Resources_Reading Memo

When it comes to any conflict in the world and its reconciliation, resolution or containment there are various issues to consider. First of all we have to define actors engaged in the conflict, their nature and most of all why they have become involved in the conflict in the first place. It leads us then to underlying causes that perpetuate the conflict and violence which have to be assessed and “treated” in order to make the settlement or containment possible. However, could these causes be understood only as motives of violent actors which made them wage a war? Or are these causes more “sophisticated”, using the terminology of Johan Galtung, structural that make the war inevitable within the particular social structure? Finally what I would stress out are impacts of such measures aiming to influence or terminate the conflict. I am referring mainly to impacts influencing civilians but rebels, elites, soldiers, government leaders and others whose lives are shaped not only by the war but also by the proposals which aim more or less to set up peace.

   Leaving the topic of violent actors and their nature aside, how can we come to the right conclusion about the causes of any given conflict? Is it possible for a conflict to be fuelled just by single source or are there multiple factors that led violent actors to war? And if there could be defined various factors are they disrupting the peace on sole basis, simultaneously or do they cause each other and thus create the instability and conflict environment? With regards to the cases of Sierra Leone and eastern Democratic Republic of Congo many experts and analysts have reached the agreement that what stays and fuels these two conflicts are mineral resources. Thus they are called “conflict minerals”. Even one of my colleagues had provided positive answer to the question if these conflicts are really/only about minerals, the question we had been dealing throughout the whole lesson. And then the following question was asked: “Would the Congo (as we were targeting mostly this country through the discussion) look like it looks now if it wouldn’t be for mineral resources?” In my own opinion it probably wouldn’t. It is due to the realities of Congo provided in the readings, the most significant of which I would say is that considerable part of Congolese population relies on this “job opportunity” and that the mining has represented the main source of earnings for many Congolese families for generations. In this regard I would agree with the positive answer of my colleague, too. To be more precise I argue that indeed minerals could constitute main source of violence and conflict when it comes to countries where they also represent the “bread and butter” for civilian population.

On the one hand, it was rightfully pointed out that “armed groups don’t fight because they have access to mineral wealth” (Seay, 2012, p.13). On the other hand possession of mines can be very beneficial for violent actors if the lives of civilians rest upon mining activity as well as if the whole economy of the particular state rest upon it. Another point to this assumption was provided in the text of Collier and Hoeffler who claims that rising trend of conflicts in African states is not caused by their social structures (religion or ethnic fractionalization, ethnic domination, etc) but by their economic developments or rather stagnation and underdevelopment. They came into a conclusion that what makes African states more prone to conflict is lack of economic performance that would lead to the growth in their economy. Moreover it is also the reason why “mineral rich” states are more dependent on mineral export and in this way also why the mineral resources might become the main source of conflict (according to their research it amounts to 17% of GDP) (Collier and Hoeffler, 2002).

Nevertheless, I would not agree with Collier’s statement which claims that “new wars” (defined as a conflict which contain violent struggle over private material gains as well as political goals and social ends) today are fought rather due to economic than political reasons (Collier in Richards, 2003). In spite of the fact that most of the rebel movement, radicals or government opposition factions do fight to reach some gains and in this way it may also imply to fight over money resources, it is also important to ask what does these resources and money itself represent. Why armed groups and violent actors struggling over mineral resources? What are their motives to do that? My own opinion would not lean towards the dilemma of greed versus grievance. What I think is that minerals as other resources can be translated into the debate over money. In addition, the struggle over such money resources could be also interpreted as a struggle over power. By the power I am referring to the ability of someone to shape or manipulate conditions and environment in the way that serves their interests, ideology, etc. It implies also that this someone is capable to affect other actors, be it individuals or some local, regional or international organizations, and the way how they behave and act. In a simple way to make them take actions which they would not if it would not be for these “power holders”.  I thus argue that in countries such as Sierra Leone or eastern D. R. Congo, which are rich in natural resources and minerals plus more or less dependent on their export, these represents mainly means of power. Furthermore since it is mostly the civilian population who holds on such resources to sustain their own lives and lives of their family members it is thus these civilians who constitute to be the most vulnerable target of this power. On the other hand, it could be questioned if the struggle would not occur if mineral resources were not present in “mineral rich” states such as Sierra Leone or eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Could it be that if someone wants to fight he finds the way to pursue it? Or if someone wants the “power” he finds the source and starts the struggle over it?

To conclude on this topic, it was described by Laura E. Seay that the importance on minerals, in the cases of Sierra Leone and eastern D. R. Congo, stems from a simple logic. It says that violent and armed groups possess mines and are involved in mineral trade in order to provide themselves with bulk of money, as already mentioned, which as follows ensures that violent activities of these groups can continue smoothly. Thus it could be concluded that to stop or deny access of these groups to mines and mineral trade would mean to cut them off of money resources. Consequently it would also lead to decrease in violence and to the termination of the conflict since the group can no longer afford the necessary instruments such as weapons or ammunitions to wage war (Seay, 2012). If it would be that simple it would then probably mean that the positive answer provided about conflict minerals in the cases of Sierra Leone and eastern D. R. Congo is indeed enough and the conflict could be resolved. Unfortunately as the data provided indicates this logic does not prove to be true in reality. In the criticism of Dodd-Frank 1502 it was illustrated that such legislation was not able to decrease or stop the violence in the Congo and what is more it hurt mainly civilians who are dependent of the mining industry.  On the contrary what I think is that it is probably the best approach how to deal with any conflict. I am not referring to this particular act but the fact that to solve any conflict it is inevitable to start somewhere. This means to find the “worst” of the “worst” and deal with it firstly and then continue in such manner until some kind of a stable and peace environment can be established. Keeping and weighting pros and cons of such measures and considering impacts they may pose on individuals as well as on the country or region.