Natural Resources and Violent Conflict
Why do disputes over natural resources sometimes turn violent while others don’t?
The following analysis will contribute to the debate over why natural resource disputes in particular regions turn into violent conflict in comparison to others. In order to address this question, it is crucial to understand the historical, economic, political and cultural context in which these conflicts arise. The approach taken in this essay is one that sees the exploitation of natural resources as only one of several influencing factors which express and legitimate collective violent action and rebellion. To do so we must firstly discuss the two most common theoretical approaches to this inquisition. These common approaches include the theory or “greed” and that of “grievance”. The severe conflicts over natural resources which occurred in Indonesia’s region of Aceh and Papua New Guinea’s Bougainville province will be closely examined for the purpose of proving the plausibility of the “grievance” based approach while simultaneously invalidating the “greed” model of explanation. To put it briefly, in accordance with the empirical findings from the analyzed case studies, it is clear that natural resource disputes cannot individually account for the causation of violent conflict, rather, the impacts of resource exploitation further fuels preexisting feelings of resentment which then contribute along with many other factors concerning a regions history and identity in mutually influencing the sense of grievance which as a result necessitates collective violence.
Many debates following the causes of violent conflicts arising from disputes over natural resources draw much focus on two major driving factors; these determinants, as previously stated, include the forces of “greed” and that of “grievances”. The greed based model of explanation recognizes the quest for self-enrichment and economic interests as the foundation for violent conflict. Among the prominent theorists who promote a
The following analysis will contribute to the debate over why natural resource disputes in particular regions turn into violent conflict in comparison to others. In order to address this question, it is crucial to understand the historical, economic, political and cultural context in which these conflicts arise. The approach taken in this essay is one that sees the exploitation of natural resources as only one of several influencing factors which express and legitimate collective violent action and rebellion. To do so we must firstly discuss the two most common theoretical approaches to this inquisition. These common approaches include the theory or “greed” and that of “grievance”. The severe conflicts over natural resources which occurred in Indonesia’s region of Aceh and Papua New Guinea’s Bougainville province will be closely examined for the purpose of proving the plausibility of the “grievance” based approach while simultaneously invalidating the “greed” model of explanation. To put it briefly, in accordance with the empirical findings from the analyzed case studies, it is clear that natural resource disputes cannot individually account for the causation of violent conflict, rather, the impacts of resource exploitation further fuels preexisting feelings of resentment which then contribute along with many other factors concerning a regions history and identity in mutually influencing the sense of grievance which as a result necessitates collective violence.
Many debates following the causes of violent conflicts arising from disputes over natural resources draw much focus on two major driving factors; these determinants, as previously stated, include the forces of “greed” and that of “grievances”. The greed based model of explanation recognizes the quest for self-enrichment and economic interests as the foundation for violent conflict. Among the prominent theorists who promote a
References: Anthony Regan, “The Bougainville conflict: Political and Economic Agendas” in Karen Ballentine & Jake Sheman (eds), The Political Economy of Armed Conflict: Beyond Greed & Grievance, Boulder & London: Lynne Reiner, 2003. Edward Aspinall, “The Construction of Grievance: Natural Resources and Identity in a Separatist Conflict”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51, 6: pp 950-972 Michael L. Ross, Paivi Lujala, Siri Aas Rustad, “Horizontal Inequality, Decentralizaing the Distribution of Natural Resource Revenues, and Peace. Retrieved from: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/Ross%20Lujala%20Rustad.pdf Michelle Ann Miller. Reconfiguring politics: The Indonesia-Aceh peach process. The Conflict in Aceh: Context, precursors and catalysts. 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.c-r.org/accord-article/conflict-aceh-context-precursors-and-catalysts Dr. Sylvia Schweitzer. What determines violent conflicts over natural resources? Evidence from land conflicts in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Retrieved from: http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0002714/Article_Land_Conflicts_Schweitzer.pdf Paul Collier, Nicholas Sambanis. Understanding Civil War. Evidence and Analysis. Retrieved from: http://www.sarpn.org/documents/d0002714/Article_Land_Conflicts_Schweitzer.pdf