How a Coup Has Forsaken Natural Beauty
Last month, a 34-year-old former deejay made international headlines by seizing the presidency of Madagascar in a swift coup. Despite an illegal transfer of power in which the military overthrew a democratically elected government, the image of baby-faced Andry Rajoelina disarmed many would-be critics. His unlikely story, from doing the Antananarivo nightlife circuit to starting his own radio enterprise, using his entrepreneurial skills as a launch pad for winning a mayoral race, and then finally, toppling the Malagasy government, endeared the charismatic upstart to the world community.
To most, familiarity with Madagascar is limited to the 2005 animated film about a zebra and a lion. Unbeknownst to many is that Madagascar is home to one of the world’s richest biological havens, lush with innumerable plant and animal species non-existent beyond the island. The balance that preserves this precious dynamic is extremely sensitive and has long required government protection from raiders looking to exploit the forest’s resources.
Madagascar’s political upheaval has severely disrupted this fragile dynamic. In the aftermath of the coup, the security sector has been paralyzed by urban chaos and street protests. With manpower needed in the capital to protect Rajoelina’s regime, the parks and forests have been abandoned. Capitalizing on the central government’s vulnerability, criminal gangs have poured in to the Malagasy rainforests seeking plunder:
“Organized by foreign businessmen, hundreds of illegal loggers and animal traders have overwhelmed the weak (defenses) of the country's national parks, stripping the forests of precious rosewood and ebony, smuggling out rare animals and destroying the habitat of endangered wildlife.”
With no one to stop it, exploitation has developed into a well-oiled machine, with an apparatus of coercion and bribery:
“The looters are so well organized that they built a road six kilometres into one of the most remote parks in the north, sent a flotilla of ships to smuggle out the logs and recruited workers with radio commercials, environmentalists say.”
Those park rangers who dare to confront the menace are often chased away by the armed militias that accompany looters. But of course, fathoming confrontation is rare in the first place:
“The gangs have paid customs officers to turn a blind eye to the large-scale export of illegally cut wood. And they have sent a fleet of small boats to land on the wild coastline, bypassing the ports.”
The illegal exploitation of Madagascar’s resources is being fueled by a massive demand, particularly in China, for rosewood and ebony, both valued highly on the world market. Exactly who is behind the looting cannot be determined. One local speculates it has been “organized by Chinese businessmen,… although he was uncertain whether they are from China or are ethnic Chinese from a country such as Malaysia or Singapore.”
In a country where most earn less than $1 a day, the Malagasy people are no stranger to hardship. Since gaining independence from France in 1960, coups and military dictatorships have been the norm for the world’s fourth largest island. The latest conflict however has delivered the Malagasy people a terrible blow. Industries from tourism to dairy have been crippled, and squalor has been exacerbated by “strikes, wage shortages and a cutoff in aid supplies from many foreign donors.”
The impending environmental and humanitarian tragedy can only be avoided by genuine efforts from the international community, an altogether unlikely prospect.
Read the original report by Globe and Mail here.
I'd also recommend checking out an African perspective on the political developments in Madagascar.
A traveler to Madagascar shares his dismay.
Watch the video below to get a sense of the enigmatic Rajoelina's personality and the turbulence in Madagascar:
And finally, experience the beauty that is perishing before our very eyes in this video.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
As If We Didn't Hate Spam Enough
Internet Spam Linked to Pollution
More than a nuisance, spam is an environmental hazard. So much so that filtering e-junk would be the equivalent of “taking 2.2 million cars off the road”! Confused? The distribution of spam produces enough electric energy to power 2.4 million homes a year. Every time electricity is used to send this spam out, a small amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted. Multiplied on a global scale however, the result is 17 million tons of greenhouse CO2 a year.
"Although the respite was only temporary, McAfee said the 'day without spam amounted to talking 2.2 million cars off the road' and that tackling spam should be part of the campaign to reduce carbon emissions."
More than a nuisance, spam is an environmental hazard. So much so that filtering e-junk would be the equivalent of “taking 2.2 million cars off the road”! Confused? The distribution of spam produces enough electric energy to power 2.4 million homes a year. Every time electricity is used to send this spam out, a small amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted. Multiplied on a global scale however, the result is 17 million tons of greenhouse CO2 a year.
"Although the respite was only temporary, McAfee said the 'day without spam amounted to talking 2.2 million cars off the road' and that tackling spam should be part of the campaign to reduce carbon emissions."
Tourism Taboos
Five Worst Traveller Types
In March 2008, some friends and I decided to spend our spring break aboard Norwegian Cruise Lines' new flagship, the Gem. It was an all-around solid time, and if not for the absurd false advertising that proclaimed how "all-inclusive" the accommodations and perks would be, I would even say it was a great time. Ultimately though, my lasting impression of the cruise was one of un-tethered gluttony and excess.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with a little self-indulgence. That's what a vacation's for. A necessary intermission to the long, drawn-out play that life can sometimes be. But this was something different. It was as if all the worst stereotypes of Americans were on display. The sight of massive herds stampeding towards the buffet room as if compelled by narcotics, pushing and shoving their way to food that was in plentiful supply, holding plates stacked a mile high, left me feeling dirty. When ten days had passed, and the ship was ashore at last, the first breath of New York City I took in may have been the sweetest air I ever inhaled.
What prompted this recollection was an article in Frommer’s called ‘Our Own Worst Enemy: 5 Types of Travelers That Are Killing Tourism’. It's a sobering indictment of the kind of passengers I had encountered on my cruise, and the behavior we all engage in, myself included, on our trips abroad:
"It's not just that the passengers had as many shots at the buffet line as they wanted. It's that the morsels going overboard collectively represented a titanic waste of resources, which must have been more than a little embarrassing for a cruise line (Celebrity) that prides itself on its environmental record. Not only did these passengers leave their manners and common sense on shore; they were also selfish gluttons."
To summarize, five types of travellers that are ruining things for everyone:
1. The Stupid Tourist
"...you won't find a more impressive collection of brain donors than on a cruise... Once these passengers set sail, they belly up to the bar, get blitzed, and act like ... well, drunken sailors. Some of them jump overboard, too... Since 1995, there have been more than 100 documented cases. How many of them involved passengers having one drink too many and then doing their best Kate Winslet impersonation?"
2. The Rude Visitor
"These vacationers cut in line, drive like teenagers and the words 'please' and 'thank you' aren't in their vocabulary... But one city has figured out a better way of punishing the unmannered masses. Bars and restaurants in Venice have three price lists: one for locals, the other for visitors, and a third for rude tourists. So if you're Italian, a croissant and a cappuccino might cost €3.50, but if you order in English, and are impolite, you have to pay seven.
3. The Obnoxious American
"...I love my country. My countrymen? Not necessarily. I've spent nearly half my life overseas, and I've seen some of my fellow citizens behaving so boorishly that I cringed when someone asked where I was from. Obnoxious Americans are loud, demanding, arrogant and insensitive to local culture. I was relieved to learn we aren't the worst. A recent survey found that the French, Indian, and Chinese tourists ranked even more obnoxious than us..."
4. The Absent-Minded Vacationer
"These are the ones who get left behind at the gate because they didn't know they needed a passport for an international trip. They don't call to confirm their flight and miss it because it was rescheduled. They don't pay attention to where they parked their car at Disney World and then wander around the property after dark, hoping to stumble upon their rental... The problem is when you try to blame everyone but yourself. I've seen tourists accuse their travel agents or cruise line of ruining their vacation because they weren't told about a visa requirement. But securing the proper paperwork is solely your responsibility."
5. The Time Traveller
"They call flight attendants 'stewardesses' and ask what's on the in-flight menu. The answer, unless they're sitting in first class, is a glare -- and peanuts. Time travelers are either unaware that the airline industry was carelessly deregulated in 1978, or they're in denial. These passengers don't make themselves look bad as much as they point out how far we've fallen since then. Only the most rabid airline apologist would argue that flying is a better experience today than it was three decades ago. Time travelers are a constant reminder of the sad decline of America's airlines."
In summation, these 5 types of tourist are hurting travel that while difficult to measure, is surely leaving an negative imprint:
"...when that passenger goes ashore in a foreign port and makes all Americans look like xenophobic elitists, it costs us in ways that are difficult to quantify, but no less real. People who make unreasonable demands on the system raise the cost of travel for everyone, because we'll be paying for the army of lawyers the travel company must hire to defend itself from frivolous claims."
In March 2008, some friends and I decided to spend our spring break aboard Norwegian Cruise Lines' new flagship, the Gem. It was an all-around solid time, and if not for the absurd false advertising that proclaimed how "all-inclusive" the accommodations and perks would be, I would even say it was a great time. Ultimately though, my lasting impression of the cruise was one of un-tethered gluttony and excess.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with a little self-indulgence. That's what a vacation's for. A necessary intermission to the long, drawn-out play that life can sometimes be. But this was something different. It was as if all the worst stereotypes of Americans were on display. The sight of massive herds stampeding towards the buffet room as if compelled by narcotics, pushing and shoving their way to food that was in plentiful supply, holding plates stacked a mile high, left me feeling dirty. When ten days had passed, and the ship was ashore at last, the first breath of New York City I took in may have been the sweetest air I ever inhaled.
What prompted this recollection was an article in Frommer’s called ‘Our Own Worst Enemy: 5 Types of Travelers That Are Killing Tourism’. It's a sobering indictment of the kind of passengers I had encountered on my cruise, and the behavior we all engage in, myself included, on our trips abroad:
"It's not just that the passengers had as many shots at the buffet line as they wanted. It's that the morsels going overboard collectively represented a titanic waste of resources, which must have been more than a little embarrassing for a cruise line (Celebrity) that prides itself on its environmental record. Not only did these passengers leave their manners and common sense on shore; they were also selfish gluttons."
To summarize, five types of travellers that are ruining things for everyone:
1. The Stupid Tourist
"...you won't find a more impressive collection of brain donors than on a cruise... Once these passengers set sail, they belly up to the bar, get blitzed, and act like ... well, drunken sailors. Some of them jump overboard, too... Since 1995, there have been more than 100 documented cases. How many of them involved passengers having one drink too many and then doing their best Kate Winslet impersonation?"
2. The Rude Visitor
"These vacationers cut in line, drive like teenagers and the words 'please' and 'thank you' aren't in their vocabulary... But one city has figured out a better way of punishing the unmannered masses. Bars and restaurants in Venice have three price lists: one for locals, the other for visitors, and a third for rude tourists. So if you're Italian, a croissant and a cappuccino might cost €3.50, but if you order in English, and are impolite, you have to pay seven.
3. The Obnoxious American
"...I love my country. My countrymen? Not necessarily. I've spent nearly half my life overseas, and I've seen some of my fellow citizens behaving so boorishly that I cringed when someone asked where I was from. Obnoxious Americans are loud, demanding, arrogant and insensitive to local culture. I was relieved to learn we aren't the worst. A recent survey found that the French, Indian, and Chinese tourists ranked even more obnoxious than us..."
4. The Absent-Minded Vacationer
"These are the ones who get left behind at the gate because they didn't know they needed a passport for an international trip. They don't call to confirm their flight and miss it because it was rescheduled. They don't pay attention to where they parked their car at Disney World and then wander around the property after dark, hoping to stumble upon their rental... The problem is when you try to blame everyone but yourself. I've seen tourists accuse their travel agents or cruise line of ruining their vacation because they weren't told about a visa requirement. But securing the proper paperwork is solely your responsibility."
5. The Time Traveller
"They call flight attendants 'stewardesses' and ask what's on the in-flight menu. The answer, unless they're sitting in first class, is a glare -- and peanuts. Time travelers are either unaware that the airline industry was carelessly deregulated in 1978, or they're in denial. These passengers don't make themselves look bad as much as they point out how far we've fallen since then. Only the most rabid airline apologist would argue that flying is a better experience today than it was three decades ago. Time travelers are a constant reminder of the sad decline of America's airlines."
In summation, these 5 types of tourist are hurting travel that while difficult to measure, is surely leaving an negative imprint:
"...when that passenger goes ashore in a foreign port and makes all Americans look like xenophobic elitists, it costs us in ways that are difficult to quantify, but no less real. People who make unreasonable demands on the system raise the cost of travel for everyone, because we'll be paying for the army of lawyers the travel company must hire to defend itself from frivolous claims."
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Piracy Coverage Still Lacking
Root Causes Still Missing
The comedy continues in the coverage of piracy, perpetuating the dearth of perspective that has been emblematic of the media’s performance thus far. It seems most commentaries have focused on the correct military response, maybe hoping the Pentagon will come across their shoddy work and take their suggestions to heart. Well, probably not. But that’s certainly the sense one gets (or maybe it’s just me). Take this piece from the Wall Street Journal for example:
“Pirates, like the Nazi submarines of World War II, do not hunt for their targets; they lie across the sea lanes where ships are likely to travel and simply wait for a victim to come over the horizon. And the same tactic which defeated the U-boats can put an end to the majority of pirate attacks. Merchant ships can be ordered to form convoys for their own protection.”
Great. Tell the Secretary of the Navy. Or do you expect us to start writing our Congressman, begging them to adopt you innovative tactics – that is, if you call a 60 year-old game plan innovative. How about giving this rather complicated issue some much-needed context instead of scoring cheap points with readers by regaling us with drivel.
This LA Times op-ed sits on the fence, urging reconsideration of an aggressive American response, but clearly too timid to bring light to the other injustice off the Horn of Africa, illegal fishing and waste dumping by affluent nations:
“U.S. officials hope that the tough stance and successful rescue will discourage pirates from attacking American ships. Maybe, but it's more likely that it will just spur the pirates to bring more crewmen and bigger guns the next time around, and to be more inclined to use them. The threat of death isn't much of a deterrent to hopeless young Somali men who face a choice between potentially making millions on the high seas or starving on shore.”
Of course, there have been occasional gems. At first, the post on the Compass called 'Adding Context to Piracy Debate' seemed to offer hope. Though offering an interesting take, it was off target:
“Despite the mythologizing of the U.S. response to Barbary piracy, the U.S. paid off the Barbary Coast pirates under two U.S. administrations until the cost/benefit analysis finally tipped in favor of attacking them… Unlike jihadists, who can't be deterred, military action might raise the costs enough to make pirates think twice. But let's at least have a full accounting of the costs and benefits before the shelling begins.”
Appreciating the author’s historical analogy, his argument nonetheless has a fatal shortcoming. First, the pirates won’t be deterred as easily as he suggests because they are absolutely desperate and two, the causes of that desperation will not be undone by the doling out of booty. So long as the developed world continues its selective enforcement of international law, vehemently condemning Somali piracy while ignoring its own, there will be no peace on the seas.
This article in The Guardian, while guilty of neglecting piracy's origin, does deserves credit as an all-around quality piece that puts the notion of an aggressive response in historical perspective, rather than acting as a cheerleader for military reprisals:
“What we have recently seen far more often is what a New York Times headline on the piracy story said last Thursday: 'US power has limit'. We're dealing, that's to say, with one of the most important discoveries of our time: the impotence of great might.”
Those searching for a refreshing antidote to the typical take on piracy would do well to consult alternative media resources. Rebecca Macaux and Philip Primeau did some outstanding work on Tuesday for Counterpunch. Warning: This analysis is certain to sting a bit, especially for those skeptical of the view that American foreign policy has played a major role in fomenting some of world’s worst crises. Here is an excerpt:
“With the explosion of Somali piracy, America is reaping what it has sown. In many ways, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the emergence of high-seas crime threatening to disrupt important lanes of trade.
America’s support for a violent strongman during Somalia’s formative post-colonial years hindered the development of stable political institutions and severely complicated its capacity for effective self-rule and sustainable growth.”
The main flaw in the thesis (or implication) that America is solely to blame for piracy is that it disregards how the criminal activities of others nations (including practically all of southern Europe, France, Spain, Greece, the UK, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Korea, China… you get the idea), has provided the immediate impetus for the scourge we see today.
In any case, the article is an outstanding piece, casting a lens of introspection at Americans who feel they are simply the latest victims of a dastardly phenomenon sweeping the Gulf of Aden.
The video below offers a firsthand account from someone of Somali origin, a perspective that has yet to be incorporated by a mainstream media outlet. I would urge watching the interview below (start at 13:22) to get a good idea of what’s going on in the waters off the Somali coast. If you don’t have the time, you can check out the transcript right here. This is one part that caught my eye:
“…It reminded me of a controversial memo that was leaked from the World Bank—this was when Lawrence Summers, now the chief economic adviser, was the chief economist at the World Bank—in which it said, ‘I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that. I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted.’ He said he was being sarcastic.”
I sure hope so.
The comedy continues in the coverage of piracy, perpetuating the dearth of perspective that has been emblematic of the media’s performance thus far. It seems most commentaries have focused on the correct military response, maybe hoping the Pentagon will come across their shoddy work and take their suggestions to heart. Well, probably not. But that’s certainly the sense one gets (or maybe it’s just me). Take this piece from the Wall Street Journal for example:
“Pirates, like the Nazi submarines of World War II, do not hunt for their targets; they lie across the sea lanes where ships are likely to travel and simply wait for a victim to come over the horizon. And the same tactic which defeated the U-boats can put an end to the majority of pirate attacks. Merchant ships can be ordered to form convoys for their own protection.”
Great. Tell the Secretary of the Navy. Or do you expect us to start writing our Congressman, begging them to adopt you innovative tactics – that is, if you call a 60 year-old game plan innovative. How about giving this rather complicated issue some much-needed context instead of scoring cheap points with readers by regaling us with drivel.
This LA Times op-ed sits on the fence, urging reconsideration of an aggressive American response, but clearly too timid to bring light to the other injustice off the Horn of Africa, illegal fishing and waste dumping by affluent nations:
“U.S. officials hope that the tough stance and successful rescue will discourage pirates from attacking American ships. Maybe, but it's more likely that it will just spur the pirates to bring more crewmen and bigger guns the next time around, and to be more inclined to use them. The threat of death isn't much of a deterrent to hopeless young Somali men who face a choice between potentially making millions on the high seas or starving on shore.”
Of course, there have been occasional gems. At first, the post on the Compass called 'Adding Context to Piracy Debate' seemed to offer hope. Though offering an interesting take, it was off target:
“Despite the mythologizing of the U.S. response to Barbary piracy, the U.S. paid off the Barbary Coast pirates under two U.S. administrations until the cost/benefit analysis finally tipped in favor of attacking them… Unlike jihadists, who can't be deterred, military action might raise the costs enough to make pirates think twice. But let's at least have a full accounting of the costs and benefits before the shelling begins.”
Appreciating the author’s historical analogy, his argument nonetheless has a fatal shortcoming. First, the pirates won’t be deterred as easily as he suggests because they are absolutely desperate and two, the causes of that desperation will not be undone by the doling out of booty. So long as the developed world continues its selective enforcement of international law, vehemently condemning Somali piracy while ignoring its own, there will be no peace on the seas.
This article in The Guardian, while guilty of neglecting piracy's origin, does deserves credit as an all-around quality piece that puts the notion of an aggressive response in historical perspective, rather than acting as a cheerleader for military reprisals:
“What we have recently seen far more often is what a New York Times headline on the piracy story said last Thursday: 'US power has limit'. We're dealing, that's to say, with one of the most important discoveries of our time: the impotence of great might.”
Those searching for a refreshing antidote to the typical take on piracy would do well to consult alternative media resources. Rebecca Macaux and Philip Primeau did some outstanding work on Tuesday for Counterpunch. Warning: This analysis is certain to sting a bit, especially for those skeptical of the view that American foreign policy has played a major role in fomenting some of world’s worst crises. Here is an excerpt:
“With the explosion of Somali piracy, America is reaping what it has sown. In many ways, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the emergence of high-seas crime threatening to disrupt important lanes of trade.
America’s support for a violent strongman during Somalia’s formative post-colonial years hindered the development of stable political institutions and severely complicated its capacity for effective self-rule and sustainable growth.”
The main flaw in the thesis (or implication) that America is solely to blame for piracy is that it disregards how the criminal activities of others nations (including practically all of southern Europe, France, Spain, Greece, the UK, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Korea, China… you get the idea), has provided the immediate impetus for the scourge we see today.
In any case, the article is an outstanding piece, casting a lens of introspection at Americans who feel they are simply the latest victims of a dastardly phenomenon sweeping the Gulf of Aden.
The video below offers a firsthand account from someone of Somali origin, a perspective that has yet to be incorporated by a mainstream media outlet. I would urge watching the interview below (start at 13:22) to get a good idea of what’s going on in the waters off the Somali coast. If you don’t have the time, you can check out the transcript right here. This is one part that caught my eye:
“…It reminded me of a controversial memo that was leaked from the World Bank—this was when Lawrence Summers, now the chief economic adviser, was the chief economist at the World Bank—in which it said, ‘I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that. I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted.’ He said he was being sarcastic.”
I sure hope so.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Piracy Coverage Missing the Point
Looking for the "Why?" in the Equation
The coverage of Somali piracy took a turn from deficient to laughable this morning, gracing us with headlines like Kill the Pirates (Washington Post), Real Men Invade Somalia, and Saving Captain Phillips (WSJ). I can just see it now: Saving Captain Phillips, coming to a theater near you!
None of these articles, or the ones preceding them, have cared to examine the root causes of this bane to international maritime security. Some might say that’s because it simply isn’t pertinent, but I’d argue it’s because it isn’t convenient. I would also argue it’s more important as a long-term approach to examine piracy’s root causes rather than how to deal with it in a military capacity. Cut off a hydra’s tentacles and they’ll grow back. Striking at the body is the only way to eliminate it.
Watching Meet the Press on Sunday morning, I was perturbed by the paucity of insight during a discussion on the topic. It wasn't a misunderstanding of root causes so much as a complete indifference to them.
What about the damage done to the Somali fisherman, whose entire livelihood has been, eradicated by fishing trawlers that recklessly destabilize and loot their seas? The pirates would argue they are merely protecting their shores from the poaching of international fishing fleets. Who then are the real pirates? This Chicago Tribune article from 2008 offered a uniquely fresh perspective:
“Somalia's lawless coastline has been ravaged by unscrupulous outsiders with impunity since the Somali government collapsed in 1991…
Somalia, like all maritime countries, has legal rights over an exclusive economic zone that extends 200 nautical miles to sea. And though it has no navy to enforce its control, it theoretically owns the fish and minerals in that area…
Many of Somalia's angry fishermen have picked up rifles and joined the pirate mafias that have seized more than two dozen vessels off the Somali coast so far this year (Oct. 2008) …”
And let’s not forget about the vast amounts of toxic waste, some of it nuclear, dumped off the Somali coast by Western corporations. Apparently, this is being done without the authority of the West's governments. This still beckons the question: where are the calls for stringent enforcement of maritime law then?
A UN Environmental Program official explained to Al-Jazeera back in 2008:
"Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there.”
"European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a ton, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a ton.”
"And the waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes – you name it."
Johann Hari of the Huffington Post lucidly delves into the mindset of the typical Somali, 70% of whom support the pirates, something most media outlets haven’t bothered to understand:
“Did we expect starving (Somalis) to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn’t act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about “evil.” If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia’s criminals.”
Nonetheless, we must avoid romanticizing the pirates as modern-day Robin Hoods. Their crimes have been heinous, especially the hijacking of World Food Program (WFP) vessels on which most Somalis depend for food. Indeed, there is a contingent that has been left no alternative for feeding their families. Many pirates however, are seeking ransoms to finance the warlords and militias ashore, which operate with impunity in a land of anarchy.
Sunday morning I read an op-ed in the Times, the title of which was Anarchy on Land Means Piracy at Sea. I liked where the article was going at first, but it ultimately teetered off into the typical concerns-about-terrorism diatribe that has been the predominant thesis of piracy coverage. It's disappointing that the Times elected to ignore America’s role in perpetuating the anarchy.
In 2006, the United States supported an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, undermining the Islamic Court Union (ICU). The ICU, an Islamist force that had restored a semblance of order to a nation utterly deprived of it since 1991, had been construed as a jihadist enterprise by the Bush Administration, making their fall predetermined.
With the ICU now severely weakened, the new ruling power in Somalia (on paper at least) is holding on for dear life as it contends with Al-Shabaab, an Islamist organization far more militant than the ICU, who considers Osama bin Laden to be their spiritual father. It is this group, among others, that the West fears is benefitting from piracy.
Check out this fascinating video below about the unresolved murder of Italian journalists attempting to disclose arms smuggling and toxic waste dumping by an Italian corporation in Somalia:
How the depletion of fish stocks has contributed to piracy:
Also, a tremendous piece of investigative reporting on the US-backed Ethiopian war with Somalia:
The coverage of Somali piracy took a turn from deficient to laughable this morning, gracing us with headlines like Kill the Pirates (Washington Post), Real Men Invade Somalia, and Saving Captain Phillips (WSJ). I can just see it now: Saving Captain Phillips, coming to a theater near you!
None of these articles, or the ones preceding them, have cared to examine the root causes of this bane to international maritime security. Some might say that’s because it simply isn’t pertinent, but I’d argue it’s because it isn’t convenient. I would also argue it’s more important as a long-term approach to examine piracy’s root causes rather than how to deal with it in a military capacity. Cut off a hydra’s tentacles and they’ll grow back. Striking at the body is the only way to eliminate it.
Watching Meet the Press on Sunday morning, I was perturbed by the paucity of insight during a discussion on the topic. It wasn't a misunderstanding of root causes so much as a complete indifference to them.
What about the damage done to the Somali fisherman, whose entire livelihood has been, eradicated by fishing trawlers that recklessly destabilize and loot their seas? The pirates would argue they are merely protecting their shores from the poaching of international fishing fleets. Who then are the real pirates? This Chicago Tribune article from 2008 offered a uniquely fresh perspective:
“Somalia's lawless coastline has been ravaged by unscrupulous outsiders with impunity since the Somali government collapsed in 1991…
Somalia, like all maritime countries, has legal rights over an exclusive economic zone that extends 200 nautical miles to sea. And though it has no navy to enforce its control, it theoretically owns the fish and minerals in that area…
Many of Somalia's angry fishermen have picked up rifles and joined the pirate mafias that have seized more than two dozen vessels off the Somali coast so far this year (Oct. 2008) …”
And let’s not forget about the vast amounts of toxic waste, some of it nuclear, dumped off the Somali coast by Western corporations. Apparently, this is being done without the authority of the West's governments. This still beckons the question: where are the calls for stringent enforcement of maritime law then?
A UN Environmental Program official explained to Al-Jazeera back in 2008:
"Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there.”
"European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a ton, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a ton.”
"And the waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes – you name it."
Johann Hari of the Huffington Post lucidly delves into the mindset of the typical Somali, 70% of whom support the pirates, something most media outlets haven’t bothered to understand:
“Did we expect starving (Somalis) to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn’t act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about “evil.” If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia’s criminals.”
Nonetheless, we must avoid romanticizing the pirates as modern-day Robin Hoods. Their crimes have been heinous, especially the hijacking of World Food Program (WFP) vessels on which most Somalis depend for food. Indeed, there is a contingent that has been left no alternative for feeding their families. Many pirates however, are seeking ransoms to finance the warlords and militias ashore, which operate with impunity in a land of anarchy.
Sunday morning I read an op-ed in the Times, the title of which was Anarchy on Land Means Piracy at Sea. I liked where the article was going at first, but it ultimately teetered off into the typical concerns-about-terrorism diatribe that has been the predominant thesis of piracy coverage. It's disappointing that the Times elected to ignore America’s role in perpetuating the anarchy.
In 2006, the United States supported an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, undermining the Islamic Court Union (ICU). The ICU, an Islamist force that had restored a semblance of order to a nation utterly deprived of it since 1991, had been construed as a jihadist enterprise by the Bush Administration, making their fall predetermined.
With the ICU now severely weakened, the new ruling power in Somalia (on paper at least) is holding on for dear life as it contends with Al-Shabaab, an Islamist organization far more militant than the ICU, who considers Osama bin Laden to be their spiritual father. It is this group, among others, that the West fears is benefitting from piracy.
Check out this fascinating video below about the unresolved murder of Italian journalists attempting to disclose arms smuggling and toxic waste dumping by an Italian corporation in Somalia:
How the depletion of fish stocks has contributed to piracy:
Also, a tremendous piece of investigative reporting on the US-backed Ethiopian war with Somalia:
Friday, April 10, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Article 85
Council Omits Sri Lanka Again
Michael Brasky
UN Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS – The Security Council revealed its program of work for the month of April on Thursday, a calendar displaying the issues on the agenda. Once again, the agenda lacked any mention, even a footnote, of the situation in Sri Lanka. As a result, barring an unlikely rescheduling, the Council is precluded from addressing a humanitarian catastrophe in northern Sri Lanka in which almost 200,000 civilians are trapped.
The agenda is presented by the holder of the Council Presidency, a seat that rotates among the 15 members on a monthly basis. Mexican Ambassador Claude Heller assumes the Presidency for April, taking over for Libya, which held the seat for March.
The Council has resisted dealing with Sri Lanka since the conflict’s recent incarnation erupted in January. Successive Council agendas have omitted the issue, only to claim they are hamstrung by the agenda when pressed to deal with the humanitarian fallout. When there is sufficient political will, the Council has the ability to raise issues in its chambers that are not on the schedule, as was the case with Gaza in December. So far however, Sri Lanka does not seem to be such a case.
While expressing deep concern, the United States and the United Kingdom have taken little substantial action on the matter. China and Russia have stood in the way of efforts to deal with the issue as well, many speculate because of arms deals the two nations have with Sri Lanka.
Asked about the omission of Sri Lanka, Heller replied that while each state has different criteria for the agenda, “some states have a very clear position that Sri Lanka is not part of the agenda of the Security Council.”
Attempting to ameliorate this harsh reality, he added, “other countries have maintained that even if it’s not on the agenda, its important to bring to attention.”
Heller commended the Secretary-General for taking the initiative to talk with the President of Sri Lanka, and assured that “the Council had been concerned about the Sri Lanka from a humanitarian perspective.”
Heller was asked to clarify on what grounds his colleagues had stricken Sri Lanka from the agenda, a striking omission considering the humanitarian dimensions of the conflict. He responded, “From what I understand, some members considered that it’s not in the agenda of the Security Council, and even if there is a humanitarian aspect it should be dealt in other places the UN system.”
He continued, “We have in a sense overcome the perspectives that it’s in the agenda or not in the agenda, but we have a found a way to treat, to be informed, to get briefed on this situation in Sri Lanka.” He concluded that the main objection of some members was that they “have not accepted that Sri Lanka is on the agenda of the Security Council.”
Heller has been among those who have advocated a Council hearing on Sri Lanka. While a meeting was held last week in the UN basement, they were closed off to the press. UN Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes even joked to the press of its secretive nature. Nothing substantial came out of the deliberations.
The Sri Lankan government remains intent on crushing the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Pushed to the brink of annihilation, the Tigers withdrew to their last base in the northeastern part of the island in January.
Civilians in the area have been trapped between a government bombardment, and a Tigers force that is using the civilians for protection. It is uncertain as to how many have perished in the conflict, but estimates believe it is well over 2,000 people. Despite calls for a ceasefire, among them the Secretary-General’s, the Sri Lankan government has declared it will continue its campaign.
Watch as I ask the Mexican Ambassador to explain the omission of Sri Lanka here.
Michael Brasky
UN Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS – The Security Council revealed its program of work for the month of April on Thursday, a calendar displaying the issues on the agenda. Once again, the agenda lacked any mention, even a footnote, of the situation in Sri Lanka. As a result, barring an unlikely rescheduling, the Council is precluded from addressing a humanitarian catastrophe in northern Sri Lanka in which almost 200,000 civilians are trapped.
The agenda is presented by the holder of the Council Presidency, a seat that rotates among the 15 members on a monthly basis. Mexican Ambassador Claude Heller assumes the Presidency for April, taking over for Libya, which held the seat for March.
The Council has resisted dealing with Sri Lanka since the conflict’s recent incarnation erupted in January. Successive Council agendas have omitted the issue, only to claim they are hamstrung by the agenda when pressed to deal with the humanitarian fallout. When there is sufficient political will, the Council has the ability to raise issues in its chambers that are not on the schedule, as was the case with Gaza in December. So far however, Sri Lanka does not seem to be such a case.
While expressing deep concern, the United States and the United Kingdom have taken little substantial action on the matter. China and Russia have stood in the way of efforts to deal with the issue as well, many speculate because of arms deals the two nations have with Sri Lanka.
Asked about the omission of Sri Lanka, Heller replied that while each state has different criteria for the agenda, “some states have a very clear position that Sri Lanka is not part of the agenda of the Security Council.”
Attempting to ameliorate this harsh reality, he added, “other countries have maintained that even if it’s not on the agenda, its important to bring to attention.”
Heller commended the Secretary-General for taking the initiative to talk with the President of Sri Lanka, and assured that “the Council had been concerned about the Sri Lanka from a humanitarian perspective.”
Heller was asked to clarify on what grounds his colleagues had stricken Sri Lanka from the agenda, a striking omission considering the humanitarian dimensions of the conflict. He responded, “From what I understand, some members considered that it’s not in the agenda of the Security Council, and even if there is a humanitarian aspect it should be dealt in other places the UN system.”
He continued, “We have in a sense overcome the perspectives that it’s in the agenda or not in the agenda, but we have a found a way to treat, to be informed, to get briefed on this situation in Sri Lanka.” He concluded that the main objection of some members was that they “have not accepted that Sri Lanka is on the agenda of the Security Council.”
Heller has been among those who have advocated a Council hearing on Sri Lanka. While a meeting was held last week in the UN basement, they were closed off to the press. UN Emergency Relief Coordinator John Holmes even joked to the press of its secretive nature. Nothing substantial came out of the deliberations.
The Sri Lankan government remains intent on crushing the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Pushed to the brink of annihilation, the Tigers withdrew to their last base in the northeastern part of the island in January.
Civilians in the area have been trapped between a government bombardment, and a Tigers force that is using the civilians for protection. It is uncertain as to how many have perished in the conflict, but estimates believe it is well over 2,000 people. Despite calls for a ceasefire, among them the Secretary-General’s, the Sri Lankan government has declared it will continue its campaign.
Watch as I ask the Mexican Ambassador to explain the omission of Sri Lanka here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
