Ayenka Franklin
MSc Social Science and International Relations
(PUCA)
Peace and Development
Program Assistant at Ecumenical Service for Peace
Key word:
conflict, economic resources, weak states
This work is a conceptual analysis centered on
the opinions and works of scholars about natural resources and their relationship
to violence in politically weak resource states. Since the late 1990s, many
scholars have studied the relationship between natural resource wealth and war especially
in Africa. Most have been motivated by a series of the high-profile conflicts –
in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and
the Sudan (which today exist as two separate sovereign political entities) –
that have captured the attention of international organizations and the media. The
works of Keen (1998), Collier & Hoeffler (1998), Reno (1995, 1998), Berdal
& Malone (2000)[1] have
this analysis. So, what can these studies tell us about the relationship
between natural resources – including oil, gas, non-fuel minerals, gemstones,
narcotics, timber, and agricultural products – and violent conflicts? The
answer might be not too much, because the literature about war is still
incomplete and changing from symmetric to asymmetric and sometimes not able to
exhaustively explain why and how violent conflicts happen and cannot be managed
easily or avoided. Only in the last decade, case study analysis and
quantitative studies have been carried out. To define war and violence, scholars,
have used a number of methods and consider several features, nevertheless many
cases are difficult to handle because of the lack of important data.[2]
Collier’s study (1998) is one of the first to
apply empirical economic data to the analysis of war and the relationship
thereof. In particular, his objective is to measure the influence of some
variables on the incidence of war and violence, and the risk of the onset of
conflict. Collier and Hoeffler (1998) investigate violence globally and economic
causes. They elaborated two versions of the same model that differ in some
premises and outcomes. The comparisons of war data set are used and modified by
authors of extra-systemic wars and conflicts with all data available in their
sample. Both versions of the model had a big diffusion and were followed by a
great and controversial debate.[3] Though
some authors reach varying conclusions on some aspects in the relationship
between resources and conflicts, and whether or not natural resources influence
the onset, duration and the types or subtypes of conflict, and the set of
resources that are more likely linked to conflict, it is understandable that
resource possession and governance have been center stage of many violent
conflicts in Africa.
To supporting these facts, Buchaman and Faith
(1987)[4],
Collier and Hoeffler hold that the “allure
of claiming ownership of a natural resource discovery gives the populations in
peripheral regions an incentive to establish sovereign states”[5]. Though
this is mostly influenced by conflict entrepreneurs who have economic benefit
from war than from than from peace, we have seen populations sway easily to
their dictates and manipulative tendencies in the Sudan, in Nigeria and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with cataclysmic consequences. In his
2001 work Billion argues that secessionist actions are more likely when a
resource is physically concentrated, appropriated by locals and requires foreign
investment. Using labor intensive process to extract natural resources, which
offers fewer benefits to the state than larger extraction firms, separatist
rebellions are more provoked.[6]
Since oil wealth might increase the value of controlling the state, it’s
obvious that it can cause violence suggests Billion, Fearon and Laitin. Ross
adds that oil and other mineral resources encourage foreign parties to support
or start wars because mineral wealth increases the benefits of intervention.
In addition, Switzer (2001)[7] and
Klar (2001)[8] hypothesize
that the extraction process of natural resources led to community-level
grievances such and pollution and destruction of ancestral property may lead to
violent conflicts. Humphreys’ view is that resource-dependent countries are
more susceptible to trade shocks, and when economies crash and suffering sets
in it might lead war and that commodities that can be looted such as gemstones,
drugs, and timber have a direct link to conflict as the can be used to finance
war or create disputes over ownership.[9] At this juncture, it is
therefore ideal to use Ross’ analysis on conflicts, that wars, symmetric or
asymmetric have been and are prominent
in natural resource producing countries Africa. In essence, Stedman joins in to
say that “no peace agreement has been successfully implemented where there are
valuable easily marketable commodities such as gems or timber”. Global Witness,
2002 said that in Cambodia, Liberia and DRC both timber and gemstone maintained
that viability of the military force of Khmer Rouge rebels in Cambodia
(1989-1995)[10]
Graphic Representation of the Resource Trap
The conclusions to drawn from the graphic
presentations above with starting point being institutional quality and how it affects
the management of resources and then lead to economic development or conflict
are:
Firstly, natural resources affect economic
growth and national income as well as human behavioral patterns. To trace the
link between economic resources and conflicts, from the presentation, the
quality of institutions worsens leading to war or improve leading to economic
development depending on the management of resources. If resource governance is
democratic and inclusive, it leads to economic growth and reverses back to
better management and strong institutions. If resource management is poor,
there is a likelihood that it will create income inequalities, poor service and
production sectors and low levels of per capita income which increases risk of
war and violence, because it creates a 1% of strong individuals instead of
strong institutions who can finance opposition groups easily to continue their ownership
of resources. Hypothetically, low economic development creates social
conditions that may pressure for socio-political change and conflict be it nonviolent
demonstrations against inequality and injustice, or through violent means.
Nevertheless, resources if not properly managed
provide proceeds for corrupted political behaviors, and an unearned revenue for
the state, which in weak economies weakens the state’s ability to provide
social physical security to its inhabitants. Weaker institutions are more
likely to create grievances and are less able to cope with violent insurgencies
and wars.
Yet again natural resources can be looted by
opposition groups that use them to obtain finance to start a war and prolong hostilities,
that is, natural resources finance opposition groups to continue politics by
means of war as the war theorist and diplomat Carl Von Clausewitz would put it.
In warfare, rebels can exploit more natural resources in illicit production and
trade and increase their profits, and perhaps prolong hostilities.[11]
[1] Also,
see, Michael L. Ross, What Do We Know About
Natural Resources and Civil War, 2004 Journal of Peace Research, vol. 41,
no. 3, 2004, pp. 337–356 Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New
Delhi) www.sagepublications.com
[2] Manuela
Travaglianti, The Role of The State In
The Natural Resources And Civil War Paradigm. In Jean Monnet Working Paper
in Comparative and International Politics. October 2006 - JMWP n° 61. P 3
[3]
Ibid. p 6
[4] Also,
see, Buchanan, James M. & Roger L. Faith, 1987. ‘Secession and the Limits
of Taxation: Toward a Theory of Internal Exit’, American Economic Review77(5):
1023–1031.
[5]
Collier, Paul & Anke Hoeffler, 2002a. ‘Greed and Grievance in Civil War’,
Oxford University, Centre for the Study of African Economies, Working Paper
2002–01 (http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/workingpapers/pdfs/2002–01text.pdf).
[6]
Ross, Michael L., 2001b. Extractive Sectors and the Poor. Washington, DC: Oxfam
America.
[7]
Switzer, Jason, 2001. ‘Armed Conflict and Natural Resources: The Case of the
Minerals Sector’, Report No. 12, Minerals, Mining, and Sustainable Development,
International Institute for Environment and Development, July
(http://www.iied.org/mmsd/mmsd_pdfs/jason_switzer.pdf)
[8]
Klare, Michael T., 2001. Resource Wars. New York: Metropolitan
[9]
Humphreys, Macartan, 2003. ‘Natural Resource, Conflict, and Conflict
Resolution’, paper prepared for the Santa Fe Institute/Javeriana University
‘Obstacles to Robust Negotiated Settlements’ workshop, Bogota, 29–31 May
(http://www.santafe.edu/files/gems/obstaclestopeace/hymphreys.pdf).
[10]
Global Witness, 2002. ‘The Logs of War: The Timber Trade and Armed Conflict’,
Programme for International Co-operation and Conflict Resolution, Fafo-report
379, March (http://www.fafo.no/pub/rapp/379/379.pdf)
[11] Manuela
TRAVAGLIANTI, opcit, pp 23 – 25
No comments:
Post a Comment