Natural Resources

Abstract

Patterns of armed conflict changed significantly in the course of the zoth century. The period ending in 1945 saw a series of blood-soaked interstate rivalries that left deep wounds, culminating in the horrific events at Auschwitz and Hiroshima. The following two decades were marked by wars of national liberation in colonies such as Indonesia, Algeria, and Vietnam. Indigenous military groups, often supported by the Soviet Union, fought the imperial powers-and each other-using surprisingly effective guerrilla tactics. At the same time, the Cold War polarized the world around two ideological blocs, one dominated by the United States, the other by the Soviet Union. Thanks in part to nuclear deterrence, a direct confrontation never occurred. But the two superpowers were engaged in proxy wars, and their involvement was a significant factor in fuelling internal conflicts around the world.With the disintegration of the USSR, the main reason for superpower confrontation evaporated and both superpowers pulled out of the war-torn countries, without giving any guarantee of future aid. At the same time, most of the civil conflicts that had broken out due to the decolonization process were over. Therefore, 1991 marked the beginning of a downward trend in the number of internal conflicts and the number of resulting fatalities.Nevertheless, internal conflicts still dominate the global picture and continue to devastate many parts of the world. In countries ravaged by such conflicts, insecurity, displacement, deprivation, disease, and death are part of daily life. It is therefore important to understand the causes of contemporary internal conflicts and their development. We need to construct an analytical framework that offers plausible explanations for today's sub-state conflicts. Such a framework would provide a foundation for the development of policies designed to prevent and/or reduce the risk of internal conflict.One highly publicized branch of conflict analysis explores the link between natural resources and armed conflict-that is, the influence, if any, of natural resources on the onset and/or duration of conflicts.Since the mid-1990s, three analytic approaches have dominated the field of resource-based conflict analysis. One stresses environmental factors, focusing on grievances created by the increasing scarcity of renewable resources. The second centres on economic factors and regards the greedy motivations of individuals as the main driver of conflict. The third takes a more state-centric approach, concentrating on political factors and institutional weakness.While these theoretical approaches posit different determining factors, cross-empirical evidence supports two theses: the onset of civil conflict is strongly associated with weak states in which oil represents the wealth of the nation; and economic factors are decisive in determining the duration of conflicts.Regardless of the approach one favours, it is easy to agree with the conclusion reached by Karen Ballentine and Jake Sherman: An analysis of the shifting interplay between economic and other factors over time will be an important step towards a more comprehensive framework of contemporary conflicts.1ENVIRONMENTAL SCARCITY AS A SOURCE OF CONFLICTEnvironmental resources-especially cropland, freshwater, fisheries, and forests-are vital for life. Moreover, many poor people in less developed countries are directly dependent on such resources as their primary source of income and/or to heat their homes, feed their families, and so forth. In principle, these finite resources are naturally renewable, and if properly managed they should secure future wellbeing. But the renewal process depends on a fragile balance that is now being disturbed and will be even more seriously disrupted in the future.On the one hand, demographic growth and high per capita consumption are increasing the demand for environmental resources. …