Sunday, April 12, 2009

Piracy Apologists

The Huffington Post has had a couple of posts up making excuses for Somali piracy. Really. The latest is a guest-post by a Somali-Canadian named K'nann: "Why We Don't Condemn Our Pirates" It's interesting that despite being a Canadian, this individual still apparently identifies with Somali pirates. Here's the basic argument.

Western ships have been "stealing" fish from off the coast of Somalia. And an Italian firm made an agreement with a Somali warlord to dump toxic waste in Somalia waters. Somalis got fed up and responded with piracy.

our pirates were the only deterrent we had from an externally imposed environmental disaster. No one can say for sure that some of the ships they are now holding for ransom were not involved in illegal activity in our waters.

That's real convincing, isn't it? These pirates are just protecting Somali waters by grabbing every merchant ship they can get their hands on and holding them for millions in ransom. They are just another type of environmental activist. No doubt they'll put that ransom money to good use cleaning up the coastline, in between murdering each other and engaging in more piracy.

What about the fact that Somalia is a chaotic hellhole unable to govern itself?  That's all the west's fault of course. Why are Somali warlords making deals with foreign firms to dump toxic waste offshore? I guess that's the west's fault too. It's a good thing these articles are appearing in left-wing outlets like the Huffington Post. If anything can possibly be blamed on the west, particularly on the U.S., you know they'll be all over it, no matter how ludicrous the argument. Where else will you find sympathizers with a class of criminals traditionally defined as enemies of humanity?

10 comments:

  1. I think it would help our discourse if you stopped calling yourself a 'realist' and realized that you have more in common with your friends on the neocon Right than you'd like to pretend.

    As a realist I'm interested in knowing what motivates [pseudo] nations rather than dismissing such motivations as irrelevant because they're held by "criminals traditionally defined as enemies of humanity".

    As Millman defines it: By "realist" I mean that interests are the dominant factor in determining foreign policy; by "idealist" I mean that values are predominant.

    You wish to fancy yourself a realist, but you aren't a very good one.

    You're actually an idealist who values what you think is in the American national interest. This is a one-sided pseudo-realism, because you don't care about engaging the interests of rival nations when they don't conform with your values.

    This is why you don't get along with actual realists like myself, Walt, Mearsheimer, Freeman, today's Andrew Sullivan, some folks at AmCon, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I think it would help our discourse if you stopped calling yourself a 'realist' and realized that you have more in common with your friends on the neocon Right than you'd like to pretend."

    Other than not having hardly any ideological positions in common with them, yeah. When talking about broad positions there's always going to be some overlap and alliances between differing outlooks.

    "As a realist I'm interested in knowing what motivates [pseudo] nations rather than dismissing such motivations as irrelevant because they're held by "criminals traditionally defined as enemies of humanity"."

    You are actually claiming to be a realist? No wonder you don't think I'm one. Since when are libertarians realists? You might want to read up on realism, since trying to ascertain "motives" goes exactly against realist thinking.

    'To search for the clue to foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesmen is both futile and deceptive' --Hans Morgenthau

    "You're actually an idealist who values what you think is in the American national interest"

    People who look at things through the prism of raw national interest are kind of the opposite of idealists -- they tend to be, what's the word I'm looking for? Yeah, realists.

    'The concept of interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible.' Morgenthau again.

    "engaging the interests of rival nations when they don't conform with your values."

    Realism isn't about being even-handed. It's a way of analyzing international affairs. Like any other method, the exact positions are determined by the person's outlook. And what values are you talking about? I doubt if you can find many arguments where I take a position based on any defineable value.

    "This is why you don't get along with actual realists like myself, Walt, Mearsheimer, Freeman, today's Andrew Sullivan, some folks at AmCon, etc."

    Walt and Mearsheimer: I agree with their methodology, I just disagree with some of their conclusions, and I think their view of Israel is flawed and poisons their analysis in that area. Freeman I dismiss as a Saudi toady. Andrew Sullivan is about as far from a realist as possible. And you are obviously not a realist. You clearly think states should be bound by moral rules, and you often argue from a legalistic point of view.

    I suggest reading Morgenthau's article on the six principles of realism. He's considered the founder of modern realism. Here's a hint, legalism and moralism are not part of realism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said David. Media comments in my country on the recent US action are nauseatingly predictable. Unsupportable anti-American claims, on an issue that effects most trading nations. It was interesting to compare this to the critical silence of the French actions a few days earlier.

    Its interesting how much of the commentary justifies the pirates actions for the toxic reasons advanced above. This logic allows the critic to ignore the breakdown of governance in Somalia, the thuggery of warlords and jihadists and the collective failure of the worlds nations to do much for the countries people, apart from boat loads of feel good aid.

    Anti-Americanism is so pervasive, it tends to neutralise the validity of well reasoned and legitimate criticism of the USA, which is certainly warranted on any number of issues. But presenting solutions on issues, to the public never really seems to be the goal of the talking heads. Just beat up a headline for the day, using the usual whipping boy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. > Since when are libertarians realists?

    Since realism is a foreign policy outlook and libertarianism is not. They have similarities, but they are not dependent on each other. One can libertarianish and hawkish, as you are. It's just uncommon.

    The importance of rules, perception, legalism, moralism, etc. are the effects they have on public opinion and e.g. soft power, which I know you don't appreciate.

    There's a reason we have laws rather than operating by the divine right of kings, and it's not because we're not looking after our interests.

    Again, an actual foreign policy realist will want to appreciate the interests of an area like Somalia rather than dismissing it as you do here. This is not even-handedness, it's pragmatism. It's an analysis that goes beyond "us good guys" vs. "them bad guys" and looks for the most practical solution to a problem, which is very often not rushing to blow things up as you (or your friends at NRO) have advocated.

    > And what values are you talking about? I doubt if you can find many arguments where I take a position based on any defineable value.

    You only value your own national interest (of which you have an insular understanding), and place no value on the interests of people who don't share your value (e.g. Somali pirates).

    You dismiss them as "criminals traditionally defined as enemies of humanity", which is an evaluation. But not one that is useful for understanding the interaction of interests and developing solutions based on it, as a realist would.

    It seems you'll go on equating actual realist analysis with anti-Americanism, 'blame America first', 'blame on the West', 'sympathy with criminals', anti-Semite, pro-Saudi, etc. Good luck making sense of the world with that one-sided perspective.

    Again I'll emphasize that looking at other sides is not a matter of even-handedness but of getting a full picture of the world-as-it-is rather than the world-as-you-wish-it-would be. This is another difference between realists and idealists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gherald,

    "The importance of rules, perception, legalism, moralism, etc. are the effects they have on public opinion and e.g. soft power, which I know you don't appreciate."

    I appreciate them, but I don't think they should take precedence when not in our interests.

    "There's a reason we have laws rather than operating by the divine right of kings, and it's not because we're not looking after our interests."

    I'm not against having laws. And there were plenty of laws under monarchy as well. I'm against legalism as a principle of foreign policy.

    "Again, an actual foreign policy realist will want to appreciate the interests of an area like Somalia rather than dismissing it as you do here. "

    You mistake my dismissal of it as something we should be concerned with as a desire to completely ignore it. I'm all for knowing everything we can about areas and considering their perspectives. I just want our foreign policy to be based on our perspective and interests, not theirs.

    "You only value your own national interest (of which you have an insular understanding), and place no value on the interests of people who don't share your value (e.g. Somali pirates)."

    That your argument is ludicrous can be seen from the whole incident with Library Grape, where I maintained that the Iranians would be justified in torturing a CIA spy. No one with an insular American outlook would ever take that position. It's instead a realist position looking at things through a perspective of Iranian interests.

    "You dismiss them as "criminals traditionally defined as enemies of humanity", which is an evaluation. But not one that is useful for understanding the interaction of interests and developing solutions based on it, as a realist would."

    It's very useful for understanding how pirates have been traditionally been dealt with. Recognizing their interests has little to do with how we should act, since we aren't Somali pirates.

    "It seems you'll go on equating actual realist analysis with anti-Americanism, 'blame America first', 'blame on the West', 'sympathy with criminals', anti-Semite, pro-Saudi, etc. Good luck making sense of the world with that one-sided perspective."

    Realists can be pro-American or anti-American, or neither. Realism is a method of analysis. It's not a form of internationalism. American realists tend to look at things based on their interpretation of American interests.

    "Again I'll emphasize that looking at other sides is not a matter of even-handedness but of getting a full picture of the world-as-it-is rather than the world-as-you-wish-it-would be. This is another difference between realists and idealists."

    And again, you mistake what I said about even-handedness for a desire to be close-minded. Knowledge is great. Allowing knowledge of opposing perceptions to color your own actions against your own interests is not.

    "This is another difference between realists and idealists."

    Almost every perspective you've mentioned has nothing to do with realism and is based on idealism.

    It's pretty funny. I've been accused of being cynical, amoral, inhumane, dismissive of laws, militaristic, imperialistic, and so forth, but you are the first person who has ever mistaken me for an idealist. The only way you can do that is by ignoring the basis of realism and trying to redefine idealism, since I have hardly any recognizable ideals and almost never argue on the basis of idealism for almost anything. I'm not even idealistic about the U.S. If I were a citizen of China, I'd be arguing based on Chinese interests.

    You claiming that I'm not a realist is kind of like a self-identified atheist who says they actually believe in God, arguing that I'm not really an atheist but rather a Muslim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Orion77,

    Yes. It explains why an extremely weak justification of piracy is immediately seized on and accepted uncritically. Anyone bothering to even look at a map of where pirate attacks occur can see that many took place far from the coast of Somalia. Only on the left, which sees the Somalis as poor victims of western neglect and opression, would extensive and wide-ranging piracy actually be seriously viewed as some sort of coastal defense. And the environmental angle is a nice twist that appeals to the usual suspects.

    ReplyDelete
  7. > I appreciate them, but I don't think they should take precedence when not in our interests.

    It's not a matter of precedence, it's a matter of weighing all factors and realizing that while it might possibly be in our national interest to do something like blow up a pirate port if only we and the pirate port existed, it's probably not in our best interest if it leads to other people hating us and wishing us further harm. More on this below.

    > I'm against legalism as a principle of foreign policy.

    Laws are our principle for conducting everything, not just foreign affairs. You wish to set laws aside when you think them unhelpful, forgetting the reason we have laws to begin with. In this you're no better than a common criminal who sets aside laws for personal gain. Your gain -- or the gain you desire -- is the 'national interest' rather than personal, but the effect is the same.

    > I'm all for knowing everything we can about areas and considering their perspectives.

    Well and good.

    > I just want our foreign policy to be based on our perspective and interests, not theirs.

    A realist _analysis_ should take into account all relevant interests. After doing so and evaluating options, then you decide on the most effective policy. More on this below.

    > That your argument is ludicrous can be seen from the whole incident with Library Grape, where I maintained that the Iranians would be justified in torturing a CIA spy. No one with an insular American outlook would ever take that position. It's instead a realist position looking at things through a perspective of Iranian interests.

    That's merely applying the same one-sided analysis to a different country. It is, as you said back then, consistency. But you're again not looking at the interaction of multiple interests.

    > ["criminals traditionally defined as enemies of humanity"] is very useful for understanding how pirates have been traditionally been dealt with.

    An appeal to tradition -- especially a tradition that predates realist analysis -- is not going to bolster your case. Most importantly, national interests have changed in recent centuries to include humanitarian concerns, as I'll explain below.

    > Recognizing their interests has little to do with how we should act, since we aren't Somali pirates.

    It has everything to do with how we act towards Somali pirates if it offers alternative ways of satisfying part of our interests without compromising other interests of ours.

    > Realists can be pro-American or anti-American, or neither. Realism is a method of analysis. It's not a form of internationalism. American realists tend to look at things based on their interpretation of American interests.

    No, American realists are just realists like any other. To be a realist means to analyze the interaction of national interests. Then, regardless of their own nationality, a realist can offer what he thinks each party is most likely to do when acting in their own interest. As pertains to realist analysis, the only salient difference between an American realist and one who is not American is that the American one will have more specific information about America available.

    What makes one pro-American or anti-American or pro/anti- anything else is not one's analysis, but how one acts.

    > And again, you mistake what I said about even-handedness for a desire to be close-minded. Knowledge is great. Allowing knowledge of opposing perceptions to color your own actions against your own interests is not.

    Earlier in quoting "To search for the clue to foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesmen is both futile and deceptive" you set a false equivalence between the motives/interest of statesmen and the motives/interests of people groups/nations.

    Your actual mistake, and the reason I regard you as insular and narrow-minded, is that you place no weight (or at least, drastically insufficient weight) on the opposing perceptions and motivations of other people/nations.

    For the sake of concreteness, let's posit a hypothetical pirate port. If we strike this particular port as NRO rightists would advocate, let's suppose that on average it would cause 2-3x as much civilian damage and loss of life as it would that of pirates. Given your narrow focus on what you perceive to be in the American interest, you might think we should go ahead with the strike. After all it's in our interest to kill pirates, and it's not in our interest to care about the collateral damage to civilians. This hardheaded 'ends justify the means' realism -- or so you think.

    Yet with this limited analysis you ignore the costs of that collateral damage, which actually work against American interests. It breeds local resentment and gets used as a recruiting tool for anti-Americanism. It breeds international resentment and causes other people/nations to view America unfavorably and as a bully. This can affect trade, soft power, general diplomacy, and any other international relations which depend on trust or respect.

    In this simplified example, that makes you a poor realist: one who narrow-mindedly pursues the most immediate interests of one nation without understanding how it interacts with that of other nations/people. Your repeated derisiveness of world opinion and insistence that it should not matter exemplifies this well.

    > an extremely weak justification of piracy is immediately seized on and accepted uncritically

    Who's immediately seizing or accepting it uncritically? Maybe some delusional leftwingers, but that's par for the course and hardly worse than a rightist who thinks indiscriminate airstrikes can solve anything. This HufPost article is just one report, from a (former?) Somali national who far all we know about him may as well be anonymous. If the information seems like it could be useful -- which I think it would be, if I were tasked with solving Somalia's problems with more finesse than airstrikes -- then it should be investigated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "it's probably not in our best interest if it leads to other people hating us and wishing us further harm. More on this below."

    That's a difference in interpretation. Being a realist doesn't mean agreement on what constitutes U.S. interests in any particular case.

    "What makes one pro-American or anti-American or pro/anti- anything else is not one's analysis, but how one acts."

    It can be either. Realists are no less immune from bias than anyone else.

    "Laws are our principle for conducting everything, not just foreign affairs. "

    Internally yes. Externally no.

    "You wish to set laws aside when you think them unhelpful, forgetting the reason we have laws to begin with. In this you're no better than a common criminal who sets aside laws for personal gain."

    Nations are not persons. Laws between nations are a combination of tradition, custom & agreement based on interests. Many times they are unenforceable and/or designed to favor certain nations over others. They do not compare easily to the laws of a state. Again, legalism is in direct opposition to realism. You can make a realist argument that abiding by certain conventions of international law is in our interests. But you can't see international law as some sort of inviolate rule and be a realist.

    "But you're again not looking at the interaction of multiple interests."

    That's exactly what I'm doing. But ultimately i'm not trying to determine the best action for other countries.

    "Yet with this limited analysis you ignore the costs of that collateral damage, which actually work against American interests. "

    I don't ignore it at all. Actions always have consequences. I just think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Again, this is a mere difference in interpretation.

    "one who narrow-mindedly pursues the most immediate interests of one nation without understanding how it interacts with that of other nations/people. Your repeated derisiveness of world opinion and insistence that it should not matter exemplifies this well."

    See above. You are making all sorts of incorrect assumptions.

    "hardly worse than a rightist who thinks indiscriminate airstrikes can solve anything."

    There's a big difference. Massive retaliation against pirate ports, along with summary execution of pirates, has had demonstrable effectiveness in the past. The only question is whether it is worth the costs -- which unlike you seem to think, I fully recognize. It's a cost/benefits analysis based on U.S. interests. My weighing of each cost differs greatly from yours.

    ReplyDelete
  9. > > Your repeated derisiveness of world opinion and insistence that it should not matter exemplifies this well."

    > You are making all sorts of incorrect assumptions.

    You have said it should not matter. That's not my assumption, it's your position.

    > ...unlike you seem to think, I fully recognize. It's a cost/benefits analysis based on U.S. interests. My weighing of each cost differs greatly from yours.

    Am I wrong in interpreting your "should not matter" as a cost weight of zero or near-zero?

    Whenever I cite world opinion on US involvement in foreign affairs, you say it shouldn't matter and that we should do "what's in our national interest".

    To me this is exactly backwards. World opinion and international legitimacy are two of the things that matter most in international relations -- on par with whatever it is we're trying to accomplish.

    For instance this is why for the original Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom we formed a broad coalition. It's wasn't because there was an actual military need for allied forces.

    Here's a story from today: April 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. military is considering attacks on pirate bases on land and aid for the Somali people to help stem ship hijackings off Africa’s east coast, defense officials said.

    The military also is drawing up proposals to aid the fledgling Somalia government to train security forces and develop its own coast guard, said the officials, who requested anonymity. The plans will be presented to the Obama administration as it considers a coordinated U.S. government and international response to piracy, the officials said.


    Notice how the planning includes humanitarian aid for Somalis and a coordinated international response.

    That's how you conduct a legitimate operation and minimize blowback, vis a vis the cowboy diplomacy, go-it-alone, damn-those-"for-un-ers", do-whatever-interests-us approach of the bulk of today's Right.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "You have said it should not matter. That's not my assumption, it's your position."

    No. I don't think we should go out of our way to alienate world opinion for no good reason. But it should have minimal weight when calculating whether we should do something that is otherwise in our interests.

    "World opinion and international legitimacy are two of the things that matter most in international relations -- on par with whatever it is we're trying to accomplish."

    I disagree with that. "International legitimacy" is basically meaningless unless it is specifically defined. Other countries have there own interests and judge us based upon them. What we need to accomplish is far more important than the biased opinion of other states. That doesn't mean we need to be stupid about it. We should weigh the costs and benefits of each action.

    "For instance this is why for the original Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom we formed a broad coalition. It's wasn't because there was an actual military need for allied forces."

    Doing something because it is useful doesn't mean it is necessary. I'm not opposed to making international law work in our favor, or attempting to craft a legal argument that is convincing to other nations. But if it can't be done, then we still need to act.

    "That's how you conduct a legitimate operation"

    No, that's one way. There are all kinds of problems and costs involved in doing it that way as well. They are just different.

    ReplyDelete