How important are natural resources in causing civil wars - Coursework Example

Natural Resources causing civil wars Introduction Natural resources are significantly important in causing the bulk ofcivil wars. The natural resources that cause these wars are largely oil and hard rock minerals. These include oil, gold, coltan, diamonds, and other gemstones. In addition, other types of resources also play a role in causing these wars for instance, water sources and diverse forest resources1. Between 1965 and 1999 there were seventy-three civil wars, approximately all instigated by greed to control resources, notably diamonds, oil, copper, coca, cacao, and bananas. Studies indicate that countries with dominant primary export resources have over a one out of five chance of civil war in whichever given year. On the other hand, there is a one in a hundred chance of civil wars in nations without such dominant resources. Over 90 percent of victims in these civil wars are civilians. At the beginning of the twentieth century, war victims were 90 percent soldiers. Wars instigated by natural resources with their demoralizing effects on civilians have become the norm2. Over half of the conflicts instigated by the natural resources are found in Africa. This is because several African states are highly reliant on mineral exports, oil, and gas hence; they are extraordinarily prone to resource-related wars. In the majority regions of the world, the ending of the Cold War necessitated a sharp reduction in the number of civil wars, as France, Soviet Union and the U.S. decreased their monetary aid for marginal uprisings. The number of armed conflicts outside of Africa dropped by half between 1992 and 2001; hitherto in Africa the number of wars has roughly remained constant. Furthermore, armed conflicts have become more rigorous within Africa3. The lack of involvement of government is a key route by which natural resources boost the risk of civil wars. This is because resource-rich administrations become detached from their voters since they do not require other major tax revenues. This means that these governments do not care much for their citizens. They cannot solve the minor disputes in the local communities. This ultimately instigates armed conflicts while the communities try to resolve their issues. In several resource-rich communities the resource revenues are not deemed as belonging to common citizens equally as income taken from them in taxes; hence the detachment. The government is capable of ignoring the concerns of the citizens hence instigating resource use conflicts4. Resource wealth also tends to advance civil wars through giving people who live in resource-rich areas an economic inducement to form a detached state. The people in these regions seclude themselves from the rest of the population and control much of the nation’s resources. This is considered as an aspect of unequal distribution of resources in a country. Consequently, the regions within the country that have scarce resources, instigates wars as they try to win control over these resources. The people in the regions of abundant resources often will fight back to protect the control of these resources. This is because they typically bore a lot of the costs of the exploitation process itself because of land degradation, environmental pollution and the in migration of labour from other parts of the country. Once the resources are exploited and distributed to other parts of the country, a lot of discontents arise. They commonly believe that the central government was unjustly appropriating the affluence that belonged to them, and that they would be richer if they were a separate state5. In addition, important natural resources are typically found in only one section of the country, frequently in a marginal area. The people who live in this region are ready victim for secessionist political movements, which can insert the influential language of economic self-interest: dishonest and unfamiliar elite are misusing ‘our’ resources. This consequently leads to aggressive counteracts in which civil wars arise in attempting to gain favour by the governments. Bulky natural resource revenues make it more probable that a civil war will be secessionist. For example, Africa’s secessionist wars like Katanga, Cabinda and Biafra have generally been linked to natural resources6. A disagreement over how to share the benefits of mineral wealth partially instigated the civil war in the Sudan. In 1983, Sudanese President Numeiry instituted several actions that offended the fragile balance between the predominantly Muslim north and the heavily Christian and Animist south. Among these actions was his choice to place the freshly discovered oil in the south, under the control of the north, and to construct an oil refinery in the north rather than the south. Consequently, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) afterward grumbled that the north was stealing the resources of the south, including oil. They therefore demanded that work stop on a pipeline that took oil from the south to the refinery in the north. As a result, in February 1984, they attacked an oil exploration base, killing three alien workers and making the project to stop. The Government then retaliated through war instead of retorting to the SPLA’s demands. So far, the war has killed an approximated two million people7. Resource extraction in the modern age continually spurs tremendous violence and war. In a 1997 studies that scrutinized the economic performance of ninety-five countries found that the higher a nation’s dependence on particular natural resource exports the slower their economic growth rate and the higher the risks of civil wars. It was also found that more that fifty-four large-scale civil wars that happened between 1965 and 1999 were significantly and considerably triggered by reliance on primary commodity exports. High levels of oil and timber dependence are particularly strongly suited to rebel predation. This overdependence of primary resources especially oil instigates resource wars in two ways. One, wars occur within the country when local communities are displaced to give way for extraction of these resources. On the other hand, the war can be across Nation’s boundaries where each nation wants to have control over a shared resource8. The unlawful utilization of natural resources has appeared as a main means of financing armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War. In several diverse countries, the sale of natural resources in war regions has not only generated wicked incentives for war, it has also supplied warring parties with the money needed to sustain some of the most cruel hostilities in modern history. These countries include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghani- stan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and East Timor. Armed clashes where partakers can draw upon easily reachable natural resource wealth are frequently financially costly, obstinate and more bloody than other types of armed conflicts. This is because of the unlawful trade in timber, metals, minerals and other natural resources9. There an increasing concern that armed violence is progressively becoming the means to individual profitable ends: achieving access to precious resources. For instance, this ruin of beliefs and politics informs the supposition of the UN Security Council that the management and utilization of natural resources stimulates and finances parties liable for the maintenance of war in the Democratic Republic of Congo10. In addition, natural resources add to the risk of civil war by providing a clear source of finance for insurgent groups. Finances form these resources greatly facilitates the revolts even though the conflict is not inspired them. This is because the progressing leaders can buy arms and pay recruits for the conflict. Thirty years ago, insurgent groups principally had to rely on a welcoming government for money and armaments but now conflicts have been privatized. This means that markets in natural resources and arms have grown to the degree that insurgent groups can be autonomous. Insurgent groups achieve access to natural resource rents in a number of ways. One is to run defence rows against the companies or citizens who are the exporters. Another is to engage in extractive businesses openly. Yet another is to trade indulgences to mineral rights in expectation of succeeding control of the territory. Several armed conflicts and warfare in Africa were helped in one way or the other by these schemes of natural resource financing. Some of these include the protracted practicality of UNITA in Angola, the aggressive gangs of the Nigerian Delta and the victorious rebellions of Laurent Kabila in Zaire and of Denis Sassou-Nguesso in Congo Brazzaville11. Several people have died of disease and famine owing to conflicts over copper, oil, diamonds, and other diverse resources as armed insurgents rape, plunder and kill making life-producing economic activities hard and not possible. A lot of countries have armies’ organized and myriad insurgent groups have fought to manage rich deposits of copper, diamonds, gold, timber, and expensive cobalt and coltan in the Congo, one of the resource richest nation on the globe. International witness accounts that in spite of being the fourth major oil producer in Africa, Congo Brazzaville has international debt of 6.4 billion dollars ensuing from the various wars in the country12. Studies indicate that individuals or countries will fight one another to gain access to the resources needed for their survival. This asserts that the more limited the resource, the more intense the fight. A notable example is the continual degradation of Easter Islands’ natural resources by its Polynesian occupants, which ended through much fight and cannibalism until the population was reduced drastically. Due to environmental degradation, resources’ of a country becomes scarce. This often deprives its inhabitants of the economic activities that aid their survival. Most local communities primarily depend on the natural resources for their survival. Consequently, when these resources become scarce conflicts over control and use of the scarce resources always arise. Communities will fight to get a share in these resources for survival. In addition, due to global climate change, water resources become scarce. This causes conflicts over control of the scarce water sources mostly between herders and cultivators who have differential interests in the water. However, there are some counter-arguments to the generality of the scarce resource war viewpoint. First, resource scarcity and population increase can cause socio-economic improvement, including a diversifying the economy, which regularly results in an impartial sharing of power across society. Second, global trade and market methods can offset localized scarcities to some extent or stimulate inventions and transfers in resources. Third, in countries with scarce resources, the government highly depends on the diversified fiscal contributions from society than in resource- rich countries, therefore is more probably to be representative and answerable towards it, hence less brutality. Lastly, it is in the concern of the elite of resource- poor countries to enlarge and connect human capital, instead of protecting scarce or non-existing resource rents13. Scarcity of water is another serious cause of armed conflicts. For example, at present, one in four people on the planet lack access to safe drinking water. It is estimated that with worldwide utilization of fresh water doubling in the next several years, there are all sorts of water war scenarios and conflicts. For instance, in Palestine, Israel’s confiscation of scarce water is a key issue and on many other borders water conflicts are foremost incidences. Another good example in Africa is the conflicts over the control of the Nile waters by various countries. Egypt primarily used and depended upon these waters. Other countries downstream feel that the Egyptians overuse the water from this river, which often instigates conflicts over its control. As water sources become scarce globally, conflicts over use and control of the available limited water sources continue to affect the Globe14. Shared resources between countries and communities can also cause severe conflicts. Individuals and societies can instigate a fight over several issues, including tangibles like regions and water resources. Arguments can also come about over what can be termed as contraventions of national respect. The capture or endeavoured capture of resources or territory by one nation from another happens when authority relations allow a greedy scheme to be first considered, and then evaluated practicable and afterward attempted. For instance, in 1990, such a sequence caused armed conflict when Iraq captured Kuwait in hunt not of water but of oil. Dominion over oil resources is only seldom unclear. Only small quantities of crude oil reservoirs are found directly underneath national borders. Kuwaits extreme pumping of the oilfield underneath the Iraq-Kuwait boundary was in this case alleged as the cause for the attack. More importantly, the pumping of oil from a certain oilfield was much less significant than the observed capriciousness of Kuwait in pumping and selling oil at a rate that had the result of reducing the global price for producers15. If a nation has extremely precious resources that can be mined with slight training or investment, it will be hard for the state to enforce law and order in the extractive region. Such resources may include tanzalite, coltan or alluvial gemstones. These types of mineral deposits draw large volumes of artisanal miners to the typically rural areas where the state’s authority is weak. Land claims become precious in these regions, yet the limitation of the state’s power makes it hard for petitioners to inflict or protect their property rights through lawful actions. As a result, they repeatedly opt to extralegal actions, including conflicts, to institute claims and arbitrate disputes. The efficacy of conflicts generates a demand for associations such as rogue military units, criminal gangs, and warlords. These organizations will use unlawful means to impose mineral claims for a cost. In addition, the amalgamation of feeble, corrupt state authority and sturdy criminal associations can make possible the rise of insurgent associations16. Abundance of resources in a particular country also has some pacts in causing civil wars. According to this assertion, chief resources are easily and greatly taxable, and are thus attractive to both the ruling influential and their contestants. The jeopardy of greed-driven clashes will be increased due to the notion that the accessibility of plentiful resources symbolizes the ‘prize’ of government or regional control. Eventually, such armed violence tends to be commercialized. This means that they are distinguished by both the incorporation of trading in natural resources into their financial system and a shift from political towards private economic programs. in addition, a nation’s natural resources bequest pressures both its political economy and kind of governance. Natural resources profusion is related in several of these analyses to deprived economic growth and governance. These two aspects are normally linked with a bigger probability of wars. This relationship is pragmatically displayed by the high risk of armed conflict faced by chief product exporters. Plentiful renewable resource in nations that are poor as well as non-renewable resources in each nation raises the likelihood of armed conflict17. Interest politics is another major cause of resource conflicts. Politics in this aspect is concerning the competition for control of revenues accruing from natural resources. This generates politics of bribery that foreign commercial behaviour assists and supports, and at times, directs politics of conflicts. This corruption causes resources to be plundered hence instigating resistance and eventually violence from affected communities. The impact is greatest in low-income nations since the control of the government implies enormous returns in similar to other income-earning activities. In addition, these politics of rent seeking redirects the public dome from its usual role of attaining the combined action that is needed to provide public goods; that is, the social and economic infrastructure that all communities require. In the fight for resource rents, other resources are dispersed and the delivery of public goods declines. Nigeria gives an outstanding example of such a politics of competition for oil rents18. Water and oil as causes of armed conflicts are considerably different in an imperative manner. There is no much trans-boundary oil, but trans-boundary water forms the bulk of water in an area that has less soil water. Dominion over oil resources is effortlessly instituted, though through the quite current approval by the Middle Eastern leaderships of the operational but upsetting country state system, if not collectively by the citizens of the region. It is ordinary for very huge volumes of water to cross the global boundaries. Over 90% of the predictably computed water resources of the region cross the global boundaries as surface flow. Trans-boundary water for the Egyptian economy is more than 95% of its water budget. Habitual or formal worldwide laws do not decide dominion over water. This causes several armed conflicts over the control and use of trans-boundary waters19. As natural resources achieve significance for aggressiveness, the spotlight of military activities becomes focused on regions of economic importance. Consequently, this has a serious result on the sites of conflicts, prompting insurgent groups particularly to institute lasting strongholds everywhere resources and transport ways are located. This leads to the harmonizing of their traditional approach of high mobility and position along global boundaries. Armed violence resource economies, as well as profitable activities, tend to move from an economy of immediacy, to an economy of systems. These dispersed and far-reaching systems engross mostly private collections, including worldwide-systematized crime groups, international corporations, and Diaspora. They also involve the headship of overseas countries, particularly regional or past colonial powers and consumers in importing nations20. The monetary programs linked with the utilization of resources can also pressure the course of civil wars through their ‘criminalization’, as fiscal incentives may come to supersede political ones. Financial selfishness may inspire local commanders, individual soldiers and their political supporters to carry on gainful conflicts thus securing their stake in the resource wealth. Such ‘free-lancing’ and the assistant disorder usually effects in aggressive competition. However, it can also engage accommodation between contrasting parties who find a shared advantage in a relaxed military impasse, leaving the region and its inhabitants under a no-armed violence -no-peace condition; that is a steady conflict condition21. Resource conflicts cause the wealthiest countries in terms of resource abundance to be the most poor in relation to social growth and become most susceptible to aggressive turmoil. There is an extensive accord that the connection between resource affluence and armed conflict must be tackled through a variety of plans devised toward fighting corruption, policing the resource division locally, and fabricating judicial capability in nations recovering from war. In addition, the accountability of overseas businesses for trading in illegal violence resources is also essential for addressing these conflicts. This is because resource wars are utterly dependent on marketable actors to buy, transport, and market the commodities that are unlawfully obtained in order to maintain conflict. For these wars to be completely stopped, the illegal business or trade in resources for war should be controlled globally. Another way to stop these wars is by nations diversifying their economic base to avoid overreliance of the natural resources for economic and social development. By doing so, communities and even nations will not fight over natural resources22. The resource conflicts will be entirely terminated when we stop considering consumption of nature as profits, as a free good, while we diminish our natural capital. The precedent rates of accretion of capital, which are now merrily schemed forward, were achievable due to the indefensible exploitation of natural resources. Conventional economists are faced with a huge liability for ignoring the difference between human made capital and natural capital. Luckily, majority of the world population take protection and reusing seriously and regard a very diverse set of policies necessary. In addition, they are prepared to confront the assumptions of a consumer community, which has ignored the boundaries of the biosphere and resource foundation of our globe. The termination of the frequent wars instigated by use of natural resources will be determined by how we shall respond to these resource pressures23. Conclusion There are two major ways in which armed conflicts and natural resources can be openly linked: armed conflicts instigated by the control and use of particular resources and resources incorporated into the financing of armed conflicts. Even though few conflicts are primarily instigated by conflict over the control and use of resources, many states incorporate resources into their political economy. Natural resources in our environment are supposed to help us live in the planet since they provide us with the requirements that we need for survival. When the resources becomes scarce, instead of fighting to gain access to them, communities and Governments should resort to protecting the environment and reconstructing the resource base. Violence over these scarce resources will further cause draughts and famine. The use of resources to finance armed conflicts should as well be avoided at all costs. This is because it will lead to overexploitation of the resources hence leading to their degradation and depletion. Governments and other international agencies should come up with strategies of resolving conflicts over shared resources such as trans-boundary water. Mediation and arbitration should be applied in solving these conflicts. Conflicts over the control of valuable minerals and oil within countries should also be avoided. States should embark on equitable distribution of the wealth from these resources to avoid conflicts. References Allan, Tony. 1998, “Avoiding war over natural resources,” http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpl4.htm (accessed December 3 2010). Billon, Philippe Le. “The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts.” Political Geography Journal 20, no. 1 (February 2001): 561-584 Collier, Paul. 2004, “Natural Resources and Conflict in Africa,” http://www.crimesofwar.org/africa-mag/afr_04_collier.html (accessed December 3 2010). Ross, Michael. 2003, “Natural Resources and Civil War: An Overview,” http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/conflict/ross_2003.pdf (accessed December 3 2010). Stewart, James G. 2010, “Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources,” (accessed December 3 2010). Tabb, William. 2007, “Resource Wars,” http://www.monthlyreview.org/0107tabb.htm (accessed December 3 2010). Read More