MINE FIELD ROWENNA DAVIS asks whether global conflict is
becoming more environmental than ideological
IT IS BY NO means controversial to say that resources matter in international relations. Few of us would deny that a desire for land and basic materials played a role in Britain’s decision to undertake colonial expansion, in Hitler’s quest for Lebensraum or Bush’s invasion of Iraq. However, what is controversial is to argue that primary resources – specifically oil, water and agricultural land – are not just influencing patterns of conflict around the world but are actually determining them. Many contemporary conflicts are described as being political or cultural by nature, but, under the surface, they are often better explained as environmental. As the population expands, global conflicts are increasingly likely to be determined by the scarcity and distribution of resources, with profound implications for the way we should pursue global security.
It is common knowledge that since the demise of the Cold War, 15 years ago, most conflicts have occurred within states rather than between them. Increasingly, these internal conflicts are starting over primary resources – those in Africa being the paradigm. It is no coincidence that this continent, which has the smallest utilised resource base to population ratio (and thus the scarcest relative availability of the most basic means of survival), also experiences the highest levels of civil conflict. Looking at a map, you can see the extent to which conflicts coalesce around the few areas of resource exploitation. Rebel groups frequently take control of these resource hotspots, granting concessions to them in return for territorial control. The prolonged viability of UNITA in Angola and the RUF in Sierra Leone; the violent gangs of the Nigerian Delta and the successful rebellions of Laurent Kabila in Zaire and Denis Sassou- Nguesso in Congo were all assisted by seizing control of the area’s resource base.
These conflicts are often portrayed as the result of ethnic and religious divides – but simply blaming longstanding cultural traditions doesn’t seem to explain why conflicts on the continent appear to be escalating. Looking at the increases in population proves more helpful.As the population grows, people become more dependent on the few resources available to them. Coalescing into groups is one way of channelling tensions and pushing out competition. If the population resource ratio fails to improve, Africa is unlikely to escape its present, Hobbsian state of perpetual conflict.
Let’s be clear about one thing; to say that conflicts are increasingly being resource driven does not mean to say that those living in the developing world are incapable of fighting over ideas, values or culture. The Middle East is a case in point. It would be ignorant to dismiss the religious and political components of the conflict, but it would also be ignorant to dismiss the environmental dimension to the problem. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is, after all, ultimately a struggle for national territory: a struggle for land, perhaps the most basic resource of all. It is no coincidence that the two most contentious areas on the arid Arab Peninsula – the West Bank and the Gaza strip – contain two-thirds of the region’s water, or that the Golan Heights – another key water supply – is a constant flashpoint of controversy between Syria and Israel.
Contrary to the opinions of free marketers, increased resource exploitation has often failed to provide security in the face of scarcity. In fact, rapid resource utilisation has actually served to promote conflict rather than eliminate it. The rapid and unregulated exploitation of oil in the Middle East has brought unprecedented changes throughout the region, but the increased wealth associated with it has too often served to benefit a minority, stimulating old rivalries and fostering new hierarchies.We are faced with the fascinating paradox that it is not just too few resources that generate conflict but also too many too quickly.Without fair, regulated development that benefits the country as a whole these conflicts are likely to remain unresolved.
Resources may, for one reason or another, be beginning to determine patterns of conflict in poorer regions – but what has this got to do with the West? Globalisation answers the question: it’s got everything to do with us. If 9/11 taught us one thing, it taught us that the security dilemmas of poorer countries are security dilemmas for the globe. No longer can we segregate ourselves from the problems of broken states; the 21st- Century world is so interdependent that even the most powerful nations are vulnerable to the poorest and underdeveloped. If a state fails to achieve sufficient economic development we loose on debt defaults and the opportunity cost of foregone trade. If a region fails to achieve political stability or democratic accountability then we are threatened by the proliferation and accumulation of WMD, and if a population is restless, or desperate, then we are threatened by a potential breeding ground for terrorism. It seems that helping to secure sustainable development for these nations would not only be just, but would be entirely aligned with our self interest.
However, although states torn over resource issues do have an adverse effect on our security and prosperity indirectly, we are yet to witness a case where resources fully determine a western nation’s decision to undertake military intervention.Although many would argue that oil played some part in America’s decision to invade Iraq, few would hold it up as the determining factor that took us to war in 2003. However, this does not mean that this will always be the case.
International relations has a tendency to look at states as static actors that exist independently of resources, invading others to increase their resource bases rather than to sustain them. But the fact is that states can only survive with a perpetual flow of primary goods: America’s daily consumption of 19.65m barrels of oil per day is what keeps its economic cogs turning, enables its military complex and permits the sustainability of its political order. Since America cannot sustain this consumption domestically it is forced to look abroad to meet demand.
Given that most of our energy supplies are finite (the more optimistic estimates predict oil supplies to last another 60 years) and that developing countries need an ever-increasing amount of their resources to sustain their own populations it seems that we are faced with three options. The most popular course of action is to rely on technology to ‘get more out of less’; the second is to make our current lifestyles more sustainable by reducing overall consumption levels and, if these options fail, the only other option open to us seems to be securing resources by military force.
As world consumption and population rates continue to rise exponentially primary resources will continue to become an increasingly important source of conflict. Acknowledging the environmental dimension to global conflict has profound implications for global security. It means that fair, regulated and sustainable development is an essential component for building a peaceful world. In the words of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “Freedom from want, freedom from fear and the freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy, natural environment – these are the interrelated building blocks of human and therefore national, security”.
