The Resource Wars series is based on an essay I wrote for Conflict and Violence, which got an A+. Among the issues explored are whether global capitalism and transnational corporations can provoke conflict, and as such it should interest advocates of free trade as a solution to poverty. The topics discussed are also relevant to discussions about how to shrink the Gap.
Introduction
Civil war is most likely to occur in countries where the economy is dominated by primary resources. Does this mean that actors who start civil wars are motivated by greed? A critical analysis of four recent “resource wars†suggests that the answer is negative. I argue that greed does not cause war, but prolonged war attracts opportunistic criminal networks and mercenaries, altering the economic nature of the war. Internal war is associated with resources in two ways – because resource exploitation can generate grievances, and because resource exploitation can be used to fund an armed insurgency. These processes can only be understood in the context of globalization. A decline in state power advantages armed groups, resulting in a new kind of war: what Mary Kaldor calls “new wars,†or “a mixture of war, organized crime and massive violations of human rightsâ€.
Paul Collier and Michael Ross
In 2000, Paul Collier of the World Bank published a controversial study of the causes of civil war, Greed and Grievance, which concluded that rebel groups in civil wars were motivated by greed, and explanations based on grievances were self-serving. He claimed that statistical analysis could identify states most at risk of civil war based on three factors: a high proportion of primary commodity exports, a relatively high proportion of unemployed young men, and a lack of education. Michael Ross expanded Collier’s ideas, introducing three variables for resources – obstructability, lootability, legality – and one for conflict, separatism against non-separatism. Different kinds of resource, according to Ross, have different effects on conflict. For example, illegal resources usually benefit rebels. Separatism is associated with unlootable resources, which also tend to shorten wars, because the state is better able to exploit them. However, this effect can be balanced by obstructability – how easy it is to block the export of the resources, either for extortion or as economic warfare.
My case studies
I have examined four wars involving resources – Bougainville, the Niger Delta, Colombia, and Sierra Leone. All four conflicts escalated or began during the 1990s, and two are ongoing. Two were ethno-nationalist or separatist; two were attempted revolutions. The conflicts spanned three continents and involved resources in each of Michael Ross’ categories. Also, all four conflicts involved organised crime and private military corporations in some way.
References
- Mary Kaldor. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
- Paul Collier. “Doing Well out of War: An Economic Perspective,†in Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, ed., Mats Berdal and David M. Malone, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000.
- Michael L. Ross. “Oil, Drugs and Diamonds: The Varying Roles of Natural Resources in Civil War,” in The Political Economy of Armed Conflict: Beyond Greed and Grievance, ed., Karen Ballentine and Jake Sherman, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2003.
