Somali Piracy - Greed versus Grievance - Coursework Example

SOMALI PIRACY: GREED VERSUS GRIEVANCE DEBATES Introduction Greed, which is an excessive desire for material wealth, is a vice in society. This is because it causes economic harm. Individuals filled with greed are most likely to engage in activities that may undermine the rights of others, as they purse their desires, causing losses. A society with greedy individuals may be ruined by war, as competing individuals pursue to obtain lucrative resources at the expense of others, using every possible strategy, in spite the fact that their auctions may be very destructive to society. It should be noted that greed involves competition for valuable, natural resources among elites, which might result into civil conflicts and war. Grievance, on the other hand, is associated with dissatisfaction among citizens, pertaining to governance by the existing political regime. Aggrieved individuals are likely to seek justice, in cases where there is inequality in governance and in distribution of resources, through protests, and at times, through war. Such war is fuelled by the motivation to get rid of the regime that is identified as unjust. This may result into conflicts, most of which are difficult to resolve. Criminal activities crop up when conflict prevails in a country. For instance, the fall of Somalia’s political regime and lack of a governing body, led to the emergence of pirate activities in the country’s coastal area and on its territorial waters. The effects of such piracy have spread to surrounding nations and the international community. In this essay, the greed versus grievance debates and Somali piracy are analysed critically to establish whether such piracy can be explained through the debates of greed and grievance. Greed versus Grievance Most of the conflicts in African countries have been persistent till the twenty first century. The origin and persistence of such conflicts may be linked to the greed versus grievance dichotomy. In most civil conflicts cases, the motives behind such conflicts are portrayed as grievance while in reality, they are fuelled by greed. This means that the major initiators and actors in such conflicts aim at various economic benefits, while claiming that they are committed to address grievance. Therefore, parties fuel conflict in the name of justice seeking, but with a hidden agenda of creating an opportunity for benefitting economically. The construct of greed has a positive association with lootable wealth. Countries that are well endowed with such wealth are most likely to end up in civil conflicts and criminal activities. However, there are few countries which own valuable resources, but have been managed peacefully by strong political regimes. Lootable wealth is defined as lucrative resources that can be transported easily such as gems and other property (Snyder, 2006, p, 944). Such wealth may provide the motive and means for armed rebellion and criminal activities, if there are parties filled with greed. There is a strong correlation between lootable resources and political disorder, supported by the argument that lootable wealth fuels greed-based rebellions in collapsed states (Snyder, 2006, p, 944). Separately, some authors and political analysts argue that some of the major civil wars across the world persist because of economic reasons, rather than grievance. This applies in cases where some groups benefit from such conflicts; hence they have some interest in initiating and sustaining such a conflict. Individuals or groups who feel that they can benefit economically by setting a conflict, which may result into war and offer them an opportunity to achieve their greed desires, can always take such actions. Rebellions come up because they aim at obtaining wealth by capturing resources extra-legally (Collier, 2000). Other rebellions are said to arise because they have an aim of freeing the nation from a group of people, which they identify as an unjust regime. Rebel groups claim that the main aim of rebellion is grievance rather than greed because the international community embraces grievance, compared to greed. Therefore, rebellions have to portray their motives of initiating and sustaining conflict as grievance-based rather than greed-based, in search of support from the international community. However, it should be noted that greed has been the main rationale for rebellion among the top rebellion initiators, though it is portrayed as grievance, especially at the bottom, in its discourse. Both greed and grievance can motivate violence (Collier, 2000). However, the major motive of violence in most conflicts has been greed. Rebellions propagate conflict by capturing natural resource endowments, diverting humanitarian aid and controlling trade routes. This results into direction of war and fighting into such areas because violent rebellion is built on greed or loot-seeking rather than grievance or justice-seeking. In such cases, war is pursed to capture resources (Ballentine, 2003, p, 4). Collier (2008, p 41), notes that the discovery of natural resource hinders growth, especially where there lacks political checks prior to discovery of such resources. This is the reason why most countries that have made major discoveries of valuable resources have been ruined by civil conflict and war. There are greed motives among some groups. However, countries with strong political regime and democratic enjoy a peaceful existence. Some countries’ characteristics subject them to conflict, in cases where grievance is generated from existing conflict. This may be present in both greed motivated rebellions and grievance motivated rebellions (Collier & Hoeffler, 2000, p, 2). Greed motivated rebellions are characterised by organised crime. Political exclusion and inequality are the main sources of grievance, but groups that initiate conflict to address such grievance have different intentions. Therefore, civil wars can be caused by economic, social, political and cultural inequalities between culturally defined groups because these cause grievance (Keen, 2012, 757). Piracy Activities in Somalia Piracy activities are contrary to the international legal order. These activities were in existence by the eighteenth century, and they exist in the present times. The Indian Ocean has attracted the international community due to the numerous incidents of armed robbery and hijackings at the ocean. For countries that have failed such as Somalia, it becomes easier to perpetuate criminal activities, including piracy because there is no governing political body that is responsible for marinating order. Adverse effects of pirate activities spread to other countries, even those that are far from the location of pirate activities. For instance, merchant ships from Northern European countries, which are far away from Somalia, risk being hijacked by pirates. Piracy in Somalia is often associated with the history of Barbary. Somalia hosts terrorists whose intention is to cause confusion on civilized societies. It is yet to be concluded whether failure of the Somali state is the main cause of piracy and whether violent Islamism aims at exploiting modern piracy for its own ends (Murphy, 2011). Being a country with no government, there are no governing bodies that can help the international community in curbing the adverse activities that result from piracy. According to Samatar, Ismail, Lindberg and Mahayni (2010, p, 1377), pirate groups emerged in Somalia due to Somalia’s state disintegration. The country had a political regime that faced numerous challenges, both internal and external, before it collapsed due to war. Various activities performed by the former political regime in Somalia led to conflict, as some individuals and groups felt that there was no justice and sought to address their grievances through various attempts of votes of no confidence in parliaments. Eventually, Somalia collapsed in 1991, and has been engulfed by civil war, which the neighbouring countries and the international community have failed to resolve to date. The destruction of political order, which has led to untold tragedy, has resulted into the loss of close to seven hundred thousand lives, while more than three million citizens have been displaced. Pirates capitalised on the lack of government order to institute various criminal activities, which have contributed to misery among Somalia’s people. In addition to the misery of Somalia’s people, pirates operate along the country’s coast, causing havoc to civilized economies and surrounding nations (Samatar, Ismail, Lindberg & Mahayni, 2010, p, 1377). Initially, the Somali elite who had a political ambition that was driven by troublesome strategies dovetailed the interest of cold warriors, and this led to the expulsion of the legitimate government, and resulted into a ruined state, which in turn prepared a way for piracy. The acts and operations of piracy have been evolving over time. This has made resolution of the piracy issue in Somalia difficulty because the pirates change their approach with the change of time. For instance, communication technologies are cheap and easily available. This cheapness and availability has facilitated access to the pirates, who have used them for their own end. Economic interconnectedness is evident, and pirates have been able to utilize modern technology to advance their operations. For instance, communication via cell phones and the use of speed boats enables pirates to operate both near land and on the high seas. Other factors that contribute to piracy include the presence of ungoverned spaces and great rewards to pirates, associated with minimal risk (Samatar, Ismail, Lindberg & Mahayni, 2010, p, 1378). There were two competing political tendencies in Somali before the demise of the country’s national government. One political tendency was characterised by democracy and political goodwill for everyone while the other political tendency was characterised by sectarian and divisive strategies to use public power for private ends (Samatar, Ismail, Lindberg & Mahayni, 2010, p, 1381). Therefore, the issue of greed, portrayed as addressing grievance led to the collapse of the government, which in turn, created favourable opportunities for piracy. It should be noted that there are political, resources, defensive and ransom pirates who operate along the Somali coast. Initially, piracy was linked to political activities of struggling against Somali dictatorship. The hijackings that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s were politically motivated. The people who were behind these hijackings are termed as political pirates because their main aim was to weaken the Somalia government by blocking sea supplies from reaching the areas that were controlled by the government (Samatar, Ismail, Lindberg, & Mahayni, 2010, p, 1384). These political pirates were members of an opposition political group and political piracy in Somalia ceased after the regime fell, leading to political disintegration in Somalia. Resources pirates emerged after political disintegration in Somalia. Some of these resource pirates were driven by the desire for Somalia’s unprotected rich fish resources while others were searching for unguarded territories, where surplus trash and toxic substance from Europe and Asia could be dumped. Coast guard and fish pirates from Asia and Europe realised that they could loot Somalia’s marine resources. Therefore, as the pirates claimed to be guarding Somalia’s coast from European and Asian dumping activities, they deviated from that course and decided to loot. This may be termed as greed because the pirates decided to attain their desires of acquiring wealth extra-legally. It had become evident that Somalia’s marine resources were subject t looting by resource pirates because there was no governing body to protect such resources. Therefore, defensive pirates arose as a result of the absence of any state authority that could deter resource pirates from exploiting the country’s marine resources. Therefore, these pirates challenged the predators to protect their marine resources and were not interested in looting, hence the term defensive pirates (Samatar, Ismail, Lindberg & Mahayni, 2010, p, 1385). Piracy in Somalia took a new course when defensive pirates captured fishing vessels belonging to two companies and one of the companies paid ransom for the return of the vessels. Lawlessness and the absence of the government created favourable conditions for perpetrators of various criminal activities and some of the criminals realised an opportunity of looting because there are several merchant ships that ply the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean every year. These pirates had mimicked defensive pirates whose motive was to protect the Somali waters, but in reality, such pirates were in search of ransom (Samatar, Ismail, Lindberg & Mahayni, 2010, p, 1386). Criminal pirates who imitated defensive pirates and advanced their activities where they could hijack sea vessels with valuables and demand for ransoms, have attracted the attention of the international community. Most of the countries whose vessels and citizens have been detained by such pirates have incurred lot of costs to secure their property and save lives. This results into major losses and affects the international economy because it hinders export and import trade. Also, deterring humanitarian aid from reaching the rightful victims of the civil war in Somalia accelerates conflict rather than resolving it, and this continues to affect the surrounding countries and the international community. The money that these pirates collect, in the form of ransom can be used to fund further war within the country, hindering the efforts of peace building for the safety of the region surrounding Somalia. Pirates are also positively associated with terrorists because pirates can train and aid terrorists in propagating terror attacks. Therefore, the issue of piracy in Somalia requires appropriate response from the international community. It is imperative to understand what justified grievances and greed within counter-rebellion and rebel groups are, and how to respond to such issues by the international community. Some groups may not have a motive of winning wars. It may be concluded that endemic disorder and state of emergency are more useful to some groups than bringing conflicts to an end (Keen, 2012). Many war parties rely on and profit from resource conflicts. It is therefore, evident that resource exploitation generates conflict. In addition, poor governance accelerates war risks and criminal activities. Therefore, vulnerability, risk and opportunity are major war and criminal activity factors (Le Billion, 2011). Also, natural resources offer rebel groups unusual funding opportunities by producing rents because such resources are location-specific. For instance, countries may find it difficult to stop using sea transport, though it is associated with great piracy risks. Instead, they might opt to pay ransoms to pirates, as they carry out their business (Ross, 2004, p, 40). Leaders and rebels act as resource or finance seeking predators during conflicts. Therefore, they utilise every opportunity that is available, which can enable them achieve their private ends (Thies, 2010, p, 321). It is also important to note that in Somalia, piracy may have resulted from dumping activities carried out by Asian and European countries in Somalia (Daniels, 2012, p, 34). Given that pirate activities have risen in the recent years, such pirates collect large sums of money from their “business”. Money acquired from piracy activities is used to pay for the war in Somalia (Middelton, 2008, p, 1). Most importantly, it is worthy to note that pirates might provide tricks of their trade to terrorists deliberately and enable them to organise terror attacks that may look like incidents of ordinary piracy (Murphy, 2007, p, 7). Conclusion Upon carrying out a critical analysis of the Somali piracy case, as well as, the greed versus grievance debate, there is sufficient evidence that Somali piracy can be explained through the greed versus grievance debates. This is because the events that led to the demise of the national government of Somalia were fuelled by greed. Existence of valuable, natural resources contributed to the differences that existed between the two political tendencies, which were in existence before the Somalia government collapsed. Given that there were two competing political tendencies in Somali before the country’s government fell, there were opposing views on governance, management and distribution of natural resources. Conflict was created by the fact that one of the political tendencies in Somalia embraced democracy and political goodwill for everyone while the other political tendency supported sectarian and divisive strategies to use public power for private ends. To this end, an element of greed was portrayed. Conflict was initiated and sustained because of greed, which was veiled as a form of addressing grievances Secondly, after the Somalia government had collapsed, various groups emerged with different motives. However, the major motive of various groups which claimed to protect Somalia’s resources was greed. These groups felt that they needed to protect resources because they knew they could benefit in one way or the other. In protecting the resources, resources pirates realised an opportunity of looting and they decided to loot because they were driven by greed. They had greed over Somalia’s unprotected rich fish resources. Others wanted to take control of the unguarded territories, where surplus trash and toxic substance from Europe and Asia were being dumped. Also, the political pirates whose activities led to the collapse of the Somalia government were members of an opposition political group. Greed dominated this political group, as they wanted the government to fail so that they could benefit, though political piracy in Somalia ceased after the regime fell. Finally, defensive pirates who emerged because there was no state authority that could bar resource pirates from exploiting the country’s marine resources, and initially did not show any interest in looting, changed their activities to benefit themselves. Initially, they challenged those who exploited Somalia's marine resources and were not interested in looting, but later they started hijacking sea vessels and demanding ransoms. It is evident that greedy leaders and rebels act as resource or finance seeking predators during conflicts. Therefore, they utilise every opportunity that is available, which can enable them achieve their private ends. They do this by pretending to address grievance while they are motivated by greed. Therefore, Somali piracy can be explained through the greed versus grievance debates. References Ballentine, K., 2003. The Political Economy of Armed Conflict: Beyond Greed and Grievance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Press. Collier, P., 2000. ‘Doing Well out of War: An Economic Perspective’, in Mats Berdal (ed), Greed & Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Press. Collier, P., 2008. The Natural Resource Trap in The Bottom Billion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A., 2000. Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Washington D.C: World Bank Press. Daniels, C. L., 2012. Somali Piracy and Terrorism in the Horn of Africa. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. Keen, D., 2012. Greed and Grievance in Civil Wars. International Affairs , Vol. 88, No. 4, pp. 757- 777. Keen, D., 2012. Useful Enemies: When Waging Wars is more Important than Winning Them. Yale: Yale University Press. Le Billion, P., 2011. Wars of Plunder. London: Hurst Press. Middelton, R., 2008. Piracy in Somalia: Threatening Global Trade, Feeding Local Wars.Chatham House Briefing Paper. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. Murphy, M. N., 2007. Contemporary Piracy and Maritime Terrorism: The Threat to International Security. Abingdon: Routledge Press. Murphy, M. N., 2011. Somali Piracy: 1989-2006, in Somalia: The New Barbary? Piracy and Islam in the Horn of Africa. London: Hurst Press. Ross, M., 2004. How Do Natural Resources Influence Civil War? Evidence from Thirteen Cases. International Organisation , Vol. 58, No. 1, pp 35-67. Samatar, Ismail, A., Lindberg, M., & Mahayni, B., 2010. The Dialectics of Piracy in Somalia: The Rich versus the Poor. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp.1377-1394. Snyder, R., 2006. ‘Does Lootable Wealth Breed Disorder? A Political Economy of Extraction Framework. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 39, No. 8, pp. 943-968. Thies, C. G., 2010. Of Rulers, Rebels, and Revenue: State Capacity, Civil War Onset, and Primary Commodities. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 321-332. Read More