The role of Resources in COnflict- Issue XII

VOX - The STudenT JOurnal Of POliTicS, ecOnOmicS and PhilOSOPhy iSSue Xii - Summer 2010

34

resources and their role in conflict By Bethany Donkin

SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR IN THE EARLY 1990s,

and the ideological divide between communism and capitalism, certain aspects of conflict have become much more prominent as states have had to find alternative sources to fund their conflicts. There is no longer any need for so-called super-powers, such as the United States of America, to fund con-flicts in different parts of the world. The incidence of conflicts by proxy, which were closely linked with the Cold War, has been reduced. Instead, conflicts have developed a highly dis-tinctive element relating to the desire to control resources. This control of resources can fund conflicts, allowing them to be sustained over generations, such as in Angola. However, this need to control resources can also be linked to a need to support economic growth within a state, such as the situation in the South China Sea. The necessity of control often specifically relates to which resources are being controlled. For example, those linked to economic growth are most often oil and natural gas, whereas resources that allow con-flict to be sustained over generations,

as in Africa, are typically mineral re-sources such as diamonds. Therefore, the role of resources has become a crucial element to modern conflict, but the importance of these resources depends on their individual nature, and the initial reasons for the conflict. Disputes over resources may not be the reason that conflict begins in a state, but the fact that this type of resource-related warfare most fre-quently appears in developing coun-tries cannot be ignored. The resource based dimension to conflicts can often be a contributing factor as to why this type of conflict may be so protracted. Post-colonial states are often seen as particularly vulnerable to resource conflict, explaining the geographic concentration of resource conflicts to areas like Africa and South-East Asia. Post independence, countries of-ten enter a transitional phase in their development. These anocracies are a unique mixture of autocracy and de-mocracy specific to the state, and are notoriously politically unstable. This causes states to appear weak, especially politically, making them particularly vulnerable to conflict. Post-colonial

VOX - The STudenT JOurnal Of POliTicS, ecOnOmicS and PhilOSOPhy iSSue Xii - Summer 2010

35

governments can sometimes identify with a certain set of interests - wheth-er these are ethnic interests, in the case of the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, or politi-cal - since the interests of the colonial power may be represented more effec-tively than the will of the people. This can often lead to dissatisfaction within the state, as certain groups may feel excluded, and such discontent with the state and its institutions can result in conflict. However, conflicts require a huge amount of funding to equip the military for warfare, which is where resources become crucial to modern conflict. In states where resources are lootable, for example mineral wealth such as diamonds, it becomes relatively easy for groups to find the necessary funds to engage in conflict. These lootable resources are normally classified as timber, narcotics, or min-erals such as diamonds or gems. Min-eral wealth has been particularly as-sociated with the funding of conflict in Sierra Leone and Angola. In these cases, states could, for a long period of time, sell diamonds on the inter-national market to fund their ongoing conflicts.

With market leaders such as De Beers

in South Africa purchasing these dia-monds, it was relatively easy for war-ring factions to secure the funding necessary to continue the conflict. This was curtailed to an extent by the diamond embargo which the United Nations (UN) placed on Angola and Sierra Leone to prevent conflict dia-monds from getting into the global market, and therefore dramatically re-duced the funding available to warring factions. Diamond funded conflict is also further reduced by the Kimber-ley Process, which requires rough dia-monds to be certified. Most diamonds mined from these states get sold into the Western Market and by the UN initiating such a process, coupled with their status as a luxury good, their high cost means that many people want the appropriate documentation to show that the diamond is of value. This made it much easier for the UN to place sanctions on states, thereby reducing their ability to fund conflict through a resource such as diamonds. Yet this is not appropriate for other lootable resources, such as timber, as they are much more difficult to restrict in a similar way. Resource conflicts are not solely concerned with resources which can be exported. Unlootable resources such as oil, natural gas and water are also a huge source of conflict. Many countries have changed their defence policies to ensure that the resources they import from other states, on which their economy is dependent,

Conflict have developed a highly distinctive element relating to the desire to control resources.

VOX - The STudenT JOurnal Of POliTicS, ecOnOmicS and PhilOSOPhy iSSue Xii - Summer 2010

36

remain safe. For example, the United States of America signed an agree-ment with the Kingdom of Saudi Ara-bia to protect it from external threats. The oil found in the Persian Gulf is essential to America and its economy, therefore America feels that it is neces-sary to safe guard this resource. This means that countries are willing to in-tervene to ensure the safety of parts of their economy, enforcing the no-tion that resources are a huge factor in conflict. Essential resources for life, such as oil and water, are seen to be much more likely to start large scale conflicts in comparison to lootable re-sources. Due to such resources often crossing state boundaries, and many oil reserves being found under the sea, claims to these resources can become much more contested in comparison to those on land. In the case of water,

countries further up stream can have control over how much passes through to other states – states that may be en-tirely reliant on this water. With growing economies in many developing countries being de-pendent on importing resources such as oil, to be less dependent is seen positively. Furthermore, with growing populations, more and more pressure is being put on these resources, and states are willing to use conflict to en-sure the survival of their population. The World Bank suggests that a state is four times more likely to experience conflict if it has primary commodities than if it does not. Therefore states with these resources are likely to be experiencing, or to have recently ex-perienced, conflict. This implies that resources are integral to the funding of warfare, as modern conflicts, unlike

VOX - The STudenT JOurnal Of POliTicS, ecOnOmicS and PhilOSOPhy iSSue Xii - Summer 2010

37

the super-power funded wars associ-ated with the Cold War, are becom-ing self-funded. Collier suggests these conflicts are started solely to further personal interests, with greed as the driving force. However, the ‘paradox of plenty’ is where countries with natural resources, and particularly those which are non-renewable, often experience less economic growth and development, suggesting that multiple factors are required for conflict to break out. These factors include mac-roeconomic instability, a government dominated by the elite and corrupt, oppressed groups within society, and a significant proportion of society living in poverty. When combined, such fac-tors make conflicts funded by resourc-es, or conflicts breaking out due to an unequal distribution of resources, much more likely. Natural resources can be ex-ploited solely for personal gain; how-ever exploitation is driven by greed

which can lead to a much more un-equal distribution of resources, mak-ing conflicts within in a state much more likely. Therefore it can be seen that such conflicts revolve around the ‘predatory exploitation of lucrative natural resources’ (Ballentine, 2001, pg1). Thus, although conflict may be-gin due to a sense of grievance, with factions feeling that they have a cause worth fighting for, if a war is seen to be more profitable than peace, then sadly greed and personal gain could be seen as huge contributing factors in a lot of drawn out and bloody resource-related wars.

Bibliography available online at www.voxjournal.co.uk_____________________________Beth Donkin is a first year undergraduate student reading Politics, Philosophy and Eco-nomics at the University of York.