Pirates Ahoy!: Lessons from the rising scourge of Somali Piracy

It is no longer news that piracy around the Horn of Africa has been on a steady, near meteoric, rise. Neither is it newsworthy to state that the same pirates have given "brazen" a new definition, almost no week goes by without another news of them hijacking another vessel surfaces. Their targets are varied: they have attacked vessels ranging from trawlers; to Container ships; luxury yachts and even crude-laden supertankers. The condemnation from the international community has been strident and concerted, over 15 warships belonging to superpowers such as the United Kingdom and the United States, and Emerging powers (such as China and India) now patrol the waters. What is particularly galling is that despite the open display of naval might and superiority by the world powers, the Somali pirates - often armed with light machine guns and moving with speedboats - have continued to hijack vessels with reckless impunity.

I believe the lessons to be learnt from this scourge lies in understanding why these pirates took up piracy in the first instance and why they are such potent adversaries despite their obvious firepower disadvantage. Somalia, the native country and base of the pirates, has witnessed decades of civil war and sectarian fighting which has resulted in the complete breakdown of law and order. The country has practically been a "no man's land" for upwards of 2 decades and the last semblance of a government in the country - the militant Islamic Courts Union - was kicked out of power by Ethiopia. This state of anarchy has given rise to total economic breakdown; deprivation and hopelessness therefore ensuring that there are next to no opportunities in Somalia for attaining any level of prosperity through legitimate means. For many of the pirates, piracy, and other acts of brigandage, is nothing more than an occupation that may lead to some material prosperity in a lawless land where might is inevitably right.

Then why are they such a potent force despite the overwhelming military might of the superpowers? The answer is simple: the world is against an enemy who has nothing to lose and whose everyday existence is little better than death. It is clear that no navy can totally protect the high seas or completely secure every inch of water, the bulk of the benefits from the display of naval power is the deterrence that it provides to potential "disturbers of the peace" (i.e. pirates, sovereign aggressors etc). The key challenge in this case is: how do you deter a non-state aggressor who is neither afraid nor unwilling to die?. It is instructive to note that the bulk of these pirates are in their late teens and early to mid twenties, therefore they have come of age during a period of constant warfare, starvation and epidemics. These are young men who have watched parents, friends and relatives die from either bombs, bullets, disease or starvation and as such they place little value on their own lives or those of others. They have nothing to lose, if they do not die in the course of a pirate raid they may as well die on their beds from hunger; from a mortar shell or even from disease. They are particularly formidable because they cannot be threatened; reasoned with; bribed or even negotiated with. In their view the world offers nothing and they might as well see it burn. If ten pirates are shot dead, there will probably be another ten recruits willing to take the place of each of the dead pirates.

So is the situation beyond redemption? Is there a possible solution lurking somewhere?. I believe - like every other challenge facing the world - this scourge has a solution, I only doubt whether the solution is a military one. The Somali piracy problem has made very clear to the world the devastating effects of poverty; sectarian violence and poor economic expectations. Also made evident is the fact that rich and poor countries alike will suffer, either directly or indirectly, from these effects. While hunger may be far from the streets of Houston, Riyadh or London, the Somali pirates (products of the circumstances mentioned above) can hijack crude oil supertankers originating from from these cities; endanger the lives of their citizens and increase the cost of doing business for their corporations ( either by increasing the cost of shipping insurance or by increasing freight costs as a result of longer routes taken to avoid the pirates!). The rest of the world has to take very seriously the problems in Somalia and realise that the scourge of piracy cannot stop until Somalia is stabilized; a legitimate government established and economic rehabilitation and reconstruction embarked upon. This same situation applies to various impoverished and/or devastated regions of the world which are dangerously close to violence. International development needs to be redefined from being a "nice" thing championed by "bleeding heart" celebrities such as U2's Bono and Bob Geldoff. International development should be championed henceforth by calculating, hard-nosed strategists in developed nations as a matter of national security and self preservation. Nobody can be safe from large groups of people who have so little to look forward to in life that they cannot be scared of death.

Fair trade practices; responsible African leaders and private sector investments must be actively encouraged by world leaders in order to reverse the twin scourges of despondency and poverty that often lead people down the path of violence and recklessness. A "Marshall Plan for Africa" should be designed in consultation with responsible African governments, to ensure that the people who Prof. Collier of Oxford University has so aptly named the "Bottom Billion" can have a stake in the world to prevent them from being so inclined to destroying it. New generation of African businessmen and political leaders must be encouraged to emerge; policies to improve the capacity of African financial markets instituted and fair trade policies to ensure that African farmers have a short at profiting from the global commodities trade also put in place. Roads have to be built to ensure that crops do not rot on farms; hospitals stocked with vaccines to reduce alarming rates of child mortality and resource rich but despotic governments discouraged from plundering their country's treasuries and murdering its citizens.

The Somali pirates can (and must) be defeated, but they will not be defeated at sea or by naval worships. They will only be defeated when they have something to hope for in life to prevent them from being so fearless about death and unmindful of the value of human life. This can only happen when the whole world (including other African leaders) get serious about bringing lasting peace, development and prosperity into the region.

Dead Aid: Another entrant in the Trade Vs. Aid Debate in Africa

It is a well known fact that the African continent is increasingly attracting more vocal supporters - within the Continent, in the Diaspora and even among former colonial masters- for its development. What is less well known is that many of these supporters passionately advance either of the following viewpoints: 1.) Africa needs aid and the rest of the world should be shamed into providing more aid and grants to Africans; 2.) Aid is practically useless and in fact encourages corruption in African Leaders as it doesn't promote the sort of monitoring and accountability that the financial markets and taxpayers dictate; and 3.) the middle of the road people, who think Africa needs a little of both to develop. I am happy to report that I fall into the 3rd Category, I am a passionate member of the "Middle Roaders club"!. I believe that Africa needs a combination of both free-market liberalism and plain old-fashioned handouts (the Politically Correct synonyms are Aid and Grants!) to develop in the short to medium term.

The newest entrant - and a loud one at that - is a new book titled "Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa" written by a former economist covering Sub-Saharan Africa at Goldman Sachs: Dambisa Moyo. A quite comprehensive and really critical summary of the book is given in the here. I am yet to get a copy of the book, but the summaries and commentaries which I have read indicate that the book was quite strident in its criticism of western aid in Africa. The crux of the book - from the summaries I have read - is that aid tends to make governments and political leaders corrupt; fund white elephant projects and avoids the sort of accountability which funding through taxation or through international debt markets demands from governments and politicians. She (i.e. the Author) has identified 3rd world countries which have been able to raise financing from international capital markets for their developmental projects and who have, as a result of improved macro-economic management, been able to improve their credit ratings. Which has in turn has led to lower borrowing costs on such bonds and the attention of a wider investor universe.

On the whole, while I believe that the whole "Trade not Aid" movement has many significant merits, I believe the efforts of celebrity "do-gooders" such as U2's Bono and Bob Geldof in increasing aid assistance to Africa is also not without some merits. I believe aid has a large role to play in the re-emergence of post-conflict states such as Liberia, Rwanda etc. I doubt that many purely profit motivated investors will be inclined to invest in such countries or buy bonds issued by them in the international capital markets. These countries can hardly be expected to get back on their feet without some assistance (i.e. Aid!) from the international community. In these sorts of situations, it will be quite difficult to make an informed argument against the provision of western aid.

However, providing aid to more established, mineral-rich and relatively stable countries such as Nigeria is a totally different matter. I believe a country like Nigeria does not deserve foreign aid, given our rich resource base; relatively developed domestic financial markets and large population. Foreign aid is only likely to compound our governance problems as it will only provide another "accountability-lite" source of funding for our already corrupt politicians. We need to subject ourselves to the disciplines of the international debt markets and the associated credit rating process which places considerable pressure on governments to pursue sound macro-economic policies. In the alternative, our government can seek to better finance itself by broadening the tax base, which will in turn constrain it to pursue sound economic policies which will improve citizen "wealth being" and subject politicians to the anger of taxpayers who would not like to see their hard earned money squandered or downright stolen.

I think the most strident view of the book was provided by a columnist writing in the Washington Post. However, the Oxford Don: Paul Collier (author of the book: "The Bottom Billion" and a well known Africa expert) gives a much more balanced view of the book and the "Trade Vs. Aid" debate which I am more inclined to align with.