The Pirates of the Somali Coast

[Fitz1980]

The pirate/hostage situation off the coast of Somalia has been resolved.

For those of you who don't know the background. A US flagged cargo ship was attacked and taken over by pirates off the coast of Somalia. The crew managed to retake the ship but not before a few of the pirates had boarded a lifeboat with the captain as a hostage. Their boat had been drifting without fuel for a few days and the Navy SEALS came in and snipers killed the pirates ad rescued the hostage.

One pirate had abandoned the life boat and surrendered to the Navy earlier. He made the right choice, what did they expect to happen when they were drifting and surrounded by navel vessels?

[boomdriver]

My guess is the pirates thought we would *****-foot around and negotiate the release, and they would escape with a profitable payday. or at least their lives. We did the right thing, and hopefully send a message to other pirates that the USA is not to be fooled with. That area is thick with pirates, and swift and final justice is the only thing they understand.

[maxnude]

Miscellaneous Topics not covered in other sections but still related to nude recreation.

I don't think the Pirates of the Somali Coast have much to do with nude recreation.

This thread should be moved to another category or "Open Conversation"

[nakedstudent]

The pirate/hostage situation off the coast of Somalia has been resolved.

For those of you who don't know the background. A US flagged cargo ship was attacked and taken over by pirates off the coast of Somalia. The crew managed to retake the ship but not before a few of the pirates had boarded a lifeboat with the captain as a hostage. Their boat had been drifting without fuel for a few days and the Navy SEALS came in and snipers killed the pirates ad rescued the hostage.

One pirate had abandoned the life boat and surrendered to the Navy earlier. He made the right choice, what did they expect to happen when they were drifting and surrounded by navel vessels?

haha... the situation is hardly resolved. It is well documented that even as the American hostage was rescued, the pirates were relocating other ships with hostages from many other countries on them.

I hope that the world will have the strength to continue standing up to these pirates. They were hijacking a vessel carrying food to underdeveloped countries in Africa.

[Bob S.]

maxnude, you are right. Moving momentarily. Put on your seat belts!

Bob S.
moderator

[Fitz1980]

Sorry about the location thing. I'm actually not that familiar with the topics around here. I always use the "Latest Post" feature unless I'm starting the topic.

[Big-Thinker]

I think the whole pirate situation, or should I say our vulnerablity/sitting-duck situation, is unbelievable. They need to say the hell with international law of the sea, shipping insurance company requirements, etc. and hire either private or US/NATO military soldiers on each ship, to protect each ship from pirates ever boarding in the first place.

I would think that all it would take would be one or two special-forces type elite soldiers with some ulimate weaponry to protect a ship from these relatively small boats of pirates. They should call out by radio and/or loudpeaker if deemed appropriate and if they get anything other than a reponse confirming that they are a friendly boat, sink them to the bottom of the ocean with world-class firepower - end of story.

The safety of the cargo ship people aside, this would be a much cheaper solution for the insurance companies and NOW the US freakin' military!

[roaddog]

From what I read in the news today, the pirates leaders has stated that they will avenge the deaths of the pirates killed by the US forces. I would consider that a declaration of war. At which time all UN stupidity can stop. Any "Fishing boat" in the indian ocean or the gulf, which doesn't actually have fishing equipment(AK47 is not a fishing rod) must be a pirate ship and should be sunk. It is not necessary to kill the pirates, just let them walk home.
I would drop a couple of hunter killer subs on the sea bed just off Somalia, and every boat in the water can be tracked and targeted using the sonar of these wonderful war machines. What better practice do our guys need? The submarine service doesn't seem to have much to do in Iraq, if I am not mistaken these subs are actually faster than the little skiffs used by the pirates. How can a tiny skiff be 500 miles off the coast? They just don't have the range, they must have a mother ship somewhere. Find it , sink it, after all the sea is a dangerous place to be, and accidents happen all the time.

These people would hold the whole world to ransom, they have to be shown that there is no profit in this, while people keep paying them they will keep doing it.

I have written to several shipping companies in the UK offering my services as rifleman, but as yet I have no replies. I would much rather be on board several thousand tonnes of bulk carrier, than on a tiny boat bouncing around in the swell, a small boat would be difficult target, but those outboards are very fragile.

Rant over.

Cheers
Mick

[Eternity]

Those pirates used to be fishermen, big fishing companies emptied their part of the ocean so they turned to crime. This pirate problem will get much worse as long as overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change continue to cause mass fish extinction around the world.

[inudist]

Those pirates used to be fishermen, big fishing companies emptied their part of the ocean so they turned to crime. This pirate problem will get much worse as long as overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change continue to cause mass fish extinction around the world.

Hold up here.

Piracy is a centuries old enterprise that existed long before big fishing companies, industrial pollution, climate change, etc.

Oh those poor, oppressed pirates! Let them continue to rob, kidnap and demand ransoms becauase they are really the victims.

Pirates are CRIMINALS out to make a quick buck. Please give me a break here.

[Eternity]

Hold up here.

Piracy is a centuries old enterprise that existed long before big fishing companies, industrial pollution, climate change, etc.

Oh those poor, oppressed pirates! Let them continue to rob, kidnap and demand ransoms becauase they are really the victims.

Pirates are CRIMINALS out to make a quick buck. Please give me a break here.

I wasn't justifying their actions and I'm not saying these people invited piracy.
The massive increase in piracy is a minor side effect caused by a much larger problem, namely the mass extinction of fish in the ocean. Piracy will only continue to increase if the larger problem isn't solved.
Do you think the millions of people who are now living on a sea based diet will peacefully starve to death when the oceans have run out of fish in 50 years?

[Naturist Mark]

Hold up here.

Piracy is a centuries old enterprise that existed long before big fishing companies, industrial pollution, climate change, etc.

Oh those poor, oppressed pirates! Let them continue to rob, kidnap and demand ransoms becauase they are really the victims.

Pirates are CRIMINALS out to make a quick buck. Please give me a break here.

These Somali pirates are not the descendants of Black Beard and the Dread Pirate Roberts hoisting the Jolly Roger for over 2 centuries, Somali piracy is not a continuation of "Pirates of the Caribbean". Somali piracy is the direct result of the failed Somali state and the subsequent economic devastation of the traditional fishing economy - mostly due to international business exploiting the lack of government control of Somali waters. This has resulted in large factory fishing ships from Europe and Asia fishing the formerly abundant waters to near extinction. International toxic waste - including nuclear waste (http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1567/1/) - has been dumped in the unregulated national waters poisoning coastal villages and the remaining fishing stock in some areas.

Somali waters are among the most traveled in the world, being at the crossroads of European, Asian and African maritime routes. The Somali coastline is larger than America's East Coast. With the collapse of the only means of support - and means of feeding - the coastal population, the lure of piracy has been irresistible. It isn't right, but you'd be doing it if the same happened to your community.

That is not to say that the strongest means should not be used to stop the piracy. But it won't be enough. These pirates are saving the lives of their families and neighbors and communities. They will continue the piracy so long as death is the alternative. So would you.

BBC: Piracy symptom of bigger problem (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8001183.stm)

[nakedstudent]

Those pirates used to be fishermen, big fishing companies emptied their part of the ocean so they turned to crime. This pirate problem will get much worse as long as overfishing, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change continue to cause mass fish extinction around the world.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right...

Are you defending their current trade?

It really sounds to me like you're apologizing for these people in this post and saying they're ok because they care about the overfishing, etc.

That's just complete lunacy. Piracy isn't justified no matter what arbitrary excuse you or anyone else can make for them.

These men don't care about the environment. They care about money and supplies. If they cared about the infringement on their fishing grounds, they'd attack fishing vessels. Instead they attack cargo ships that carry food to their own countrymen.

[Boreas]

These Somali pirates are not the descendants of Black Beard and the Dread Pirate Roberts hoisting the Jolly Roger for over 2 centuries, Somali piracy is not a continuation of "Pirates of the Caribbean". Somali piracy is the direct result of the failed Somali state and the subsequent economic devastation of the traditional fishing economy - mostly due to international business exploiting the lack of government control of Somali waters. This has resulted in large factory fishing ships from Europe and Asia fishing the formerly abundant waters to near extinction. International toxic waste - including nuclear waste (http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1567/1/) - has been dumped in the unregulated national waters poisoning coastal villages and the remaining fishing stock in some areas.

Somali waters are among the most traveled in the world, being at the crossroads of European, Asian and African maritime routes. The Somali coastline is larger than America's East Coast. With the collapse of the only means of support - and means of feeding - the coastal population, the lure of piracy has been irresistible. It isn't right, but you'd be doing it if the same happened to your community.

That is not to say that the strongest means should not be used to stop the piracy. But it won't be enough. These pirates are saving the lives of their families and neighbors and communities. They will continue the piracy so long as death is the alternative. So would you.

BBC: Piracy symptom of bigger problem (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8001183.stm)

I think you and Eternity are making some good points. I also get frustrated when people who blame the individual for social problems think that such an explanation is a justification or acceptance of something that is unacceptable. How do we get this point across in a way that effectively changes things?

[Eternity]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right...

Are you defending their current trade?

It really sounds to me like you're apologizing for these people in this post and saying they're ok because they care about the overfishing, etc.

That's just complete lunacy. Piracy isn't justified no matter what arbitrary excuse you or anyone else can make for them.

These men don't care about the environment. They care about money and supplies. If they cared about the infringement on their fishing grounds, they'd attack fishing vessels. Instead they attack cargo ships that carry food to their own countrymen.

You totally misunderstood me on all those points, read the 2 posts above yours

[jon71]

I get it. It's not about defending piracy (of course) it's about seeing the chain of events (political and economic upheavel) that led to it's current prominence and dealing with it from there.

[Naturist Mark]

I get it. It's not about defending piracy (of course) it's about seeing the chain of events (political and economic upheavel) that led to it's current prominence and dealing with it from there.

Yep, and it is about realizing that "getting tough" on piracy alone will not solve the piracy problem. I'm not saying that it isn't necessary to get tough, but realize it will not stop the piracy. Making desperate people even more desperate is not clear thinking.

[Boreas]

Yep, and it is about realizing that "getting tough" on piracy alone will not solve the piracy problem. I'm not saying that it isn't necessary to get tough, but realize it will not stop the piracy. Making desperate people even more desperate is not clear thinking.

"Getting tough" on things like piracy is a "downstream" approach. It is pulling people out of the water downstream, rather than looking upstream to see who is putting all those people in the water in the first place.

[inudist]

Yes I'm very aware of the desperate conditions in Somalia and that desperate people do desperate things.

But I also don't believe that anyone here would be apologizing for these criminals if they killed or kidnapped for ransom one of their loved ones either.

[nakedstudent]

Aren't all consequences "down stream" answers?

Should we live in a society without consequences for one's actions?

If Somali pirates were really upset about fishing ground invasion, why do they target cargo ships that do no fishing at all?

I don't even know of US fishing companies that fish off of Africa's coast either... The ends of traveling that far don't justify the means.

If it was really a specific disagreement, the pirates would be much more specific in who they target.

[nakedstudent]

I wasn't justifying their actions and I'm not saying these people invited piracy.
The massive increase in piracy is a minor side effect caused by a much larger problem, namely the mass extinction of fish in the ocean. Piracy will only continue to increase if the larger problem isn't solved.
Do you think the millions of people who are now living on a sea based diet will peacefully starve to death when the oceans have run out of fish in 50 years?

Oh now I understand... Global Warming and over fishing of an area with no reef system are responsible for piracy...

World's fishing grounds (outlined in red where nutritious water is):
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/media/supp_cur04a.html

Location of Somalia:
http://byrev.blog-u.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/africa-map-blank.gif

Somalia is well north of the commercial fishing grounds in Africa.

The only reason Piracy continues in that area is because there hasn't been a stable government in Somalia for almost 20 years. This leaves the shore areas increasingly lawless.

I will even cite my opinion:

http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2009-04-10-voa36.cfm

[Fitz1980]

Aren't all consequences "down stream" answers?

Should we live in a society without consequences for one's actions?


Who said no consequences for actions? The President sure didn't; he said that we don't give into hostage takers, and gave the order to use force if necessary. The French certainly didn't think no consequences as they arrested 11 pirates on a ship. When somebody does commit a crime we have to deal with that person who commited the crime but at the same time when we see a pattern of crimes we should try to figure out what is leading to that pattern and try to curb it at the source.

[Naturist Mark]

Somalia is well north of the commercial fishing grounds in Africa.

Oh come on, that is deliberately obtuse ... now explain just how close Somalia is to Somali fishing 'grounds'.

The depletion of the fish stock is primarily the result of overfishing by foreign fleets taking advantage of the lack of Somali government regulation on commercial fishing in Somali waters - because there is no Somali government.

Oddly enough there is a word for this type of exploitation - piracy.

[jon71]

Aren't all consequences "down stream" answers?

Should we live in a society without consequences for one's actions?

If Somali pirates were really upset about fishing ground invasion, why do they target cargo ships that do no fishing at all?

I don't even know of US fishing companies that fish off of Africa's coast either... The ends of traveling that far don't justify the means.

If it was really a specific disagreement, the pirates would be much more specific in who they target.


I knew that we would have to explain the fact that actions have consequences to a conservative. Here it is. The action of American and international corp.s coming in with big fishing boats and squeezing the small time locals out of their own waters had the consequence of pushing them to look for another livelihood, namely theft (piracy).
When talking about how to deal with it I think we should use the same two pronged approach that works best for dealing with crime in America. First is the traditional "get tough" approach. Secondly is to create/grow positive alternatives. The biggest piece of this is that they need a legitimate way to make a living. Certainly we won't allow them to kill or steal but they won't just oh so politely twiddle their thumbs until they starve to death either and it's completely unrealistic to expect them to. If we establish a real and legitimate way for Somalis to make a living and apply harsh penalties for piracy the problem should drop dramatically.

[Eternity]

Creating positive alternatives is need but I'm not sure if we still have time for that. The world's fish and seafood populations will collapse by 2048 if current trends in habitat destruction and overfishing continue.
That hardly seems to bother the media, I guess reporting about pirates makes more $$$.

[inudist]

When talking about how to deal with it I think we should use the same two pronged approach that works best for dealing with crime in America. First is the traditional "get tough" approach. Secondly is to create/grow positive alternatives. The biggest piece of this is that they need a legitimate way to make a living. Certainly we won't allow them to kill or steal but they won't just oh so politely twiddle their thumbs until they starve to death either and it's completely unrealistic to expect them to. If we establish a real and legitimate way for Somalis to make a living and apply harsh penalties for piracy the problem should drop dramatically.

Yes I do agree with this two pronged approach. The second part has proven difficult in the past as the country has been in chaos for many years. But what is the solution? Get the US in another war? I don't think we have the stomach for it. The U. N.? sure. Teach Somali's how to build fish farms? Not with the current political or lack of political state. Any answers?

[NudeAl]

I found it interesting that the decline in fish in the ocean,primarily due to over fishing, is terribly under reported. I watched something on PBS about it showing that the decline in fish is leading to an increase in other less complicated animals such as the humble jellyfish. They are quickly growing in number due to their less complex systems and filling the void left by the once competing number of fish.

I can certainly see how those comunitities who rely on the ocean for food are going to react violently to having thier food source taken away. I have been to some of these countries in the south pacific who are facing this as well as rising ocean levels. This is a bad combination for these island nations. I look for more of the same. It's interesting to note that some of the more forward thinking of these nations have been pettitioning other governments to allow their citizens to immigrate as they feel those nations most responsible for climate change should allow those displaced by it a place to live. Mixed results so far it seems that just because your home is under water may not be a good enough reason.

[Boreas]

I knew that we would have to explain the fact that actions have consequences to a conservative. Here it is. The action of American and international corp.s coming in with big fishing boats and squeezing the small time locals out of their own waters had the consequence of pushing them to look for another livelihood, namely theft (piracy).

What about actual consequences to this piracy?

Too often big corporations and corrupt leaders, including those leading or who lead Western countries get off scot free, while the little guy gets penalized.

As others have said, no one said anything about not punishing the pirates. The point is, they should not be the primary focus. They are part of a bigger picture.

[Sanslines]

Who said no consequences for actions? The President sure didn't; he said that we don't give into hostage takers, and gave the order to use force if necessary. The French certainly didn't think no consequences as they arrested 11 pirates on a ship. When somebody does commit a crime we have to deal with that person who commited the crime but at the same time when we see a pattern of crimes we should try to figure out what is leading to that pattern and try to curb it at the source.

The western nations see the pattern of crimes. The western governments understand the problem. Yet the western governments are not willing to sacrifice their young men and women in a never ending and ongoing saga of African tragedies. A person does not need to look much beyond the endless genocide in areas such as the Sudan to know that killing, violence, and destruction may very well be a very deeply imbedded part of the culture. Western governments are not willing to invade and occupy countries in order to stop the kilings. This was attempted during the colonial occupation era and we all know how well that turned out.

[Sanslines]

Creating positive alternatives is need but I'm not sure if we still have time for that. The world's fish and seafood populations will collapse by 2048 if current trends in habitat destruction and overfishing continue.
That hardly seems to bother the media, I guess reporting about pirates makes more $$$.

Yes and human overpopulation is driving this world to extinction.


"Over three quarters of our planet are covered by the oceans. Their biodiversity (http://overfishing.org/pages/biodiversity_of_the_oceans.php) is unmatched and they contain over 80 percent of all life on earth, mostly unexplored. Millions of people worldwide are depending on the oceans for their daily livelihoods. More and more all this is endangered because of ignorance and a global lack of management (http://overfishing.org/pages/what_can_I_do_to_help.php).
Overfishing.org is an independent (http://overfishing.org/about/) source of information on the most dangerous threat (http://overfishing.org/pages/what_is_overfishing.php) our oceans are facing today."

What is causing overfishing

Worldwide, fishing fleets are two to three times as large as needed to take present day catches of fish and other marine species and as what our oceans can sustainably support. On a global scale we have enough fishing capacity 4 (http://overfishing.org/pages/what_is_overfishing.php#note4) to cover at least four Earth like planets.
On top of the overcapacity many fishing methods are unsustainable in their own way. These methods have a large impact on the basic functioning of our marine ecosystems. These unselective fishing practices and gear cause tremendous destruction on non target species. Bycatch 5 (http://overfishing.org/pages/what_is_overfishing.php#note5) / discards 6 (http://overfishing.org/pages/what_is_overfishing.php#note6) and bottom trawling destruction are two examples of this.

The single best example of the ecological and economical dangers of overfishing is found in Newfoundland, Canada. In 1992 the once thriving cod fishing industry came to a sudden and full stop when at the start of the fishing season no cod appeared. Overfishing allowed by decades of fisheries mismanagement was the main cause for this disaster that resulted in almost 40.000 people losing their livelihood and an ecosystem in complete state of decay. Now, fifteen years after the collapse, many fishermen are still waiting for the cod to return and communities still haven't recovered from the sudden removal of the regions single most important economical driver. The only people thriving in this region are the ones fishing for crab, a species once considered a nuisance by the Newfoundland fishermen.

http://overfishing.org/

[nakedstudent]

Oh come on, that is deliberately obtuse ... now explain just how close Somalia is to Somali fishing 'grounds'.

The depletion of the fish stock is primarily the result of overfishing by foreign fleets taking advantage of the lack of Somali government regulation on commercial fishing in Somali waters - because there is no Somali government.

Oddly enough there is a word for this type of exploitation - piracy.

Mark,

There are 3 flourishing democracies directly bordering the most fertile fishing grounds on the Eastern Coast of Africa. Mozambique has been coming along since the 80's, South Africa is there, Madagascar became independent from the French in the 60's.

Regarding specifically Somalia's coast, I concede that there aren't any super powers over there that have naval capacity to enforce all regulations they make. But at some point here, people are going to have to realize that it is not a requirement for the US to enforce sovereignty of the waters of other countries.

In truth, this is just more overwhelming evidence of the complete waste of time and money the UN has become. I am not familiar with the UN resolutions regarding fishing waters in the region, but if the pirates' claim is true, they are obviously ineffective.

Furthermore, the fact that the Maersk Alabama was a cargo ship shows that these pirates are about something more than protecting fishing water. If it was truly only about the fish as some of you claim, they would allow ships like the Alabama which are OBVIOUSLY not fishing vessels pass through peacefully.

If they were truly about protecting their fishing rights, why would they ask for money as ransom instead of UN protective actions?

[Sanslines]

Furthermore, the fact that the Maersk Alabama was a cargo ship shows that these pirates are about something more than protecting fishing water. If it was truly only about the fish as some of you claim, they would allow ships like the Alabama which are OBVIOUSLY not fishing vessels pass through peacefully.

If they were truly about protecting their fishing rights, why would they ask for money as ransom instead of UN protective actions?

The piracy has absolutely nothing to do with fishing. Vessels, such as the Maersk Alabama have absolutely nothing to do with fishing. They are delivering food and supplies to the starving people's of African nations. Rather then welcome such ships with open arms, the pirates attack them in a clear statement that they are much more interested in extortion of money from wealthy shipping companies and obviously don't care that (in the process) they are starving their own people to death.

[nakedstudent]

The piracy has absolutely nothing to do with fishing. Vessels, such as the Maersk Alabama have absolutely nothing to do with fishing. They are delivering food and supplies to the starving people's of African nations. Rather then welcome such ships with open arms, the pirates attack them in a clear statement that they are much more interested in extortion of money from wealthy shipping companies and obviously don't care that (in the process) they are starving their own people to death.

Exactly. I think the soft apologies we've seen in this thread are ridiculous. It's absurd to think that fishing rights are the sole reason for the piracy we've seen. I've heard reports that some of the hijacked boats were WELL outside of fishing grounds and in international shipping channels.

[Naturist Mark]

Mark,

There are 3 flourishing democracies directly bordering the most fertile fishing grounds on the Eastern Coast of Africa. Mozambique has been coming along since the 80's, South Africa is there, Madagascar became independent from the French in the 60's.

Again, you are being deliberately obtuse. We aren't talking about what are "the most fertile fishing grounds" in African waters, we are talking about the fishing grounds that Somali fishermen used to derive a living for their families from. The productivity of Mozambican fishing "grounds" has little relevance to Somalis or the problem of piracy in Somali waters.

Furthermore, the fact that the Maersk Alabama was a cargo ship shows that these pirates are about something more than protecting fishing water.Please tell me this is deliberate obtuseness on the part of a high school teacher and not the actual level of comprehension.

The pirates are not attempting to enforce fishing regulations in their coastal waters. There is hardly any fishing industry left to regulate. The pirates are trying to make money in the only way they can think of in order to keep their families from starving. They used to do that by fishing - when there were fish. Don't you get it?

It is Les Miserable - they are not stealing bread in order to regulate the bakery industry, they are trying to feed starving kids.

I think the soft apologies we've seen in this thread are ridiculous. Again with the faux (I hope) cluelessness. Nobody is excusing piracy. We are trying to explain why violence isn't enough to end this plague. The livelihood (fishing) of the coastal Somali population has been eradicated. They have resorted to piracy out of desperation. As always when there is a job that requires danger and violence, they are sending their young men out to do it. Making it a more deadly occupation won't stop it, these young men are being sent out to die if they must in order that their families may live. But it should make them more willing to kill. Making desperate people stop doing something by making them even more desperate isn't good thinking, even for conservatives. It won't stop until someone figures out a way for them to overcome their desperation.

So instead of making foolish noises, how about brainstorming a way to give desperate former fishermen in a failed state with no government a means of providing for their families? It isn't an easy nut to crack, is it? How about putting a few of those brain cells that have been devoted to deliberately misstating the issue to solving it?

[Sanslines]

The pirates are not attempting to enforce fishing regulations in their coastal waters. There is hardly any fishing industry left to regulate. The pirates are trying to make money in the only way they can think of in order to keep their families from starving. They used to do that by fishing - when there were fish.

SOMALIA: Piracy threatens aid delivery - analyst

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=80732



The facts about Somali Piracy:

Piracy in Somalia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_Somalia

[Sanslines]

The best way to sum up the situation in and near Somalia is with the old Marvin Gaye song: "Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology Song)" This song applies as much today as when it was produced over 30 years ago.

[Sanslines]

So instead of making foolish noises, how about brainstorming a way to give desperate former fishermen in a failed state with no government a means of providing for their families?

The problems of Africa go well beyond some pirates providing for their families. Colonialization of Africa by the European and British nations didn't turn out very well. Self rule has been one disaster after another.

The first place to start is by human population control. Africa has an enormous population growth that is dooming the environment to total destruction (including driving all of the animals to extinction) and guarantees endless starvation and disease.




"Africa, with 13% of the world's population, is projected to see 34% of the globe's population increase over the next 50 years. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette-7/12/99 Africa has 13% of the world's population, and 69% of the world's HIV or AIDS cases. Still, the population of the African continent is expected to rise from 800 million now to 1.8 billion in 2050, because the fertility rate of 38 births per 1,000 people is still much higher than the mortality rate of 14 deaths per 1,000. Also, 43% of the continent's population is under age 15

Africa now produces nearly 30% less food per person than in 1967.

Since 1950 nearly 75% of tropical forests in west Africa are gone and Nigeria, Kenya, Burundi, Cote D'Ivoire and Madagascar -- lost more than 90% of their original forest.

Botswana
Population 1.304,000. Growth rate 1.4. Fertility rate 4.0. In Botswana, 25% of all adults are HIV-positive. It's 1980 life expectancy of 61 years has dropped to 47 years. By 2010 it will be 38. Nevertheless, population is expected to double by 2050.

Cape Verde (West Africa)
Prolonged drought and desertification are huge environmental problems in Cape Verde. Each year for the past 20 years, the country has been getting less rainfall. These droughts cause crops to fail, and in the worst cases, famine. Many people cut down trees and bushes for firewood to cook their meals. With fewer trees, the soil on the bare ground gets washed away by rain or blown away by wind. This process is called "desertification." Since Cape Verdean girls do most of the firewood collecting, they have an important part to play in preventing desertification!

Cote D'Ivoire
The population is 15.4 million and growing at 3.3 percent annually. The country has a high urbanisation of 54.4% with the capitol Abidjan hosting 45% of the population. The population density is 48 inhabitants per two square kilometres. The minister for planning, programming and development said that the only way to reduce the rapid population growth in the country would be by educating women and young girls on the importance of family planning, especially in the rural areas where poverty compels parents to give away their teenage daughters into forced marriages for material gains.

Democratic Republic of Congo
A least 14 million out the population of the Democratic Republic of Congo, estimated at between 46-48 million, suffer from extreme nutritional deficiency, according to Michel Kassa of the UN Development. Children were particularly hit by the war-induced phenomenon. He emphasised that the situation in the country was one of the most pathetic and complex in the African region, with massive violations of the population's rights. Since August 1998 when rebels backed by Rwanda and Uganda, the war's first victims have been the civilian population, unlike classical warfare. Poor infrastructure problems made it virtually impossible to reach vulnerable groups. 10% of the displaced people in the North-Kivu region were practically cut off from access to medical care or food and were thus dying in the forests from hunger and disease. According to UNDP estimates, the ongoing war had caused a rise in maternal mortality, which now stands at 1,800 per 100,000 births, making it the third or fourth highest death toll in the world.

Ethiopia
The population is 62 million, making Ethiopia the third largest in population of African countries, following Nigeria and Egypt. The growth rate is 3.9% even though life expectancy is only 42 years. 10% of the Ethiopian women have access to family planning services while it was only 4% 6 years prior, according to the National Population Office of Ethiopia. The national population policy states that the number of children in a family should not exceed 4.

Nigeria
With 110 million people, Nigeria has the 10th largest population in the world, a growth rate of over 3%, expected to double in 25 years. Less than 3.5% of married women use contraceptives and the average woman has 6.4 children. Life expectancy is only 54. 45% of the population is under age 15. 11% of children die before the age of five.

Somalia
Somaliland is home to two million people. 95% of women in Somalia have undergone female genital mutilation. "It's inhuman, condemned by Islam, painful, harmful to health and a human rights violation," said Edna Adan Ismail, a woman's rights activist, former representative of the World Health Organisation in Djibouti, and once married to Somalia's former prime minister Mohamed Ibrahim Egal. In Somaliland, one child in eight dies before its first birthday, one in five before its fifth. Every year, almost 4,000 women die during childbirth.

The list goes on and on. The African Continent is in a rapid cycle of total and primarily self imposed destruction. Unless a miracle happens and this cycle is finally broken, the African continent will become the 'death continent'.

http://www.overpopulation.org/Africa.html

[Sanslines]

Overpopulation is the problem in Somalia (as in most nations):

THE POPULATION EXPLOSION
by Paul and Anne Ehrlich

Having considered some of the ways that humanity is destroying its inheritance, we can look more closely at the concept of "overpopulation." All too often, overpopulation is thought of simply as crowding: too many people in a given area, too high a population density. For instance, the deputy editor in chief of Forbes magazine pointed out recently, in connection with a plea for more population growth in the United States: "If all the people from China and India lived in the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska), this country would still have a smaller population density than England, Holland, or Belgium."

The appropriate response is "So what?" Density is generally irrelevant to questions of overpopulation. For instance, if brute density were the criterion, one would have to conclude that Africa is "underpopulated," because it has only 55 people per square mile, while Europe (excluding the USSR) has 261 and Japan 857. A more sophisticated measure would take into consideration the amount of Africa not covered by desert or "impenetrable" forest. This more habitable portion is just a little over half the continent's area, giving an effective population density of 117 per square mile. That's still only about a fifth of that in the United Kingdom. Even by 2020, Africa's effective density is projected to grow to only about that of France today (266), and few people would consider France excessively crowded or overpopulated.

When people think of crowded countries, they usually contemplate places like the Netherlands (1,031 per square mile), Taiwan (1,604), or Hong Kong (14,218). Even those don't necessarily signal overpopulation—after all, the Dutch seem to be thriving, and doesn't Hong Kong have a booming economy and fancy hotels? In short, if density were the standard of overpopulation, few nations (and certainly not Earth itself) would be likely to be considered overpopulated in the near future. The error, we repeat, lies in trying to define overpopulation in terms of density; it has long been recognized that density per se means very little.

The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.

By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted—and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons.

Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. Like the profligate son of our earlier analogy, they are spending their capital with no thought for the future.

It is especially ironic that Forbes considered the Netherlands not to be overpopulated. This is such a common error that it has been known for two decades as the "Netherlands Fallacy." The Netherlands can support 1,031 people per square mile only because the rest of the world does not. In 1984-86, the Netherlands imported almost 4 million tons of cereals, 130,000 tons of oils, and 480,000 tons of pulses (peas, beans, lentils). It took some of these relatively inexpensive imports and used them to boost their production of expensive exports—330,000 tons of milk and 1.2 million tons of meat. The-Netherlands also extracted about a half-million tons of fishes from the sea during this period, and imported more in the form of fish meal.

The Netherlands is also a major importer of minerals, bringing in virtually all the iron, antimony, bauxite, copper, tin, etc., that it requires. Most of its fresh water is "imported" from upstream nations via the Rhine River. The Dutch built their wealth using imported energy. Then, in the 1970s, the discovery of a large gas field in the northern part of the nation allowed the Netherlands temporarily to export as gas roughly the equivalent in energy of the petroleum it continued to import. But when the gas fields (which represent about twenty years' worth of Dutch energy consumption at current rates) are exhausted, Holland will once again depend heavily on the rest of the world for fossil fuels or uranium.

In short, the people of the Netherlands didn't build their prosperity on the bounty of the Netherlands, and are not living on it now. Before World War II, they drew raw materials from their colonies; today they still depend on the resources of much of the world. Saying that the Netherlands is thriving with a density of 1,031 people per square mile simply ignores that those 1,031 Dutch people far exceed the carrying capacity of that square mile.

This "carrying-capacity" definition of overpopulation is the one used in this book. It is important to understand that under this definition a condition of overpopulation might be corrected with no change in the number of people. For instance, the impact of today's 665 million Africans on their resources and environment theoretically might be reduced to the point where the continent would no longer be overpopulated. To see whether this would be possible, population growth would have to be stopped, appropriate assistance given to peasant farmers, and certain other important reforms instituted. Similarly, dramatic changes in American lifestyle might suffice to end overpopulation in the United States without a large population reduction.

But, for now and the foreseeable future, Africa and the United States will remain overpopulated—and will probably become even more so. To say they are not because, if people changed their ways, overpopulation might be eliminated is simply wrong—overpopulation is defined by the animals that occupy the turf, behaving as they naturally behave, not by a hypothetical group that might be substituted for them. [p.p. 37-40, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, THE POPULATION EXPLOSION; Simon and Schuster, 1990. Phone: 212-698-7000]