Negotiate with the Somali environmental activists!
It is time to stop killing the environmental activists who are acting to protect Somali waters, and to start negotiating with them for peace.
It is also time to start understanding their point of view and the point of view of the oppressed peoples they so vigorously represent.
To the extreme right wingers who control the corporate media and the high reaches of the U.S. government, the activists may be “pirates” – but to local folks they are heroes, promoting social justice and defending their country against western hegemonism and environmental depredation. In other words, like the Russian, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cuban movements the western press once unfairly labeled “communists,” the Somali activists are really progressives and nationalists.
“We believe in dying for our land,” said Omar Dahir Idle, one of the group. He and other “pirates” point out that his group is merely protecting Somali waters against illegal fishing and the dumping of toxic waste – a point confirmed by the centrist “Democracy Now” website.
The protestations of the rightward-leaning Obama administration and others that they are merely fighting “piracy” ring hollow in Africa, where westerners are guilty of a long train of acts of violence and imperialism. The term “piracy” itself is problematic, a harshly judgmental word that reflects outdated Euro-centric constructs about so-called “property rights.”
What is actually occurring off the Horn of Africa is environmental protection and long-overdue wealth distribution. For years, desperately poor Somalis have watched as thousands of ships, laden with incredible wealth, have plowed through their waters without concern for the starving people on shore. In view of this history, it is fully understandable why Somalis might act as they have.
So the Somali progressives are doing their own, small part to promote social and environmental justice. This is a good, not a bad, thing.
Rather than react in the brutal way so typical of American actions around the world for so long, we need to recognize that the U.S. bears primary responsibility for the “piracy” problem. Hopefully we have learned something from the disasters of the Bush administration.
We can begin by not labeling the activists as “pirates,” a term that in this context is merely hate speech. Rather, we should recognize them fully as representatives of the world struggle for social and environmental justice. Similarly, we should call “ransom” what is really is: reparations for centuries of western oppression in Africa.
Next, as an immediate reassurance of our good faith, the U.S. military and the military of U.S. allies should fully evacuate Indian Ocean waters. To show further good faith and render our position more acceptable to those we have wronged, the U.S. must immediately adopt reforms in its own flawed system, including higher taxes on the rich, complete national health coverage, and adoption of the Kyoto Accords.
The U.S. should develop proposals for peace, coordinating fully with the international community, and particularly with African states. The Zimbabwe government of Robert Mugabe – as a representative of what is best in Africa – can serve as liaison, if necessary. Our initial offers should include massive economic aid and a major clean-up operation to undo the appalling environmental damage we have inflicted on Somali waters. And the U.S. needs to stay out of Somali waters, except for ships admitted with the prior consent of the Somali activists after payment of each ship’s share of reparations.
Yes, there is a hope for peace in the area. But the responsibility for the conflict rests with the U.S. and U.S. allies. Only they can stop the violence and make the changes necessary to promote peace, progressive reform, and social justice in East Africa.
A thoughtful man might look into the matter – As a reactionary right winger, you’re not terribly thoughtful, so forget that.
It is an easy thing to shout about – the pirates who captured the ship and held hostages were definitely in the wrong, and this was a case where the use of force was actually justified. That it was done in such a Schwarzenegger-like manner gives all you on your side leakage problems, but that’s another matter.
The United Nations should also get involved with perhaps a strongly worded report against the tyranical United States Administration in support of the activists in Somalia.
Great humor. However, Except, and the ever lingering But!!!
Overfishing and dumping of nuclear and toxic chemical waste by other countries (not the USA) is a major contributing factor. The now pirates were once fishermen. There is no longer enough fish to feed everyone and lord only knows what they look like with the pollutants in the water.
I am predicting Godzilla walks on shore in Somalia, not Japan as originally thought.
Had this discussion with many folks yesterday. Once solution was for the UN to start enforcing sovereignty of Somalian waters (over fishing and dumping waste must stop). The World should help clean up the toxins, if it is even possible and those responsible should pay the bills.
This is all good but then comes the what if. What if they keep hijacking ships because it pays better than just fishing?
I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. But, that word again, I would like to see the World, with US leadership here, take a stab at doing this as described above. That removes the catalyst. Then lets see if they are true to their word. If not both they (Somalies) and the hard left will have a hard time justifying further irrational behavior.
Best Wishes and Good Thinking to All
JAC
Stop giving Obama any ideas. Next thing you know he’ll be sending the Somali environmental activists some CG Cutters to help them protect their waters from the capitalist pigs. Now that we don’t need to fend off our new friends in Cuba there will be surplus vessels.
LT: “Stop giving Obama any ideas.” Good point. I almost didn’t write this, because one problem with satirizing the Left with reductiones ad absurdum is that pretty soon they are adopting, in all seriousness, the positions once thought of as absurd.
>>The Chinese merchant ships escorted by a China’s fleet sailed on the Gulf of Aden when they met some suspected pirate ships. Thousands of dolphins suddenly leaped out of water between pirates and merchants when the pirate ships headed for the China’s.<<
Ya know JAC, I’d halfway believe all this overfishing BS if Flipper and a thousand of his buddies hadn’t ganged up to protect China’s fleet. After all, what do dolphins eat, Walmart plastic shopping bags?
I hope you understand how much you have just driven up the price of sarcasm by depleting the supply so much!! Excellent post – love it!
ROTFLMAO – this would have been a great post for April 1st.
Swede:
Perhaps the dolphins were actually demonstrating, you know trying to stop the Chinese from dumping more crappola in the ocean.
I have found the discussion of overfishing in several places and by some pretty smart and connected folks.
That doesn’t mean there are no fish, only less fish or maybe smaller fish. Don’t know the details. By the way, dolphins cruise up and down the east coast of Africa in very large numbers moving to specific feeding grounds near estuaries. And, the sharks are usually not far behind.
The point is that as often is the case, there is much more to the story and there may be valid extenuating circumstances. My other point is that if our only response is to shoot back, we never find out if those circumstances were real or just straw men. We may also lose an opportunity to solve the true underlying problem in a way that is long term rather than giving someone else the excuse to escalate further.
If we had, or would try the other option and it fails then the world will know one or more of the following:
1. Those other big countries who ignore Somalias sovereignty are the bad guys, because they wouldn’t stop.
2. The UN is worthless because they wouldn’t make the big guys stop.
3. The big boys stopped and the pirates kept up their evil ways, so they are liars.
In the case of #3 then we hang them from the yardarm, and the world will not argue that it was not justified.
Actually, Rob – this isn’t too far from what you usually do in your posts. You invent the positions of the left for us.
So is this actually a joke?
JAC, I was wondering if your “smart and connected folks” would support offshore oil rigs in order to improve fish habitat?
Swede … have you no capacity for embarrassment?
Well done Rob, but perhaps you should put a warning at the top about the unintended consequences of right-leaning irony on the heads full of mush on the left.
Bring it on, Mueller. What’s mushy over here? YOu can talk like that in your RWCJ, but specifics please.
Swede: They would support off shore drilling to increase supply of oil for sure. Improved fish habitat would be one of those added benefits but not the reason for the drilling. They also think the connection between CO2 and global warming is a lot of bull.
Does that help any??
They believe in dying for their land……….oh well……grant the terroists their wish.
Bravo.
Environmentalists?-what a buffo0n and proves the currency ignorance
has in today’s world of internet oblivion. Is one to assume that the acts
of piracy are merely well intended efforts to fund their environmental
policies? To call this article stupid would be a compliment. Capturing food
supplies meant for your own people-now that’s patriotism and so eco-
friendly!
Uh, pachoka, it was sarcasm, I think.
In all seriousness, there is a reason why pirates always have captured the public imagination, and it isn’t just because of colorful clothes, parrots and Johnny Depp. They really do represent to a romantic imagination a protest against the existing economic order, with their freewheeling ways and rough hewn democratic practices (captains could be, and often were, voted out of their jobs — a practice sure to stir the 18th century sensibility). Piracy was a rough, brutal way to make a living, but its charms were not pure fiction.
And mosquito’s have a longer life expectancy than the pirates of old.
David Crisp: Aarrgghhhh!
Rob: Your satire is so good and so over the top that it more or less insulates you from having to address any of the real issues involved here. I don’t think anybody has any sympathy for pirates who steal humanitarian food shipments or take people hostage.
But does that mean it is off limits to discuss the serious concerns that have been raised about what has been happening off the coast of Somalia? If European nations really did take advantage of Somalia’s anarchy to plunder her territorial waters, were the first “pirates,” by some accounts the fishermen pushed out of their own waters, wrong in interferring with those illegal trawlers?
If Europeans and others were actually dumping nuclear and other hazardous wastes in Somalian waters, shouldn’t that be of some concern, possibly of more concern than what a handful of bandits in leaky boats are up to? Make fun of a non-existent over-reaction all you want, but don’t pretend this is nothing more than a cut-and-dried melodrama in which Western countries are the heroes.
Ed, I didn’t take it as suggesting Western countries are the heroes.
Are the Somali pirates really working for human rights…or just trying to steal?
Never give credit where credit is due. The President as Commander-in-Chief delegates the decision to use deadly force to the commanders on the scene, which is how it ought to be done. And what do our everlasting “conservatives” have to say? Silliness. Nothing but silliness. Had SEALS shot these three pirates under George W. Bush, you’d be waving the flag and pounding your chests and giving each other high-fives.
Once the Marine and K&R insurers at Lloyd’s and the broader global reinsurance market write an area exclusion with NO buy back option, this piracy will be addressed rather than being treated as a cost of doing business.
Ed Kemmick: Thanks for the compliment. The point of the satire was NOT that western nations always act well. The point of the satire is that some people look for flaws in western capitalist nations to justify bad conduct by socialist or non-western nations — and then leap to the conclusion that the West is to blame for whatever problem has arisen.
A good example was Cuba. Cuba had a corrupt, but relatively mild dictator named Fulgencio Batista, who was overthrown by a really nasty totalitarian regime — Fidel Castro’s — that enslaved all of Cuba and imprisoned and killed thousands. For years, Communist sympathizers and other leftists idealized Castro (some still do) and, to the extent that they saw any flaws, blamed the U.S. because of “our support for the corrupt Batista regime.” This showed a serious lack of perspective; Communists didn’t overthrow governments because they were corrupt; they overthrew them because they weren’t Communist (beginning with the Bolshevik overthrow of Kerensky, who was not corrupt). And even if two wrongs made a right, nothing Batista or the U.S. had done justified Castro’s reign of terror.
This practice of blaming the West for really bad non-Western conduct because the West isn’t perfect, is, I think, a sort of intellectual perversity. That’s what I was satirizing.
Jeff Renz: Actually I think conservatives have been fairly complimentary, if grudgingly so, about the President’s conduct in this situation.
Does having to explain a good joke mean that the joke itself was less than good or that the listener is below par?