This is a very controversial topic among world leaders. Somalia has been a hot spot for pirates hijacking ships along the Gulf of Aden for many years. Piracy in Somalian waters hit its peak around 2010, and it has receded since 2011. This is mainly due to the world leaders cracking down on pirates. This meant stronger enforcement of international laws, specifically those against piracy. But, it does pose a major threat not only to the shipping industry, but the world as a whole.
While piracy has simmered down due to stricter laws and enforcement of those laws, it leaves pirates with nothing to do. Not only has law enforcement gotten stronger, but ships are now being fortified and protected. It makes it extremely difficult for pirates to successfully hijack and ransom off ships coming through the area. This gives the pirates no option to resort to other measures in order to still reel in money and get their word out (as they claim this to be their main purpose). With the advancements in technology we have seen over the years, pirates can get their hands on more advanced equipment.
This ties in greatly with the threat of terrorism converging with piracy in the Somalian area. With the growing international presence of terrorist groups like ISIS, it is possible to see a emergence of a ISIS camp spawning up in the area. As stated in the lecture, much of the south is controlled by Islamists. It is just a theory, but it is entirely possible that terrorist groups can converge or align with the Somalian pirates. This is a huge threat to global security, as ISIS is known for their bombings and millings of innocent civilians around the world. As I said, this is just a theory. This has not happened yet and there is no research that I can find on it so far. But, I would not be surprised if I heard something on CNN about it someday in the near future. That being said, Somalian piracy is still a threat to the global community. Even though it has declined since 2011, we cannot underestimate them.
Monday, October 31, 2016
Monday, October 24, 2016
EU Migration- A security issue?
By: Dom Dellamano
Overall, migration of Syrian refugees into the EU has become a controversial topic over the last decade or so. Due to a inhumane living environment torn apart by death and destruction, these people are just looking for a home. There are about 13 million Syrian refugees looking for a better life (Syrian Refugees), and many of them have moved towards the EU. But, it has created much controversy due to the large number of people fleeing the country, as well as the security threats they pose. Overall, I do believe that they are a human security issue due to the fact we cannot vet them all, and because of how they fit into society.
One security factor they pose is how we cannot vet them all. The problem with this is that there is often no written documents regarding these people's lives. In essence, it is harder to separate the terrorists from the innocents. I am not opposed to letting in Syrian refugees, but there is a huge problem with this. If we cannot vet them, we are letting them into our countries with no idea of what they can do. I do not believe that all Syrian refugees are terrorists, but not being able to vet all of them is something that cannot be overlooked. Because of this, it poses a threat to human security.
Another thing that makes it a threat to human security is the fact that they would have this interesting role in society. The thing about allowing this migration is the permanence of their stay. Would they live there for the rest of their lives? Or, would they go back to Syria once it becomes more hospitable? While giving them a temporary home for some time is entirely feasible, there are no systems in place that allows them to live in these countries permanently. Countries are already allocating resources to allow these immigrants to live in these countries. Letting them live there permanently means allocating even more resources that could be put (or could have been put) towards something more important to aid the country domestically (such as education, roads, police equipment, etc.). Overall, it is a interesting topic to explore. It can have many negative implications, but it can also have some positive implications. Either side can make a good argument, so it is very intriguing to hear both sides of it.
Bel-Air, By Françoise De. "About This Website." Syrian Refugees. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
Overall, migration of Syrian refugees into the EU has become a controversial topic over the last decade or so. Due to a inhumane living environment torn apart by death and destruction, these people are just looking for a home. There are about 13 million Syrian refugees looking for a better life (Syrian Refugees), and many of them have moved towards the EU. But, it has created much controversy due to the large number of people fleeing the country, as well as the security threats they pose. Overall, I do believe that they are a human security issue due to the fact we cannot vet them all, and because of how they fit into society.
One security factor they pose is how we cannot vet them all. The problem with this is that there is often no written documents regarding these people's lives. In essence, it is harder to separate the terrorists from the innocents. I am not opposed to letting in Syrian refugees, but there is a huge problem with this. If we cannot vet them, we are letting them into our countries with no idea of what they can do. I do not believe that all Syrian refugees are terrorists, but not being able to vet all of them is something that cannot be overlooked. Because of this, it poses a threat to human security.
Another thing that makes it a threat to human security is the fact that they would have this interesting role in society. The thing about allowing this migration is the permanence of their stay. Would they live there for the rest of their lives? Or, would they go back to Syria once it becomes more hospitable? While giving them a temporary home for some time is entirely feasible, there are no systems in place that allows them to live in these countries permanently. Countries are already allocating resources to allow these immigrants to live in these countries. Letting them live there permanently means allocating even more resources that could be put (or could have been put) towards something more important to aid the country domestically (such as education, roads, police equipment, etc.). Overall, it is a interesting topic to explore. It can have many negative implications, but it can also have some positive implications. Either side can make a good argument, so it is very intriguing to hear both sides of it.
Bel-Air, By Françoise De. "About This Website." Syrian Refugees. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
EU-Syrian Migration
The European Union
has 28 member countries and of those 26 are members of Schengen. The Schengen
area consists of 26 countries that have abolished border control at their
mutual borders. This means people may travel freely within this area from
country to country essentially. While the EU has long been struggling to form
policy it is an extremely difficult task to accomplish when there are 28 member
states each with his or her own ideas and ways of governing. Additionally, it
is difficult to decide a way to divide the share of the refugee burden amongst
the 28 states considering the economic conditions and size of each country
vary. Although the EU has already taken in refugees, I think they should do
more to help those fleeing war and inhumane conditions. Countries such as
Hungary, Macedonia and Slovenia have already built fences along their borders
to keep thousands of migrants from entering, which in turn leads to more
migrants trying to smuggle themselves into various countries.
I think it is especially
important for countries to open up their doors to migrants because in cases
like this they are not willingly trying to move, but rather seeking a better
situation than the one they have at home. Children don’t have access to basic
needs and therefore families are forced to seek out a better and safer home for
their children. While many see these people as threats it is unfortunate that
the acts of a few dangerous refugees blind people from seeing that most of
these people need help and are innocent. It is important for the government to
find a way to reassure its people and put them at ease as many of them see the
entrance of migrants as a security issue. These security issues can be split up
into several areas including fear of worsening economic insecurity and actual
threat to their national security. Many people in the host countries fear that
they will lose their jobs or be up against incoming migrants. While many others
also think these people are seeking claim as refugees to come in and instill
terror. Whatever peoples reasoning may be I think more migrants should be let
in so long as there is no threat to the country letting them in.
Post by Hedvig Blanco
Into the Soul of an Anti-Immigration Party
Post by Anthony Coppola - October 24, 2016
In 2015, over a million people fled their homes to seek refuge from danger--and in response, numerous political groups have formed to oppose the influx of these people invading their country’s borders.
One of these anti-immigrant parties is the Golden Dawn. The Golden Dawn is a violent, far-right party that has gained traction in Greece. With the crisis of immigration taking prominence, the Golden Dawn, according to The Guardian, has gained the support of hundreds of thousands of Greeks, winning 7-percent of the popular vote in the 2015 general election; this is third place behind Syriza and New Democracy.
According to The Huffington Post the Golden Dawn was founded in 1980 by Nikos Michaloliakos, a man who was imprisoned for engaging in “bomb attacks in Athens.” In 1996, in its first elections, the party gained 0.1 percent of the popular vote. 2009 was their next attempt at elections, where they gained, yet only captured 0.3 percent of the popular vote. And in 2015, again, they won 7-percent of the vote.
Again, this same petty party from 1996 and 2009 out of the blue won 7-percent of the vote in 2015. In a span of 7 years, this radical party went from 0.3 percent of the vote to 7 percent. Why is it that the party seemingly out of nowhere became the third largest party in parliament?
The Golden Dawn, whose party symbol resembles the Nazi swastika, prides itself as the party of the country of Greece, claiming itself as the “only nationalist choice,” according to The Guardian. They are extreme nationalists, and only wish to protect Greece and its people--a tune that many citizens of Greece sympathize with. The Golden Dawn claims to be the spirit of Greece, of “country,” and that refugees seeking asylum pose a danger to the country’s national security and overall traditional culture.
According to The Huffington Post, the Golden Dawn proposes “to arrest and deport all ‘illegal immigrants’ and hold them in detention camps that ‘will not resemble five-star hotels’ between arrest and deportation.”
Clearly, the Golden Dawn has no love for foreigners entering their land--but, is the party which claims to be the heart of Greece simply taking advantage of the immigration crisis to gain popularity in Greek politics? The situation certainly only helps them politically, and they can decry the current government as traitors and failures in order to become more powerful and influential as they flaunt their “nationalist” muscles.
At a rally, the Golden Dawn’s spokesman, Ilias Kasidiaris, was blunt: “The problem all these sellouts [in government] have is not that Greeks will soon be a minority in our own country, but that Golden Dawn's poll numbers will rise. Of course Golden Dawn's numbers will rise, because Golden Dawn is the Greek spirit!”
The Golden Dawn, as it continues to gain legitimacy in Greek politics, has tried to distance itself from similarities to the beliefs of Nazis. But, their links to the ideology cannot be ignored--and if they continue to gain the support of Greeks, we may face a future threat not necessarily from the Golden Dawn, but from a group like it that is perking the ears of extreme “nationalists.” Will this refugee crisis spark a new Nazi regime?
Security threats and EU Migration
Post By Brianna Arnold
In the
European Union, there are 26 countries that participate in the free movement of
people or Schengen. This means that people do not need to have a passport to
move between these participating counties. With attacks like Paris and Brussels
some may argue that the openness of these countries is what allowed the
terrorist attacks to occur. It is easy to drive through the countries in Europe
that are apart of Schengen and there are not checkpoints that would allow for
people transporting illegal goods or gun to be caught. This is what happened in
the devastating terror attacks in Paris. Three cars filled with guns and
ammunition and three teams of trained guerillas from ISIS killed 132 people and
injured 350.[1] This was
a horrible attack on innocent people but no one will ever know if the attack
could have been prevented if there was stricter borders. In theory it wouldn’t
have, but that is not a sound argument against open borders.
The
migrant crisis brings about many questions about the efficiency of open borders
and presents the EU nations with security threats. Since 2004, there have been
instances of migrant groups going to Europe, most often Italy. However, in the
spring of 2015, the number of refugees increased dramatically. It is obvious
that the migrants are experiencing security threats in many different ways,
however, the countries in Europe that are experiencing an increase in migrants
are also experiencing a security threat. This is a threat to both their
national security and their ontological security.
In
terms of the national security threat, it is more obvious how the European
nations are feeling this threat. They are having people enter their country
without restrictions and without knowledge of their intentions while they are
there. Going back to the Paris example and Schengen in general, there is a
threat to countries in the EU who might not be accepting migrants but who are
apart of Schengen and therefore the migrants could also enter their country. By
no means do all migrants enter these European countries for the sole purpose of
executing terrorist activities, but it is a fear for these European countries.
These
countries are also experiencing ontological security threats. This means their
identity and way of life is being threatened. The result of this feeling, in
some ways is the emergence of anti-immigration groups. For example, the group
known as Pegida is a group formed in Germany that protests the number of
refugees arriving in the country. At one protest there was talk about a house
that was bought by the country for the refugees being burned down.[2] This
type of violence is a result of these types of ontological security threats. In
other words, the people of Germany that join this group are trying to protect
German culture and have a great sense of Nationalism, and these feelings are
increased because of the migrant crisis.
These
security threats that the European nations are feeling, both national and
ontological, should not be a reason to close borders and not allow migrants into
the counties. Schengen also should not be reversed for these security reasons.
There could be an argument made to reform Schengen to allow for more
communication between the countries but completely abolishing the open border
system would be a step back for the EU. I would argue that the security threats
to the migrants are greater than those of the European nations and therefore
the countries have an obligation to allow migrants into their country. This
should be the thought as long as allowing the migrants into the country does
not have negative results on the host nation.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Is EU Migration a Threat to Human Security?
By Chirusha de Mel
During the 1980s, migration became a security
issue in security studies. The duality of threats apparently caused by
migration to both national sovereignty and human security are largely reflected
in much of the recent academic literature. [1] However, I believe that EU
Migration should not necessarily be a threat to human security. Human migration
has existed for hundreds of years. Many individuals flee their country in order
to seek for protection, freedom, and a better opportunity. From a personal
perspective, I know my parents were forced to leave Sri Lanka due to the
threats my father received as a human rights lawyer. When they came to the
United States, they had to start a new life, and since then they have been
grateful for the opportunities that were given to them. I believe that
migration, has helped our nation become more economically stabilized.
In addition, the migration that took place in
Europe in the 19th century has changed dramatically, by transforming
into a consolidated state with fixed frontiers policed by state authorities,
and the European countries became more peaceful and wealthy.
Most individuals that are trying to escape
countries, are the ones who are facing violence. Most of the time migrants do
not want to move, but in order to protect themselves and their families, the
only way to survive is by migrating to different countries. For example, Syrian children — the nation’s hope for a better future — have
lost loved ones, suffered injuries, missed years of schooling, and witnessed
unspeakable violence and brutality. Warring parties forcibly recruit children
to serve as fighters, human shields, and in support roles, according to the
U.S. State Department.[2] Many individuals desire to live the ‘American Dream,’ it
is unfortunate that many are not able to live a proper life, due to the incidences
and violence that occur within their country. We do not understand the pain and
suffering they have to go through, and it is saddening that the ones who need
help the most are the ones who are posed as a threat to security, because of
where they come from. The innocent civilians who were caught in violent attacks
should not been seen as a threat to human security.
Migration
should also be understood in the context of interlinked flows of goods, finance,
and people. The flow of goods and finance is an example of facilitated growth
in the economy. Migration can also bring benefits to tourism industries, and
have a positive influence on the efficiency of local works. Lastly, links with
other cultures in developing countries will increase international trade
greatly. According to Travis, more than 60% of
new migrants from western and southern Europe,
who account for 900,000 of the 2 million who work here, are now university
graduates. For eastern Europeans, 25% are graduates – similar to the proportion
in the UK-born workforce.[3]
EU
migration should not be seen as a threat to human security, because of the many
opportunities that are given to individuals. Not only does it give
opportunities to the migrants, but also sustains the economy positively. Therefore,
it is important to see both sides of migration, and how it can be increasingly
well for the country.
[1] Thompson, C., 2013. Frontiers and Threats: Should
Transnational Migration Be Considered a Security Issue?. Global Policy Journal,
20.11. <
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/20/11/2013/frontiers-and-threats-
should-transnational-migration-be-considered-security-issue >
[2] @WorldVisionUSA. "Syria Refugee Crisis FAQ: What You
Need to Know | World Vision." World Vision. N.p., 12 Sept. 2016.
Web. 22 Oct. 2016.
[3] Travis, Alan. "Mass EU Migration into Britain Is
Actually Good News for UK Economy." The Guardian. Guardian News and
Media, 18 Feb. 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016./.latest_citation_text
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Is Somalia Piracy Justifiable? -Repost 10/2/16
By Chirusha de Mel
Let’s start off with a little background about Somalia. Somalia is located near the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. Since 1991 the government of Somalia is unstable and does not have a centralized government. The lack of leadership and the civil war left the Somalian individuals to fend for themselves. The nation went through many droughts, and wars. Due to the lack of governance, Somalia was becoming desperate. Since Somalia does not have a consolidated democracy the Western nations find this as a perfect opportunity to take advantage of Somalia’s seas and exploit their resources, by illegally fishing and dumping poisonous toxins into their sea. This became a distinctive predicament for Somalia. The Somalian pirates initiated to ‘protect’ their sea as ‘coast guards’ by hijacking ships/cargos that have major profit. Some may agree that their actions are justifiable because they do not have a centralized government. I disagree because the Somalian pirates are not acting as coast guards and that their actions are not justifiable and therefore should be considered as a terrorism act.
In the article, Debunking the Piracy Myth, by Stig Jarle Hansen, “argues that it is wrong to claim that Somali pirates are driven by idealistic motives—protecting the Somali coastline—or even to claim that piracy started out as a coast guard activity; the pirates’ deeds simply do not match their words, and pirates never did behave as a ‘coast guard’(Hansen)”. Hansen also mentions that piracy is profit driven. The Somalia piracy targets boats that bring the most profit. Pirates also avoid attacking the targets which are compared to attacks against fishing ships. Therefore, the pirates hunting ground, indicates that Somali pirates have no interest in attacking illegal fishing boats. Importantly, “in 1991, foreign fishing trawlers aggressively moved into Somalia’s rich and unpatrolled waters, at the expense of coastal fishing villages. Angry Somali fishermen secured weapons and began firing on foreign trawlers.” (Waldo, Mohamed). This clearly indicates that these actions are not justifiable and that they derive revenues from these cargos.
With this in mind, the Somalian pirates began to outreach to the public by indicating that they know what they are doing is wrong, but it is the only way to get attention from the public. Many may think this is a desperate call for help to unstable their weak central government. However, this is just a psychological need for self-justification among the pirates.
Above all, it seems pertinent to remember that, due to the weak government they act in piracy. However, it does not mean Somalian pirates are right by hijacking ships for ransom. As well as using their weapons to kill foreign invaders. This can be seen as a terrorism attack. In comparison to my argument individuals can say, that some pirates are supporting the local population by having food program supplies. According to Hari, “the independent Somalian news-site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent “strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defense of the country’s territorial waters.” As you can see, this argument can go both ways, but it is important to note that their actions by killing innocent civilians are not justifiable and that there are other proper ways to negotiate how to recover their weak central government.
Hari, Johann. "You Are Being Lied to About Pirates." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Are Weak States
Security Issues?
While I do think
weak states have the potential to be security issues as they are more likely to
fall vulnerable to terrorists, organized crime and radical groups I believe the
U.S. should develop strategies to fight specific threats, but only when they pose
an immediate threat to the U.S. and its interests. The United States tends to
meddle in foreign affairs; however, sometimes our interests seem to be
motivated by self-interest. During our class discussion we talked about whether
the U.S. should interfere with other country affairs and what the U.S.’s
motives might be. In my opinion, we should go into foreign countries, but only
if it is a threat to our security. We discussed several instances where the
U.S. sometimes goes into countries simply to take advantage of natural
resources such as oil because we’re motivated by our own hidden agenda.
However, it can be deemed that our “real” interests are never the reason we
actually go into these countries. According to our political leaders there are
other reasons such as human rights violations or weapons of mass destruction in
the hands of bad groups that force us to take action and invade these areas.
Though the U.S. has helped many regions around the world it is not our duty to
police the affairs of other countries unless we are directly in danger because
of them. I understand helping countries that are our allies and having a moral
obligation to intervene in some cases, but nevertheless we have many problems
within the U.S. that we could be working to solve that should trump our foreign
objectives.
I found the argument
presented in the Moore article in response to Fukuyama's book interesting as it
pointed to two theories for the prevalence of weak and failing states in the
South and the East. The first, the culture theory explains the problem of the
various peoples of these regions who by reason of inheritance or temperament
are ill suited to work with the institutions of modern governance and
democracy.[1] The second, derives from
the fact that these countries are poor and this poverty leads to bad government
because those with power want to grab it for themselves. Additionally, poverty
leads to low levels of education and thus a lack of understanding of the value
of democratic and constitutional processes.[2] This article draws on a
third explanation that isn't discussed in Fukuyama's book. Which attributes the
reason to the fact that these poor countries and their citizens now share the
globe with rich and powerful countries that have created global market institutions
and have a long global reach, whether political or economic.[3] I think that this third
reason is true to a certain extent. I think large powers such as the United
States underestimate their sphere of influence and the effects they have on
smaller weaker states. While big and thriving states are not at fault for the
weaknesses of governments in the South and East they could do more to change
the international environment and influence these weak states.
Post by: Hedvig Blanco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)