate, armed-to-the-teeth gangsters from an apocalyptic-level failed state will be so incensed at the sight of a dead body that they’ll permanently abstain from the only profession that brings their family any shred of dignity and sustenance. Amazing logic, right? If you knew how much people were paid to come up with ideas like that, your head would explode.
But there are other options available. Rather than falling back on the usual tool of military violence, they instead focus on the seeds of instability and piracy in Somalia.
Seemingly the most obvious idea would be to ask the Somalis themselves what to do about piracy. Are they asking for food, money and an end to illegal toxic waste dumping in their fishing grounds? Or are they asking for 200lb JDAMs to be dropped on their villages? You could ask even the most destitute, illiterate among them, and I’m sure they’d have an opinion either way. However, I’ve yet to see one actual Somali in the mainstream discussion, it’s mostly the usual suspects in the media foreign policy elite whose opinions are deemed worthy of consideration. At the very least they could lay out a clear, concrete set of grievances to be acknowledged in whatever response the US eventually chooses.
Instead of special forces, why not deploy diplomats to Somalia? The European Union would be the most desirable, as the catastrophic circumstances of Somalia would require the most skilled negotiators available. Director of the Global Governance Initiative Parag Khanna writes of their prowess, “Charlemagne’s efforts to resurrect the Roman Empire have been succeeded, over a millennium later, by the multipronged armadas of Brussels Eurocrats steadily colonizing Europe’s periphery, in the Baltics, the Balkans, and, eventually, Anatolia and the Caucasus. The Eurocrats’ book is not the Bible but rather the acquis communautaire: the 31 chapters of the Lex Europea, which is rebuilding EU member states from the inside out.” Great, if they can do all that, why couldn’t they handle building a state in Somalia?
Provided they are dispatched with the same resources and support as their military counterparts are, these diplomats could succeed in laying some framework for a sovereign Somali government. Aid agencies and other NGO’s have shown they are capable of operating in extremely hostile environments with only a hint of a functioning state, such as Rwanda and Sudan. It’s possible that a skilled diplomatic mission could assist the Somalis in creating enough of a foundation of statehood for these aid agencies to join with humanitarian assistance.
However, the idea of using a European solution to an American foreign policy problem is almost unthinkable, and multilateral coalitions are, at best, frowned upon. That doesn’t mean the US only has to use its military might though. It has other powerful, untapped resources at its disposal. Namely, the massive organized Peace Movement.
The Peace movement, as with any organized political movement, comes complete with its own elite policy wonks, its own intelligentsia, and even its own media and social systems with which to organize and direct broad and diverse groups of people. The American Peace Movement also has the added benefit of never being allowed into mainstream political debate, and is therefore free of the corrupt hypocrisy and institutional apathy that typifies other foreign policy sects. Likewise, it also means that they’re not currently tied up with other issues like Iraq and Afghanistan like the rest of the foreign policy elite.
The price of utilizing American peace activists would be dramatically less than any of the other options currently up for debate. While the cost of US military power is in the trillions, and even skilled EU bureaucrats can charge exorbitant salaries, peace activists have shown they are capable of operating highly effectively with little to no funding available. Given a small amount of funding and protection, the results they could achieve in Somalia might be quite groundbreaking. Perhaps its time to constructively engage them in the task of stabilizing Somalia. They may have some very interesting ideas particularly as it concerns mobilizing Somali citizens into a coherent bloc capable of projecting statehood.
Of course these options are very vague and untested, nowhere near as precise as the options laid out in the mainstream debate. Some might even find it absurd or ridiculous to suggest dispatching a phalanx of European diplomats or appointing Cindy Sheehan as Special Envoy to Somalia, but my point is only to show that there may be other options worth exploring and debating besides the standard military response.
“Now and then we had a hope that if we lived and were good, God would permit us to be pirates” – Mark TwainYou don’t have to be a serious news junkie to know that there is currently a lively debate ongoing in the media on the issue of combating Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. Commentators from across the political spectrum have laid out countless detailed plans for fighting the pirates both at sea and on land, and some such as CNN’s Jack Cafferty and Rick Sanchez have even put the question directly to their audiences. However, all of the solutions presented seem to involve some level of military force used against Somalia, specifically US military force, and the major differences between the plans are over questions of financial cost and political willpower. To put it bluntly, the real question at hand is how many Somali people we really feel like killing right now.
But why do we insist on making this debate so narrow and yet still complicated when it doesn’t have to be either? Unlike the conventional wisdom of US military violence and nation building, which has an atrocious rate of success, there is a myriad of solutions available which have not yet even been attempted with Somalia, yet are far more likely to produce the desired long-term stability. Given the huge challenges facing the United States from its two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the global financial crisis, isn’t it time we explored some of these other options?
The conventional wisdom is very simple. While they all agree that the Navy SEAL snipers killing the pirates was really cool, the generally liberal, realist, soft power crowd is pushing for an increased naval presence, that is ships with weapons, in the Gulf of Aden, the hawkish, bold-faced imperialist folks are asking for air strikes and special forces strikes against pirate sanctuaries in Somalia, and the population at large is especially craven, calling for public hangings of pirates and shoot-on-sight rules of engagement for US Navy ships in the region. Typically when presented by experts and commentators, these plans will also feature a data set debunking the other side’s plan, which means that when put side by side, they cancel each other out with no shortage of irony.The consequences of these plans are also simple. The end result of all of them, no matter whether they succeed or fail, is that the US is going to kill a lot of Somalis. None of the plans even attempt to address the root causes of piracy in the gulf, like hellish poverty, illegal over-pollution, and the absence of basic human services in Somalia. So in order for these options to succeed, you’d have to believe that these desperate, armed-to-the-teeth gangsters from an apocalyptic-level failed state will be so incensed at the sight of a dead body that they’ll permanently abstain from the only profession that brings their family any shred of dignity and sustenance. Amazing logic, right? If you knew how much people were paid to come up with ideas like that, your head would explode.
But there are other options available. Rather than falling back on the usual tool of military violence, they instead focus on the seeds of instability and piracy in Somalia.
Seemingly the most obvious idea would be to ask the Somalis themselves what to do about piracy. Are they asking for food, money and an end to illegal toxic waste dumping in their fishing grounds? Or are they asking for 200lb JDAMs to be dropped on their villages? You could ask even the most destitute, illiterate among them, and I’m sure they’d have an opinion either way. However, I’ve yet to see one actual Somali in the mainstream discussion, it’s mostly the usual suspects in the media foreign policy elite whose opinions are deemed worthy of consideration. At the very least they could lay out a clear, concrete set of grievances to be acknowledged in whatever response the US eventually chooses.
Instead of special forces, why not deploy diplomats to Somalia? The European Union would be the most desirable, as the catastrophic circumstances of Somalia would require the most skilled negotiators available. Director of the Global Governance Initiative Parag Khanna writes of their prowess, “Charlemagne’s efforts to resurrect the Roman Empire have been succeeded, over a millennium later, by the multipronged armadas of Brussels Eurocrats steadily colonizing Europe’s periphery, in the Baltics, the Balkans, and, eventually, Anatolia and the Caucasus. The Eurocrats’ book is not the Bible but rather the acquis communautaire: the 31 chapters of the Lex Europea, which is rebuilding EU member states from the inside out.” Great, if they can do all that, why couldn’t they handle building a state in Somalia?Provided they are dispatched with the same resources and support as their military counterparts are, these diplomats could succeed in laying some framework for a sovereign Somali government. Aid agencies and other NGO’s have shown they are capable of operating in extremely hostile environments with only a hint of a functioning state, such as Rwanda and Sudan. It’s possible that a skilled diplomatic mission could assist the Somalis in creating enough of a foundation of statehood for these aid agencies to join with humanitarian assistance.
However, the idea of using a European solution to an American foreign policy problem is almost unthinkable, and multilateral coalitions are, at best, frowned upon. That doesn’t mean the US only has to use its military might though. It has other powerful, untapped resources at its disposal. Namely, the massive organized Peace Movement.The Peace movement, as with any organized political movement, comes complete with its own elite policy wonks, its own intelligentsia, and even its own media and social systems with which to organize and direct broad and diverse groups of people. The American Peace Movement also has the added benefit of never being allowed into mainstream political debate, and is therefore free of the corrupt hypocrisy and institutional apathy that typifies other foreign policy sects. Likewise, it also means that they’re not currently tied up with other issues like Iraq and Afghanistan like the rest of the foreign policy elite.
The price of utilizing American peace activists would be dramatically less than any of the other options currently up for debate. While the cost of US military power is in the trillions, and even skilled EU bureaucrats can charge exorbitant salaries, peace activists have shown they are capable of operating highly effectively with little to no funding available. Given a small amount of funding and protection, the results they could achieve in Somalia might be quite groundbreaking. Perhaps its time to constructively engage them in the task of stabilizing Somalia. They may have some very interesting ideas particularly as it concerns mobilizing Somali citizens into a coherent bloc capable of projecting statehood.
Of course these options are very vague and untested, nowhere near as precise as the options laid out in the mainstream debate. Some might even find it absurd or ridiculous to suggest dispatching a phalanx of European diplomats or appointing Cindy Sheehan as Special Envoy to Somalia, but my point is only to show that there may be other options worth exploring and debating besides the standard military response.
Reader Comments (7)
How much is it costing the US (and other powers) to station these forces off the coast of Somalia? Perhaps if the governments of developed nations (not least the US) considered redirecting some of their considerable military expenditure away from reactive military solutions and towards proactive economic reconstruction and poverty alleviation in Eastern Africa, then the problem of piracy might be countered more effectively...?
Sam fails to truly understand the problem. If the various countries comprising the eastern part of the continent of Africa had viable navies and armies they would have been able to stop the European and other industrialized so called "first" world countries from dumping toxic and nuclear wastes off their shores. This ILLEGAL dumping has destroyed their fishing industry. I'm gonna assume that Sam lives in Amerikkka so as an Amerikkkan he of all people should be pointing fingers at "reactive military solutions" because his country is guilty of the most lethal & costly "reactive military solutions" in our world today. The US sends more weapons & money to the occupiers of Palestine than it does to ALL of the continent of Africa! It is the past & present exploitation of oppressive colonial states in the "first" world that have created most (if not all) of the problems on the continent of Africa! Remember one mans pirate is another mans liberator.
In fact, I am a Brit (and well aware of the dubious relationship between Israel and the US military industrial complex, as my postgraduate thesis on that very subject testifies). This misassumption aside however, I think you may have mis-read my original post. My point was to criticise the West for only thinking of itself and investing heavily in an essentially self-interested military strategy to protect its own interests off the Somalian coast, rather than taking the radical decision to consider Somalians as people who deserve the same rights, freedoms and security that we have come to take for granted. Your point about the toxic dumping was new to me (so thank you for the insight), but doesn't diminish my arguement that simply looking after our own interests doesn't solve the root cause of piracy - that, as you say, piracy is a sad but necessary fact of life for Somalians who have been victims of the greed and arrogance of the 'developed' world and must resort to desperate means to survive.
Let us consider the to-date silent, ‘response’, of many self thought progressives to the actions of the Somali pirates in seizing ships, that is now being followed by apologetics like this article that promotes half truths (and less) in order to present anti American - anti-imperialist shibboliths of the now rapidly collapsing anti-war movement.
Ought proletarians, construct supertankers to transport oil? Even though greens must think such ships are the devil’s work leading not to a world of plenty but to our doom. Will revolutionary socialist societies of the looming future construct and crew such ships and suppress pirates globally? I think the answer is; yes we ought and yes we will!
Will we do this pirate suppression in partnership with bourgeois navies that are still in existence? (For the moment, ignore all ideas of an immediate global revolution that transforms all countries at the same time, but rather adopt a notion of 'weak link' revolutionary breakthroughs and consolidations rather than some ‘one-in-all-in’ transformation.) The answer IMV is of course we will!
Ought proletarians, crew such ships that are still working (ie finding payers for their cargo) NOW and into the future? The answer is self evident that they will crew such ships while they continue to be paid. Proletarians will only stop doing such work if we don’t get paid. But does that make it correct? IMV yes that work is as honorable as any other.
Despite no revolutionary socialist societies existing at the moment ought pirates, be permitted to exist anywhere in the world right now? IMV no they should not!
Ought proletarian crews cooperate with bourgeois navies to put a stop to them? Of course they ought to! Ought these proletarians be supported in their actions by every progressive and leftist on the planet? IMV yes they ought!
Now do proletarian supporting revolutionary leftists support the actions of the Indian Navy (at least as reported) of sinking the pirate ship? Is the US Navy excluded from the work for some particular crime in the past?
Do proletarian ship crews support the action of the worlds navies? I think; yes they do! Can those commenting unfavorably about the suppression of piracy change the workers views on this issue? Well they can try, but for my money they can not because it is very much a settled question that we expect those that own and run our societies while we only work here to provide us a safe working environment and that expressly requires the suppression of pirates.
If leftists support this military action what sort of threshold has the leftist crossed?
Now we get to shore!
Ought we proletarians permit ports to be captured and kept by pirates as a sort of finders keepers reward for any pirate willing to do it? IMV no way known!
No one in this day and age should be in any doubt but that they will fail if they try. Civil wars are one thing, but such annexations of other countries and the oppression of other nations flatly contradicts the era that we fight in and should be as determinedly opposed as progressives have opposed the failed war for greater Israel that is now coming to an end in defeat. I maintain that the release of Marwan Barghouti, (very much part of any moves by the Zionists toward finalizing the defeat (think NIXON) on the way to a release of all prisoners, cannot be far away now.
Now think about Kuwait!
No matter what greens think, those ships will be built by workers, though not for awhile as the need for more ships just dried up big-time. If you think it’s bad for the car industry, well the ship building industry has just hit the wall. I think this is a bad thing and some greens think this is a ‘silver lining’ of sorts.
IMV all slowing of the industrial transformation of the world when there is brutal poverty for all to see for want of what proletarians and machines can build is simply wrong. All anti industrial policies (sprouted from an industrial keyboard) demonstrate that your priorities are completely cock eyed).
I'm an investigative journalist and just heard that European countries (unspecified) and some North American 'entities' are or have been dumping nuclear waste off the Somali coast, contaminating the fishing and poisoning the water. Sandia Labs in Albuquerque was mentioned as one of the offenders. Has anyone out there got any info along these lines? !Venceremos! Allen Cooper
To what extent has the glorious 'industrial transformation' been responsible for creating the very poverty you describe, Patrick? How many more people are condemned to modern-day slavery in sweatshops and distant factories in the interests of so-called development? I'm not saying there's necessarily a better way, but let's not fool ourselves that the story of industrial development is something our underdeveloped cousins should be thanking us for imposing upon them...
Allen,
"A Swiss firm called Achair Parterns, and an Italian waste company called Progresso, made a deal with Ali Mahdi, that they could dump containers of waste material in Somali waters. These European companies were said to be paying Warlords about $3 a ton, where as in to properly dispose of waste in Europe costs about $1000 a ton."
http://enduringamerica.com/2009/04/16/somalia-why-we-dont-condemn-our-pirates/
Not sure if there is a specific link to Sandia, though they are one of the major contractors in the US government's experimental energy and biological weapons programs, as well as a general laboratory IT/waste management provider. I'd recommend reading "Spies for Hire" by Tim Shorrock for more on the Intelligence Industrial Complex that Sandia is a part of (along with others in your neighborhood - Los Alamos for instance).
Whether or not they're dumping off Somalia...that I have no idea. They're intimately connected to the Department of Energy, which was host to some of the worst corruption during the Bush years, so perhaps they have a friend in DC who lets them get away with it...if it can be proven.