Greed, not Grievance is the True Cause of Civil Wars - Research Paper Example

Greed, not Grievance is the true cause of Civil Wars Introduction Civil war can be defined as severe conflicts between different regions, religions or groups of same country. It can lead to extreme violence causing rampant destruction of natural resources. The root cause of civil war is determined as grievance of citizens first leading to demonstrations and strikes, and finally when there is no positive outcome, there is outbreak of a civil war. When a civil war continues for a prolonged period with no sign of surrender from any party of the conflict, it can have devastating effects on a country’s political, economic and social conditions. Although there is lack of common agreement regarding exact causes of a civil war, it is nevertheless emphasized that potential of civil war becomes less if a state has the capacity to maintain peace. A strong state has powers to exert control over citizens by positively addressing their grievances. On the other hand, a weak state can have inefficient bureaucratic power and lack of political and military strength. Such inefficiencies and weaknesses make it difficult to implement laws and regulations in order to maintain peace in the region. Therefore, a weak state has the possibility to create conditions to induce grievances among citizens. The state also experiences various challenges in discouraging and restraining dissent within citizens thus laying the foundation for potential civil unrests leading to a civil war. Other factors that affect a civil war can be economic disparities between different regions or between different social groups, class and religious frictions, government policies and international trade. Civil war has been defined as “an internal conflict where there have been at least 1,000 combat related deaths per annum and where both government forces and an identifiable rebel organization have suffered at least five per cent of the fatalities” (Nathan, 2008, p.263). The prevalence of civil wars in the form of wide spread violence has become a matter of international concern, and therefore researchers focus on what makes countries prone to civil wars. This is one of the major issues for foreign policy leaders. Although in the beginning of the twenty first century several violent civil conflicts ended, there still existed 30 internal armed conflicts in 24 places in 2002. Among these conflicts, 15 existed in the Sub-Saharan Africa while 5 existed in Asia. During the second half of the twentieth century, there existed 127 civil wars among which 40 occurred in Sub-Saharan Asia while 30 took place in Asia. Therefore, apparently according to civil war researchers, these two regions are most vulnerable for internal armed conflicts and are considered as belonging within a “zone of conflict” (Krause & Suzuki, 2005, p.160). One major theory pronouncing causes of civil war is competition for scarce natural or mineral resources. Rapid social and economic changes in most countries along with technological advances induce various social groups to compete with each other for scarce resources. According to theorists, regions with socially and economically affluent groups are less prone to internal conflicts although social conflicts can increase in industrially developing regions. This paper explores the theory that the true cause of much civil war is not the loud discourse of grievance but the silent force of greed. Civil Wars Conflict is a natural phenomenon in any society and therefore the problem lies in the types of conflicts and ways to resolve those conflicts. When conflicts turn into prolonged and violent movements, they can become challenges for the government. Since civil wars are both costly and repetitive they can push their respective country into the well of poverty. For the past decades, rapid development has distinguished the world between rich nations of one billion population and poor countries of five billion population. However, 80 percent of the latter reside in those countries which are showing rapid progress. Therefore, the core challenge comes from those countries that are at the bottom and everyday struggling to cope with civil war, plague and ignorance. Most of these countries are concentrated in Africa and Central Asia (Collier, 2007, p.3). Records show that 73 percent of those living in these countries have either experienced the horrors of civil war in the past or are currently experiencing one. This is not the case just for developing countries. Even other nations like America, Russia and Britain had civil wars in different centuries. The conflicts that occurred in these countries were not prolonged for long periods and were not repeated. For poorer nations, civil wars tend to last for extremely long periods. According to Collier (2007), war is one of the factors that hinder growth and development. The author has explored the various probable causes of war. Rebels by their actions have justified that war is outcome of prolonged suppression, exploitation and exclusion. The first theory is that low income induces war, and probability of war is inversely proportional to level of income. However, critics of this theory argue on the theory’s paradox; whether poverty causes war or casualties and resource wastage due to a war causes poverty. The author insists that low income increases the probability of war as can be observed from the fact that most of the countries that are having civil wars are poor. As per reports, low income countries faces risk of war by 14 percent in any five year period and this diminishes with economic growth. However, there is also the chance that the anticipation of war causes economic decline rather than war itself since it scares off the investors. Collier has also explained the reason behind low income causing war. Due to low income, young men eagerly join rebel groups as it gives them the scope to earn riches. For instance, rebel groups kidnap foreign tourists and pressurize the government to pay for their release (Collier, 2007, p.20). Collier & Hoeffler (1998, p.571) have identified four factors that determine occurrence and durability of civil wars. One is high per capital income reduces the probability of war since high income means it outweighs the expected benefits from violence. Second is quantity of natural resources in a country. Till a certain level, existence of natural resources provokes conflicts since rebellions attempt to overtake those regions. However, a high level of natural resources reduces war probabilities since government’s revenue increases with which the government can strengthen its military capacity to deal with rebellions. Finally, larger population leads to growing inequalities, racism, ethnic discriminations etc. All these increase the risk of war. Natural resources and civil wars Another economic factor that increases probability of war is natural resources like oil and diamonds. The common argument by most scholars is that “oil resources lead to poor quality institutions and governance, which causes slower economic growth, an increased propensity for civil war” (Kennedy & Tiede, 2013, p.760). The general observation is that nations rich in oil resources are generally suffering from low quality or even non-existent political and economic institutions. This is the reason why these countries experience low level of economic growth and have strong probabilities of internal conflicts and other negative outcomes (Kennedy & Tiede, 2013, p.760). One example is Nigeria whose economy is strongly dependent upon petroleum which “contributes about 50 percent of the country’s GDP, 95 per cent of foreign exchange earnings and 80 per cent of budgetary revenues” (Ibeanu & Luckham, 2007, p.41). The Nigerian Civil War which lasted from 1967 to 1970 caused death of a million people and displacement of almost 6 million people. Since then oil has been a major matter of concern for the Nigerian government. From the time the war ended till date, Nigeria has remained in a suppressed condition and at times violence erupts resulting in significant casualties and causing thousands to become refugees in their own country. Major oil companies have formed close partnership with the ruling class including the military. A tiny proportion of revenues earned from oil has been invested for the benefit of the communities in Niger Delta which is the major oil producing region in the country. These communities have suffered from environmental degradation caused by oil extraction and have been alienated from the government and oil companies. The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) used to engage in peaceful protests which were suppressed in the 1990s resulting in killing of many leaders of the movement. The Ogoni people form a small community, but their protests were echoed all over the country. This leads to the conclusion that environment and corporate responsibilities of oil companies can trigger violence in a region (Ibeanu & Luckham, 2007, p.42). In the global oil market, oil stocks can be released in a strategic manner to reduce the price of oil for the benefit of oil importers. However, such efforts to facilitate importers can lead to negative reactions from local areas where people can damage the pipelines or refineries may close unexpectedly. This can result in violence for people who stay near the “infrastructure of oil extraction, transportation, and refining” (Bridge & Billon, 2013, p.97). Also, security forces can inflict violence on local people who refuse to be displaced or make protests against environmental pollution and social disparities caused by oil economy. During the 1990s, there has been much controversy regarding environmental change as contributing factor for armed conflicts. The growing need of protecting the environment has initiated from increasing environmental awareness combined with the interests of the Western countries’ security policies to assess potential threats in order to sustain their existence. In spite of considering environmental factors as contributor to potential security threats, there is a general agreement among researchers that “economic, political and social factors determine how countries handle resource scarcity”. It has been observed that richer nations can more effectively deal with resource scarcity than poorer nations which means the former is less prone to civil wars (Raleigh & Urdal, 2007, p.675). The relation between natural resources and civil war has been supported by many researchers. One theory is that countries that depend strongly on export of primary commodities have more possibilities of outbreaks of internal conflicts than those countries who suffer from paucity of national resources, and such conflicts become extremely difficult to solve. There are others who state that regions that export oil are prone to civil wars. Also, a country having abundance of specific resources like gemstones and narcotics can also have the possibility of long term civil wars (Ross, 2004, p.35). Ross (2004) has explored the features that establish relation between natural resources and civil wars. According to theory, manufacturers leave a country where there is growing anticipation of civil war thereby making the countries rely more on natural resources. This is because while manufacturers have the option to move to other countries, resource industry is dependent on location and hence cannot shift from base country. However, this relation between civil war and natural resources can actually be opposite. Generally, civil wars do not commence till a certain level of tolerance is crossed. This means, there might be a period preceding a civil war that has been replete with minor violence causing fear among manufacturers and forcing them to leave. Thus, a country with probability of civil war can become dependent on natural resources even before the war has commenced. Ross has also stated that there might not be any relation between natural resources and civil war. A country which has weak laws cannot attract investors for manufacturing industries, thereby making the country left with natural resources. By understanding the exact mechanism that relate resources with civil war, it is possible to design policies for solution. A resource can cause civil unrest for different reasons in different countries. For instance, if mining causes conflict and the reason is environmental degradation then the solution lies in participation of local communities on the part of mining firms. On the other hand, if the reason of the conflict is that mining provides golden opportunities to rebel groups for extraction, then stringent laws are needed more than involvement of communities (Ross, 2004, pp.36-37). Historically, natural resources have played an important role in internal violence. Since the end of Cold War, financial aids from foreign countries have drastically dropped which is a strong disadvantage for both governments and rebel groups. Now, rebellions have to rely on national revenues from natural resources to maintain their military and political agenda. Thus natural resources actually provide finances to rebellions thus sustaining the risk of civil wars. The second element is that natural resources increases probability of internal conflicts by weakening the competency of political institutions in relation to solving armed conflicts (Billon, 2001, pp.562-563). However, there are several arguments that counter the resource-war relation. First, when resources are meager the country becomes advanced in socio-economic innovations which results in opening of new venues that act as sources for national revenues. This leads to a balanced distribution of wealth and power in all sectors of the society which means low grievance among different groups. Second, international trade can counterbalance regional resource scarcities to some extent and can encourage innovations and cause movement of resources from resource rich regions. Third, in a country where natural resources are dwindling, people become more dependent on other types of financial ventures. This induces common people to become accountable towards different revenue sectors and so they are less prone to conflicts. Finally, in countries where natural resources are scarce, human capital becomes more in demand for alternative revenue sectors. The elite class for their own benefit promotes education and manufacturing skills to enhance human capital thereby reducing the opportunities for internal conflicts (Billon, 2001, p.564). Today, conflicts refer to internal violence rather than international wars with records showing 15 major internal armed conflicts in 2001. Like criminal activities, rebellions too need motivation and opportunity to engage in violence (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004, p.563). One element that provides opportunity is availability of finance which happens mostly from dependence on primary commodity exports. Moreover, commodities provide the opportunities for extortion which makes rebellions more viable and tempting to the young people. Also, larger dependence on commodities makes governance weak which gives rise to grievance. The second factor driving opportunity is cost of rebellion. Studies have proved that increased per capita income, high percentage of males having secondary education and economic growth reduce the risks of armed conflicts. This interpretation has been made based on the theory that low income induces conflict. However, this also indicates low income causes grievance which is reason for rebellion than the fact that low income makes recruitment of young men, for cause of rebel, cheap. Elements that support grievance like political oppression, inequality and religions as cause of rebellion are mostly discarded except ethnic dominance. A society which is fragmented has less risk of conflicts than a homogenous society considering no group dominates the other. This is because divided groups make conflicts difficult and expensive because of lack of unity between different ethnicities. Finally, a country with large population is more prone to conflicts than a country with low population due to increased opportunities from violence, and grievances (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004, p.588). Gender and demographic pattern of a population are also encouraging factors for rebels. A country with high proportion of male population is more prone to potential conflicts (Armey, 2008, p.14). Other natural resources like land and renewable resources can also cause conflict. Environmental degradation and its impact on natural resources have been considered by numerous researchers as driving factors for internal conflicts. Environmental degradation can be threat to human well-being thus encouraging governments to focus on technological innovations and increased human capital through education to cope with resource scarcity. According to Binnings et al. (2007) such pressure is needed which remains almost absent in countries with plenty of resources. Such countries therefore do not have the best economic and political practices leading to the theory that “natural resources may be even a curse rather than a blessing” (Binnings et al., 2007, p.340). Greed, not grievance Civil wars are basically driven by greed, opportunity and grievance. Since greed is generated when there is individual demand for material gains, therefore inequality and ethnic discrimination motivate people to seek justice and therefore join rebels. Opportunity means people participate in violence only when there is scope to make economic benefits, and when such benefits outweigh the risks and costs attached to wars there is more likely of civil wars to erupt. However, if cost of war proves to be too high, then people may be discouraged to join rebels even if grievances exist (Taydas et al., 2010, p.196). Therefore, more than greed or grievance it is the prevalent condition that allows violence to erupt. However, since grievance is still an important factor, therefore Taydas et al. (2010) have emphasized the need of strong institutions like law enforcement agencies and military force which will curb corruption leading to reduced grievances. Collier and Hoeffler (2002, p.1) have stated that evidences substantiate the fact that grievances are major contributors of violence. As already stated above political oppression and inequality are insignificant elements. However, ethnic dominance like one ethnic group forming 45-90 per cent of population can cause the minorities to rebel. According to Collier and Hoeffler (2002, p.1), “greed model provides much better explanatory power”. From examples like diamonds in Angola or drugs in Columbia it can be concluded that commodities provide finance for rebellions to procure ammunitions for armed conflicts. Major consensus is that a country with abundance of natural resource runs high risk of civil wars. However, the relation between commodities and conflict is not linear which means countries dependent on natural resources are less prone to civil wars. This is because commodities are not only source of revenue for rebellions, but also for the government. The government can impose taxes on commodities to increase their revenues and use the funds to strengthen their political and legal system. By making a strong legal system, grievances of common people can be easily met. Moreover, “countries with a large diaspora abroad experience higher conflict risks”. For instance, Tamils in North America or Lebanese in West-Africa can utilize bulk resources to finance rebellions in their native countries (Collier & Hoeffler, 2002, p.1). Therefore as per research it is greed, not grievance that acts as stimulating factor for internal violence and this theory is based on association made between exports of primary commodities and civil war. Since the end of Cold War, international policy makers have focused on finding explanations that cause civil wars within the boundaries of countries. There is much difficulty in finding appropriate reasons behind violence and so there have been several theories concluded by researchers. Some popular beliefs are that violence emerges from pressures creates by ecology and demographic curve of a country. There are still others who maintain that it is greed rather than grievance that set the stage for violence. A nation with abundance of natural resources paves the way for civil wars as rebellions are motivated by the easy funds from resources. Soysa (2002, p.397) has explored the theory that civil wars can be both “loot-seeking” like increased criminal activities or “justice-seeking” which means rebels fight for a cause. The first concept is that individuals decide to participate in violence based on their assumptions that income derived from their actions like kidnapping or robbery can more than compensate the income opportunities they have to sacrifice for joining rebel forces. In this case, probability of civil wars decrease if the per capital income and human capital are high in a nation which is measured by the expected lootable income and revenues from primary commodities export. Rebellions who fight to seek justice do so to ouster an oppressive government causing public grievance. The one problem of such movements is that they require large number of rebellions since their motive is to replace the state. Since they fight for public good, individuals tend to gain advantage without having to bear the expenses of war. Moreover, since these types of movements seek to fight for minority groups and racism therefore chances of forming large enough groups are small. Such rebels take place after considering several factors like ethnic and religious fractions, degree of political injustice, and economic factors like per capital income and distribution of resources like land. The conclusion derived from these two types of civil wars indicates that both greed and grievance can be equal motivators of violence. However, greed more than grievance is driver of conflict since grievance should be maximum when repression reaches the highest which also means that opportunity costs of rebellion is also at high point. In short, the cost of rebels determines whether fight should be for justice (Soysa, 2002, p.398). Although grievance is a strong motivator for violence, greed becomes important for rebel leaders when they motivate the young men to join their groups. Grievance leads to mass protests but in order to sustain soldiers it is needed to give attention to individual greed, i.e. leaders need to satisfy individual needs to refrain soldiers from defecting (Regan & Norton, 2005, p.319). Since the end of Cold War, rebellions have become more dependent on revenues from primary commodity exports like oil, narcotics and precious minerals. What is popularly termed as blood diamonds by the media, rebels occur mostly because of greed for easily lootable resources. Other than these rebels who are motivated by greed, thousands of common people of all gender and age get engaged in diamond mining hoping for big fortunes. Many diamond companies use measures to defy trade policies to make enormous profits. Billon (2008, pp.347-349) has presented three overlapping arguments to explain resource wars. First, the resource curse argument suggests that dependency on resources causes inequality of wealth in society causing negative economic conditions leading to armed conflicts. Second, there is resource conflict argument which indicates that resource control in the hands of few privileged can lead to causes for conflict like environmental degradation, labour abuse etc. The third argument which is conflict resource means that some resources like diamonds are more conflict provoking than others. Resources that are strong motivators of violence are those which are easily accessible by minority groups and provide high revenues. Policies for developing peace focuses on tracking movement of diamonds thereby reducing flow of revenue to rebel groups, and also providing military security to diamond locations (Billon, 2008, p.366). This third argument points to the fact that resources like diamonds are ‘strategic’ resources that cause international tensions. Since ‘resource wars’ can lead to different types of conflicts, therefore Billon (2007, p.163) has stressed the importance of “identities and territorialities”. Conclusion In today’s world, civil wars have become rampant in many countries and therefore this paper has attempted to look at the root cause of such increasing violence. It is not easy to come to any concrete conclusion since factors are many and arguments based by scholars are mostly subjected to criticism and counterarguments. However, the most popular theory is that it is greed more than grievance that leads to internal conflicts. Grievance is concerned with inequality, political injustices and corruption, ethnicity and religious discriminations. Although these are strong motivators for rebellions still the cost of war like purchasing military equipments and refraining soldiers from defecting needs finances which gives rise to the greed concept. This leads to the conclusion that countries rich with natural resources are more prone to civil wars. However, it is the level of resources that determine the probability of wars since very high quantity of resources strengthen the government’s military capacity to deal with insurgents. Regarding tackling of civil wars, the general consensus is to weaken and disarm the rebels like recent events in Sri Lanka. However Keen (2012) has criticized this strategy stressing that this will not only cause high rate of casualties of both civilians and rebels, but will also fail to address the issues that have given birth to the grievances that caused the civil war. This will keep alive the possibility of further violence in future. References Armey, L.E., ‘The Causes and Consequences of Civil War’, PhD, Univ. of Southern California (2008) Billon, P.L., ‘Diamond Wars? Conflict diamonds and geographies of resource wars’, Annals of the association of American geographers, 98/2 (2008), 345-372 Billon, P.L., ‘Geographies of War: Perspectives on Resource Wars’, Geography Compass, 1/2 (2007), 163-182 Billon, P.L., ‘The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts’, Political Geography, 20/5 (2001), 561-684 Binnings, H.M., Soysa, I. & Gleditsch, N.P., ‘Green giant or straw man? Environmental pressure and civil conflict, 1961–99’, Population Environment, 28/6 (2007), 337-353 Bridge, G. & Billon, P., Oil (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013) Collier, P., The Bottom Billion (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007) Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A., ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’, CSAE Working Paper (2002) Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A., ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’, Oxford Economic Papers, 56/4 (2004), 563-595 Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A., ‘On Economic Causes of Civil War’, Oxford Economic Papers, 50/4 (1998), 563-573 Ibeanu, O. & Luckham, R., ‘Nigeria: political violence, governance and corporate responsibility in a petro-state’, in M. Kaldor, T.L. Karl, T.L. & Y. Said (eds.), Oil Wars (London: Pluto Press, 2007), 41-99 Keen, D., ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’, International Affairs, 88/4 (2012), 757-777 Kennedy, R. & Tiede, L., ‘Economic Development Assumptions and the Elusive Curse of Oil’, International Studies Quarterly, 57/4 (2013), 760-771 Krause, V. & Suzuki, S., ‘Causes of Civil War in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa: A Comparison’, Social Science Quarterly, 86/1 (2005), 160-177 Nathan, L., ‘The Causes of Civil War: the false logic of Collier and Hoeffler’, South African Review of Sociology, 39/2 (2008), 262-275 Raleigh, C. & Urdal, H., ‘Climate change, environmental degradation and armed conflict’, Politcial Geography, 26/6 (2007), 674-694 Regan, P.M. & Norton, D., ‘Greed, grievance, and mobilization in civil wars’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49/3 (2005), 319-336 Ross, M.L., ‘How do natural resources influence civil war? Evidence from thirteen cases’, International Organization, 58/1 (2004), 35-67 Soysa, I., ‘Paradise is a Bazaar? Greed, creed and governance in civil war’, Journal of Peace Research, 39/4 (2002), 395-416 Taydas, Z., Peksen, D. & James, P., ‘Why Do Civil Wars Occur? Understanding the Importance of Institutional Quality’, Civil Wars, 12/3 (2010), 195-217 Read More