Captain Jack Sparrow would be proud.

For the past 15 years, Somalian pirates have made a killing by hijacking merchant ships off the coats of Somalian waters and holding them for ransom. Just in 2010, the pirates earned between $75 million to $238 million and cost the international community between $4.9 billion and $8.3 billion. It almost makes me wonder, how do I sign up to be with Captain Sparrow?

Governments around the world on the other hand, have not been too happy with their disruption of trade and loss of money. Similarly, the media has tried to paint the issue of pirates in a very bleak manner. Quoting government officials, they claim that pirates are outright criminals bent on making a quick buck. There have even been reports of Somalian pirates allegedly financing terrorism.

Yet, from Somalian lens, this only offers one side of the story. They argue that piracy has only emerged as a response to the illegal fishing and dumping of toxic & nuclear waste onto their shores. Despite the validity of either side, one thing is certain, Somalian piracy is no joke. Each year it endangers lives and costs billions of dollars to combat. Yet before we offer sanctimonious platitudes, we must delve deeper into the origins of Somalian piracy. How did Somalian piracy originate?

Fish in your own backyard!

Somalia, located in the Horn of Africa, possesses the longest coastline in Africa and while this enabled it in the Middle Ages to become a major trading center, it has now has enabled foreign merchant ships to plunder its resources. This has taken place because Somalia has had no central government since the start of the Somalian civil war in 1991. As a result, foreign merchant ships have been able to take advantage of Somalia’s power vacuum while illegally fishing in Somalian waters.

In 2006, the UN stated,

“In the absence of the country’s at one time serviceable coastguard, Somali waters have become the site of an international “free for all,” with fishing fleets from around the world illegally plundering Somali stocks and freezing out the country’s own rudimentarily-equipped fishermen.”

Another UN report found that approximately “$300 million worth of seafood is stolen from the country’s coastline each year.” In relation to this, BBC analyst Martin Plaut says ”Somalia once had rich fishing off its lengthy coastline, but years of over-fishing by foreign trawlers has devastated fish stocks.” This has severely impacted the livelihoods of Somalian fishermen. 

Not only do foreign merchant ships have more advanced technologies to reel in bigger catches of fish, thereby depleting the stocks of fish, they have also used intimidation and aggression through use of “water cannons and firearms” against the native Somalian fishermen.

After futile complaints to the U.N. and with a lack of defense from their non-existent government, the fishermen began to band together to patrol and protect their livelihoods. Thus, Somalian piracy was born.

Peter Lehr, a professor of terrorism at the Scotland’s University of St. Andrews, revealed in a Time’s article that “The first pirate gangs emerged in the ’90s to protect against foreign trawlers.” Today, some of the pirates fleets even retain their respective names from the 1990s such as the National Volunteer Coastguard of Somalia or Somali Marines and this sheds some light on the pirates’ initial intentions.

Apparently, there have even been reports that the stocks of fish (not to be confused with stockfish) have increased back to their original levels. Some contribute this to Somalian pirates because they have been successful in deterring away foreign fishing vessels from their waters while “helping to restore the health of the marine eco-system.” 

New Clear Garbage! (lol)…In the aftermath of the civil war in Somalia, the warring warlords made deals with Asian and European corporations to take their toxic wastes. For example, Ali Mahdi, and other Somalian warlords, made agreements with foreign corporations including a Swiss firm called Achair Parterns and an Italian firm, Progresso to dump toxic and nuclear wastes on Somalian shores and beaches. 

These companies dumped ”radioactive uranium, lead, cadmium, mercury and industrial, hospital, chemical and various other toxic wastes” without proper safeguards and standards as mandated by international law. 

Some could say that these corporations did not intentionally intend on contaminating Somalian beaches and shores. They just wanted to save a quick buck. After all, they were able to pay the warlords “about $3 a ton, whereas to properly dispose of waste in Europe (would) cost about $1000 a ton.” But, does minimizing cost, truly justify blatant irresponsibility and devastation to Somalian marine life and their people?

This issue of dumping toxic wastes was substantiated when the European Green party revealed, that there were illegal contracts between Ali Mahdi Mohamed and European corporations to “accept 10 million tonnes of toxic waste in exchange for $80 million.” 

The UN investigates…In the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami thousands of these toxic containers washed ashore and a UN report found that the people living in the areas were prone to unusually high levels of cancers as well as “respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal hemorrhages and unusual skin infections” and children were being born with birth defects. (Many of these conditions are consistent with radiation poisoning).

Another UN report found that “The current situation along the Somali coastline poses a very serious environmental hazard not only in Somalia but also in the eastern Africa sub-region.” Yet, the full extent of the damage has yet to be documented as Somalia still remains to be one of the most violent places in the world and researchers are still reluctant to venture into. 

The UN special envoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, has regularly asked for the international community to confront the problem of illegal fishing and dumping in Somalian waters. Yet countries of the world have refused to give illegal fishing and toxic dumping the same importance that they give pirates. In 2008, he asked non-governmental organizations “to trace this illegal fishing, illegal dumping of waste” because it was becoming a “disaster off the Somali coast, a disaster (for) the Somali environment, the Somali population.” 

In 2008 at a press conference after a UN Security Council resolution on Somalia, a reporter from the Inner City Press questioned Ambassador Ripert of France on how the issue of the waste would be dealt with. The ambassador sheepishly answered: “I have no comment on the issue.” 

Welcome to the present day mate…Only last week three Somalian men pleaded guilty in U.S. federal courts for piracy which involved a hijacking of a merchant ship that ended in the unfortunate death of four American soldiers. In this end, most nations believe that by increasing their naval presence, they will able to bring these pirates to “justice” while deterring additional piracy. Yet as the Chatham House report on piracy states, “Pirates can be chased on sea, but piracy can only be eradicated on land.”

Currently, piracy primarily exists due to the prospects of lucrative profits. For example, the average pirate is set to make between $33k to $79k a year, whereas the next best “legal” job would bring in $500 annually or $15k for their whole life. In addition to these economic hardships, most Somalis have very few choices; fight for their warlords, join radical Islamists, fight foreign mafia, or starve. So are Somalian pirates just bloody criminals or are they victims of their environment?

Is it indeed easy to blame and make criminals out of pirates. However, we must take everything into consideration with regards to Somalia; their dire economic plight, history, as well as the responsibility of their ex-colonial powers, Britain, France, and Italy, to establish economic and political stability devoid of illegal fishing and dumping of nuclear and other toxic wastes. 

For more info watch the video below. What are your thoughts?        

Comment below!

Read more …

Did not get your share of smooching today? Fret not. Japanese scientists have the solution!

You can now make out with straws. Researchers haven unveiled a prototype internet kissing machine. The idea is to emulate the sensations felt during lip lock.

Takahashi, a gradate student, says “The elements of a kiss include the sense of taste, the manner of breathing and the moistness of the tongue. If we can re-create all of those, I think it will be a really powerful device.” Now before all of you go online and place your orders, just know that for now it is only fitted with a straw, not with an artificial tongue.

Hypothetically, it will be useful for individuals in straining long distance relationships or for people who fantasize a kiss with a celebrity as the machine could record the kiss of the celebrity.

Kate James of Technology Gather writes, “Imagine being able to experience the kiss of Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez, Miley Cyrus, or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley.” On CNN they even mention the possibility to kiss He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, Justin Beiber. Good gracious. What are we coming to?

Technological Isolation

The kissing machine could indeed be a GREAT invention (note sarcasm) yet we must ask ourselves, how isolated and alone do we wish to become.

Yes it is true, the world has become a smaller place due to technology. Distance no longer seems to be dividing people. For example, you can text your lover in Mexico while you teleconference your boss in India. You can even “safely” call a friend while you drive, thanks to the Bluetooth. Yet, even with all this technology we seem to be more and more alone.

Let me define what I mean by being alone. In 2009 the Harris Interactive Poll found that the average internet user spent 13 hours online every week and the Nielsen Company found that the average American in 2010 watched 34 hours of television each week. That is an astonishing 52 hours online and 136 hours of T.V. each month.

Let me not even bother you with the statistics of how much time we spend talking on our cellphones or playing video games. Now, think about the time you actually spend talking to another person face to face and I mean with your undivided attention.

The rise of technology of course does not mean that people are not interacting with each other. It does mean however, that the time of actual face to face contact has dramatically decreased. This has numerous side effects. Spending excessive time online or watching T.V. has not only shown to increase health complications due to inactivity but it also seems to be tearing our societal fabric apart.

Instead of playing sports, we watch sports. Instead of being involved with our children or siblings we watch American Idol. Instead of taking walks and exploring nature we slave away in front of our computer screens, our televisions screens, and our smartphone screens.

Coming back to the kissing machine, it is no doubt silly. Yet, as we isolate ourselves more and more, what will the future look like? Japan already is using robotic pets to keep the elderly company in nursing homes because their children are too busy to care for them. What is next? Living in a virtual world? 

Would you use a kissing machine? Comment below!

Over a decade ago, I remember my classmates in India telling me that the Twin Towers had been hit and that Osama was behind it.

My immediate reaction was “no that can’t be true.” I hurried to my grandma’s after school and was glued to the old television set. I watched with horror as the news channel kept on replaying the images of the towers coming down while my mom frantically tried to get in touch with my dad in NYC.

Fast forward to Sunday. My roommate knocked on my door and asked if I had heard the news. I had not, so I went on the CNN website and waited for Obama’s statement. After hearing the president speak, I was indeed relieved that we finally dealt with Osama.

Celebrations started taking place in DC and NYC. Even outside my window people started screaming with joy. My news-feed on Facebook started to bulge with people’s reactions and then I became torn with a dilemma that still haunts me.

Relief or Euphoria?

OBL killed nearly three thousand innocent civilians on 9/11. Each day he continued to live thereafter caused additional terror and trauma to America. Now, our courageous men in in uniform finally put an end to him. So what was the appropriate emotion I should have been feeling? Relief or euphoria?

David Sirota, a newspaper columnist and a contributor to Salon believes that there is a difference between “relief” and “euphoria.” Sirota writes,

“A euphoric response instead of somber relief suggests that we are celebrating revenge. We are not celebrating an end to the war. What’s a little scary about this: We were once a country that saw violence as regrettable, but sometimes necessary act. But we’re not celebrating end of violence, but the exercise of it.” 

I cannot speak on the behalf of those directly affected by 9/11. Similarly, no one can place themselves in their shoes or understand what they have gone through. I can, however, speak as an American born in Chicago and raised in NYC.

I remember growing up as a child and being taught, “if someone attacks you, tell the teacher. Do not fight back unless it is to defend yourself.” Unfortunately, there is no world teacher to place the bad apples in detention. As a result, you have to stand up and defend yourself. Yet after you defeat your enemy, why is it right to take joy in it? 

I will make you pay, you piece of $#!^!

“Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice.” ~ Proverbs 24:17

Most religions condemn revenge and the celebration of it. However, many of you including myself, believe that religions are not a necessary medium to live a moral and righteous life. So let us take religion out of the debate and try and see why revenge is wrong rationally.

Sir Francis Bacon, an English philosopher, wrote “Certainly, in taking revenge, a man is but even with his enemy; but in passing it over, he is superior.” In essence, Bacon argues that in claiming revenge, a person justifies the same action that the perpetrator is at fault for. As a result, the moral justification is lost and revenge becomes a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, revenge does not right a wrong. In this case, murdering OBL did not undo 9/11. Nor did it eliminate terrorism for it does not solely hinge on OBL but on socio-economic and other fundamental reasons. NO, I am not arguing that we should forget 9/11 and let him go Scott-free. Rather, he should have been captured if possible and jailed for life if not executed after going through a trial. Even the Nazis received trials before they were executed. Osama was no different.

So if revenge does not undo a past action, what does it do? It seeks to give you the same pleasure that was felt by the initial perpetrator. As a result you stoop to your enemy’s level. It also makes blow-back more likely. Confucius says “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves” meaning that it will cost you just the same as your enemy.

Christophe Barbier, the editor of the French weekly L’Express, cautioned: “To cry one’s joy in the streets of our cities is to ape the turbaned barbarians who danced the night of Sept. 11.” Similarly, Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, in response to the UN Secretary General’s relief over Osama’s murder, stated “Ban Ki-moon wrong on Osama bin Laden: It’s not justice for him to be killed even if justified; no trial, conviction.”

I can totally understand why the majority of the people are happy in celebrating OBL’s murder. More than anything, it was a mental victory for them. Maureen Dowd, a columnist of the NYT states that “I want memory, and justice, and revenge.” Is that that how we want to live? Through fear, hatred, and revenge? No, we cannot achieve anything through hatred. Fire cannot be putout by adding more fuel.

So you tell me. Should I feel relief or euphoria?

What are your thoughts? Comment below!

Probably you have seen someone wear them. Perhaps you own a pair yourself. Honestly, I find them quite ugly, disgusting, and just trashy. I am referring to the Crock Shoes. C’mon they are just ridiculous! Does that mean we should ban them? No? Then, why is a Burka or Niqab any different?

A new French law passed on April 11th bars women from wearing the Burka or Niqab in public. The Burka and Niqab are facial concealing veils that a tiny minority of Muslim women wear. Women who break the law will be subject to a 150 Euro fine (about $216) or be forced to register in a French citizenship class.

The flimsy justification by the French is that these veils “undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality.” What are the explicit French standards for living in a shared society? Is the French definition of shared society tantamount to being 100% homogeneous? Do these veils truly relegate its wearers to an inferior status?

Why do some Muslim Women wear the Burka or Niqab?

In a recent CNN story about women wearing Burkas and Niqabs here in the U.S., two Muslim women explained their choices to wear these veils.

A student at the University of Georgia who wears the Hijab or headscarf said “You often see in many societies women being objectified because of how they look or being disrespected.” The hijab helps to “force people who may be otherwise unwilling to take the focus off of our physical appearance.”

A 25 year old mother who goes a step further with the Niqab, which covers her face, said she does this out of her own choice because she believes it brings her closer to god.

Of course interviewing two women is not enough. The Open Society Foundation, which is funded by George Soros, did a study in France and published a detailed report based on the testimony of 32 women in France. These women wear the veil of their own choosing and often in direct opposition of their family members. I share two striking comments:

“We go out. When we have money, we shop; when we don’t, we go window-shopping…Sometimes we hang out together at someone’s place and each of us brings some food. We make ourselves pretty. We have a normal life just like everyone else.” ~ Aisha, Paris

“Why should I remove my niqab? I am not an outlaw, I am not a terrorist, I am not a criminal, I am not a thief. I, who today respect all the laws, the laws of God and the laws of the Republic, will tomorrow become an outlaw.” ~ Camile, Paris.

Despite the validity of their reasons, the question becomes, as long as women are wearing whatever they please, with their own freedom of choosing, what right does France have to say you cannot cover your face?

France’s history with the veil…

The Religious Wars of the 16th Century fueled a hatred for religion in public. As a result, the French are emphatically ingrained with the notion of Laïcit, which is aimed at balancing religious order and public order. However, the veils worn by some Muslim women have never been shown by any study to disrupt that public order. Rather, the French are just disgusted by Muslim women hiding their face.

In fact, France’s problem with the veil goes back to the 1830s. After the “civilized” French attempted to colonize Algeria, the blatant opposition came from the veiled population. It encouraged the imperial French to focus more vehemently to unveiling the veil. One general remarked that Arabs eluded the French because “they conceal their women from our gaze.” In The Politics of the Veil, historian Joan Wallach Scott states that the French crusade against the veil is “a way of insisting on the timeless superiority of French ‘civilization’ in the face of a changing world.”

The controversy of the veil started to take prominence in the mid 1990s when children in France were being suspended because of their religious attire. In response, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom said that the restrictions “may violate France’s international human rights commitments.” Yet some 69% of the French population were in favor of the law.

The Veil Today

The issue of the veil is just the tip of the iceberg. France seems to be infected with Islamophobia. President Sarkozy recently held a debate regarding secularism and Islam in France echoing similar debates which have taken place in Germany and England regarding the “failures” of multiculturalism which have bent specifically towards Muslim integration. Through these measures, France is showing that it has immense insecurity issues at stake combined with intolerance as shown in the deportation of thousands of Roma Gypsies in 2010.

President Barack Obama brilliantly addressed the issue in Cario, Egypt in 2009. Obama stated,

“It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.” 

Today, the US State Department spokesman Mark Toner spoke in obvious disagreement with the French by stating ”I would refer you to the French government for a full explanation of its laws, but we support freedom of religion and expression, and that includes the right to express religious beliefs through religious attire.” However, he did not outright criticize France for the oppressive law. 

If France is correct in unveiling the veils, then France should also outlaw veils worn by brides on their weddings. Isn’t it also demeaning and unjust towards women? 

What are your thoughts? Comment below!

_______________________________________________________________________

Sources and Info:

• BBC NEWS: France issues first fine for woman in Islamic veil:
• CNN: Muslim women who wear the hijab and niqab explain their choice:
• The Brookings Institution: VEILED MEANING:THE FRENCH LAW BANNING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
• Time Magazine: The Politics of Women’s Head Coverings
• USCIRF Annual Report 2004 - France
• Christian Science Monitor: France’s Sarkozy faces rifts on Islam debate
• Guardian.co.uk: France’s deportation of Roma shown to be illegal in leaked memo, say critics
• Time Magazine: Full Text: President Barack Obama’s Speech to the Muslim Word
• Agence France-Presse: US backs right to wear religious attire
• Open Society Foundation: Unveiling the Truth: Why 32 women wear the full-face veil in France

“Counter productive and stupid.” 

Those were the words used by former State Department spokesperson PJ Crowely to describe the conditions under which Private Bradley Manning is being held by the U.S. military at Quantico, Virginia.
 
Private Manning is charged with multiple accounts in relation to leaking thousands of embassy cables, videos, and warlogs from Afghanistan and Iraq. In less than a week after those comments about Private Manning, PJ Crowely was forced to resign.

What is key to remember is that Private Manning has yet to be convicted of any crime. Currently he is awaiting trial and the issue is whether the conditions under which he is being held are humane and just. Do they amount to torture?
 
How is Private Manning being treated?

For the past 10 months, Private Bradley Manning has been confined to solitary confinement for 23 hours a day while being deprived of a pillow, bed sheets, and possessions. Here is the kicker - Private Manning has been placed under a Prevention of Injury Order (PIO). This means that the guards ask him every 5 minutes if he is okay and he is required to answer in some affirmative manner even at night. In addition to this he is forced to strip naked each night.  

The PIO has been in effect even though prison psychiatrists have determined in 16 observation records that Private Manning is not a danger to himself and should be removed from the PIO. Furthermore, he is being forced to take antidepressants.

Isolation. Sleep deprivation. Humiliation. Forced drugs.

Is this the right way to treat a pretrial defendant? Certainly not, argue Harvard Law School Professor Yochai Benkler and Bruce Ackerman, professor at Yale Law School. In an open letter they write:  

 “The sum of the treatment that has been widely reported is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against punishment without trial. If continued, it may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, ‘the administration or application…of… procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.”

They are not alone in calling for an end to Private Manning’s torture.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations, as well as the Britain and Germany have called on the U.S. State Department to review the punitive pretrial conditions under which Private Manning is being kept. In particular, British Foreign Office Minister Henry Bellingham stated that the conditions “must meet international standards.”

In addition to this, the US advocacy group Physicians for Human Rights have also called on to put an end to the cruel and usual pretrial punishment which Private Manning faces. Susan McNamara writes regarding solitary confinement,

“That is a huge problem, as it is designed to break a person down psychologically. Solitary confinement is a form of sensory deprivation, and if you are depriving a person of the human contact they need that can amount to torture.” She added: “In the US, if a patient was treated in a psychiatric hospital in the same way the military is treating Manning, the federal government would stamp all over it … [it] is disobeying its own rules.”

Innocent until proven guilty has been a bedrock principle in the American courts and yet for the past 10 months, the conditions Private Manning is being subjected to reflect the quite opposite. Even if Private Manning is guilty, these measures are not in accordance with a civilized society in the modern world.

In Jan 2009, Obama had claimed “that under my administration the United States does not torture” and that “We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.” Does the punitive pretrial treatment of Private Manning for over 9 months reflect this? No.

Quite contrary, it shows that Obama does not care about justice. His words are hollow and he is spineless in standing up to torture. This is not the hope or change that Private Manning deserves.

Obama’s message is… Yes We Can Torture.

What are your thoughts? Comment below!

______________________________________________________________________

Sources and more info:

• Associated Press: UK to press US over treatment of WikiLeaks suspect

• Harward Law School: Benkler in The New York Review of Books: Private Manning’s Humiliation

• Amnesty International: US accused of inhumane treatment over Wikileaks soldier case

• Guardian.co.uk: PJ Crowley resigns over Bradley Manning remarks

• Gaurdian.co.uk: Bradley Manning’s military doctors accused over treatment
• Germany - An appeal to Obama over a U.S. prisoner’s treatment