Resources_Reflection Memo

            In our last class we discussed the greed versus grievance theory of conflict and after listening to the viewpoints of my peers I have to agree that the theory is flawed. First, labeling economic activity that causes conflict as ‘greed’ is misleading. As one of my classmates said, individuals and groups involved in a conflict may be motivated by the desire to provide basic human needs for their families. It is not greed to want to reach a level of sufficiency. Furthermore, describing the economic activity behind a conflict as greed delegitimizes the conflict. Doing so excludes all other economic motives behind a given conflict when, in fact, there may be very legitimate ones behind the conflict, such as the desire to be paid a living wage.

Labeling a conflict as driven by greed has consequences. It brands all groups that are involved as degenerates. This makes it more difficult to get other states involved in stopping the conflict, as in a democracy it is challenging to drum up support to assist parties that are seen as greedy, fighting merely for economic supremacy. The cause is not worthy enough. The groups are not fighting for their independence or increased minority rights, issues which would much more easily galvanize the public in a democracy. Moreover, by misunderstanding the root causes of the conflict, attempts to end it may be misguided. Indeed, as Laura E. Seay’s article demonstrated, section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act is a product of lawmakers not understanding the relationship between violence and mineral resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Act has not resulted in any reduction of violence in that region. Thus, greed is a misnomer and should be replaced by ‘economic activity’, but then again, the ‘economic activity vs grievance’ theory just does not sound as catchy as the ‘greed versus grievance’ theory.

            Second, naming the theory ‘greed versus grievance’ simplifies the causes of conflict in the developing world to a degree in which a false dichotomy is created between the economic sources and the social and political sources of conflict. Sources of conflict are not either economic or political, they are economic and political and social.  Rarely, if ever, can the causes of a conflict be traced to a single source. It is the complex interaction of many different political, economic, and social actors that leads to the outbreak of a conflict. The false dichotomy that the greed versus grievance theory creates glosses over these interactions and does more to impair our understanding of the sources of conflict than to deepen it.

            The topic of understanding the sources of conflict leads me to the next topic that I would like to discuss: is it even possible to know the source of a conflict? This question was raised by one of my peers, but it is more accurate to ask whether we can know the sources of a conflict, since, as stated above, there is rarely a singular source. The simple answer to the question is yes. We can definitely uncover the sources of a conflict. It is a human conflict after all, not the behavior of an alien race. On the other hand, the sources of a conflict can be incredibly complex. There are actors at the individual level, the sub-national level, the national level, and the international level to consider. Often, the source of an on-going conflict has been forgotten, since the situation has evolved over the years and now groups are fighting for entirely different reasons. Ultimately, the sources of a conflict can be traced by taking all the different factors into account using the methods of social science.

            Even so, it must be acknowledged that assigning causality in the social sciences is difficult. It is simple to prove correlation. If one factor trends downwards while another trends upwards, logically people will make a connection between the two. Actually proving beyond a doubt that one factor trended up because the other trended down is an entirely different story. The article by Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler that we read this week provides such an example. Collier and Hoeffler argue that lower per capita income and slower GDP growth increased the risk of civil war in developing countries, and conclude that “the rising trend of African conflict is [due to] the contingent effect of economic circumstances.” Unless I am misunderstanding the article, which is possible because it was quantitative paper, this statement is a stretch. Their paper only demonstrated that there was a correlation between higher levels of conflict and those two economic indicators, not a decisive economic causality of African conflicts. Therefore, it is possible to argue that economic circumstances contribute to African conflicts, but certainly not that they are the sole cause of them, which demonstrates the difficulty of assigning causality.

            Lastly, the greed versus grievance theory, or more so the new wars thesis, has a tinge of Eurocentricity about it. To explain, it seems like proponents of the new wars thesis are interpreting African conflicts through the spy-glass of colonialism. Why did Europeans fight for territory and colonize Africa? To obtain natural resources. To this day many western states and companies are interested in Africa solely to exploit its wealth of natural resources. Thus, from their perspective, natural resources must be the reason that conflicts have broken out in resource rich parts of Africa, as they are the only things worth fighting over. It would be interesting to know how many people in the DRC would agree with the stance that natural resources are truly the source of the conflict there.

            And finally, I want to comment on China’s relationship with African states. Last summer I read Howard French’s book China's Second Continent: How a Million Migrants are Building a New Empire in Africa and I gathered from it that China’s economic investment in African states can be a great boon to nations with small economies and limited ability to fund necessary infrastructure projects. On the individual level though, it is a different story, as French paints a picture of Chinese owned operations that are exploitive, that abuse worker’s rights, and that generally operate outside the law. It seems that China can certainly help African nations at a state level, but can do severe harm on an individual one. China’s investment is, therefore, a double-edged sword that African states must recognize and take measures to protect their citizens.

            P.S.: I think a seminar on Africa’s relationship with the international community, and especially China, would be an excellent addition to the course.