The Reinforcement of the Resource Curse by Developed Nations

I mentioned in class the idea that oil refineries produce more high-skilled jobs than collecting crude oil, but here I will develop that idea into an argument that relates both the conflict and economic parts of the resource curse.

I think that the resource curse explains the violent conflict in some countries very well, but misses in others. Specifically, it seems like it takes a widely adapted definition of violent conflict to make the theory work for the more developed nations. I think that natural resource-rich countries with significant downstream industries have less violent conflict than natural resource-rich countries without downstream industries. I think the violence that the countries with downstream industries participate in is outside their borders, while in the other natural resource-rich countries violent conflict takes place within state borders. Further, I think it is not the dependence on a resource that hurts a country, but the dependence on raw materials as a large share of total exports.

For example, depending on crude oil creates an unstable economy, as Ross points out that fluctuations in either supply or demand can change prices enough to create a dire economic situation. Add in an oil refinery downstream and a country can now export any of the many products made from crude oil. This diversification allows for a more stable economy, and one with higher quality products. The United States rich in natural resources, but does not experience as much violent conflict within its borders as many other natural resource rich countries. I think the conflict is in the countries that export raw materials as a large share of their exports.

One of the problems of the countries exhibiting violent conflict is their trade relationship with their buyers. The countries buying the raw materials have an incentive to add value to the natural resources domestically. This means the developed nations have an advantage if they can encourage the sellers not to invest in downstream industry. The way the developed countries can do this is through import tariffs-taxing any value-added imports more than raw material imports. But if the countries using import tariffs on value added goods are the same countries promoting global economic development, they are basically working against their own goals. What can the countries with the natural resources do? They can implement export tariffs such that it is more expensive to export raw materials than it is value added materials. The problem is this plan discourages foreign investment, which is often needed to establish the industries needed to add value to the natural resources. The foreign investment is discouraged because the investors, usually developed countries, can go to the next country selling raw materials.

Therefore I think much of the foreign influence from developed countries causes the conflict in the natural resource-rich countries that have no significant way to add value to their product. This is because the developed countries prevent the natural resource-rich countries from diversifying, and make economic growth harder to come by. The bad or even negative economic growth is associated with more violent conflict according to Ross. In my opinion, the result of this situation is that a country like the United States encourages these countries to export raw materials while sending many of them aid aimed at economic development at the same time. I think it is better to use economic tools, in addition to cash and other aid packages, to allow countries to have access to fair markets.

These international trade, natural resource, and violent conflict forces are much too complicated to be figured out in this blog. However, I think it is apparent to see the hypocrisy of sending money to a country to support its economic development, while keeping that country from the incentive to establish value-adding industries. I think those tools would work better together.

Is the Responsibility of the International Community to Help Countries Suffering from the Resource Curse?

The resource curse and its international implications are always shocking to me since from an outsider's viewpoint, it is logical that highly profitable resources would benefit a country rather than deter their development. However, as we have discussed in class, a country's possession of oil or another valuable resource tends to have a negative effect on their economy. This can create governmental corruption if the profits tend to go solely to the elites, an unaccountable government since most of their revenue is not based on taxes so they do not have to be responsible to their people, and weak government systems. One of the suggestions in the Ross article is for countries in the international community to become more involved in encouraging resource dependent countries to diversify their trade and to hold their governments accountable. Ideally if a country's trade prospects on the international stage were compromised by a domestically corrupt government, a country would be highly incentivized to manage their resource industries. This, however, is not the case. This proposition calls my attention to the role of the international community in regards to resource industries. Is it the responsibility of the international community to hold these governments accountable?

            One argument for greater international responsibility is the direct or indirect impact of conflict or increased poverty as a result of weakened governments. Governments that are less accountable to their citizens tend to provide few social services and infrastructure which decreases the citizen’s trust in the government. Less trust among the people makes conflict more likely since many will be left in extreme poverty and do not feel they can rely on their government for basic services. As we have discussed in class, this may also be a tactic of corrupt governments since it is easier to distract citizens from the problems of the government if they are fighting one another.

While it can be argued that these conflicts do not affect the international stage, but they can have major implications on international aid efforts, refugee populations fleeing to surrounding countries, and the potential for larger conflicts to arise between nations. Conflicts can also have major implications on international trade. As we are seeing in the Ukraine conflict, Russia’s power over major energy sources is affecting not only Ukraine but also many European countries. Just as the current conflict is creating huge effects, conflicts in resource rich areas like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and others can have impacts on the international markets.

There are many reasons why countries are not interfering with corrupt governments or that there has not been the creation of international standards regarding trade from corrupt nations. The most obvious and widely used is the need to respect a country’s sovereignty and ability to run their government the way they see fit. While this is both reasonable and necessary to avoid conflict, it is used often to justify a country’s actions when the ultimate goal is to obtain greater economic gains. In my opinion, the most common reason for noninterference is that other countries, particularly developed countries, want to reap the benefits of the resource being on the global market without worrying about how it is affecting the people of the country or taking human rights issues into account. This can be seen in the current crisis in Ukraine. Due to Russia’s control over energy sources, many countries in Europe are being affected by the current issue and fear conflict with Russia.

Ultimately, the international system is ruled by trade and economic gains and is usually driven by the needs of developed countries. The internal effects of resource rich countries are rarely taken into account, though with depleting energy sources and many internal conflict creating effects on the international stage, perhaps international organizations will be pushed to create higher human rights and governmental standards from countries high on resources and low on development.

Radical Realms of Environmental Violence

               The subject of environmental violence can often be thought of or described in a number of ways, and may additionally be attributed to a number of different factors.  However, one area of environmental violence that may take on a more literal meaning of the term deals with eco-terrorism.  While eco-terrorism is nothing new, I was actually pretty ignorant to this subject until watching If a Tree Falls, in GVPT273.  But after seeing this documentary, I found myself extremely curious about the world of environmental radicalism; not because I wanted to be a part of this movement, but because many of the issues that these people were fighting for were things that I also cared about, and I simply didn’t understand what would push them to such violent extremes.

               While the term eco-terrorism is controversial in itself, I would like to focus the topic of this blog on how this form of environmental violence ties into those dealing with conflict or scarcity.  It seems that the idea of environmental violence often centers on issues occurring within undeveloped States, and in many cases it can be thought of as the product of scarcity or environmental degradation.  Eco-terrorism, on the other hand, typically deals with violence that is carried out in developed States, as a direct measure to counter environmental degradation.  In most cases, acts of environmental radicalism occur on a local scale, usually in response to domestic issues.  And while it may seem to have nothing to do with issues occurring within the underdeveloped world, in some ways eco-terrorism can be thought of as a by-product of these more traditional scenarios of environmental violence.

               Although this concept might be a bit of a stretch, it deals with the idea of consumerism in the developed world fueling environmental violence occurring within the undeveloped world.  The indirect relationship between eco-terrorism and traditional forms of environmental violence is ultimately based on the economic ties that developed States have with undeveloped States, whether it deals with importing or exporting natural resources.  A hypothetical example might include an act of environmental violence taken upon a domestic oil corporation in a developed country that acquires much of its supply from a poorer country that deals with violence as a result of having such an abundant supply of oil.  And while such a relationship is particularly weak in most cases, in certain situations, this connection may be more apparent.

Thinking Situationally

I think it is very difficult to identify a single, precise cause of conflict, or to apply one theory to environmental events or resource shortage.  We have spent time discussing and comparing theories and how they can be applied to conflict or shortages and not everyone can agree on which theory can be best applied to the situation or, for example, what factor is the reason for conflict- is it natural resources or some outside factor?  The purpose of this post is to discuss how many environmental conflicts, shortages or other events can be very situational and not related to one blanket cause.  I know that sounds like such an obvious statement, but I wanted to discuss just how many “if’s,” “or’s,” or “yet’s” exist.  I consider myself to be a very situational and objective thinker, so often, when attempting to choose a theory to agree with, for example, I usually can’t- my answer is “it depends.”

This was most definitely the response I had when discussing the idea that natural resources are the cause and source of all conflict.  While conflict certainly breaks out because of a fight for land or some other resource like oil or diamonds, I don’t think that is the sole reason.  We obviously discussed one of the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 to be the threat of large amounts oil in the hands of a tyrant.  While this may be true, I do not believe it was the sole or determining factor. Suddam Hussein was a supporter of terrorism and the United States was currently in a very anti-terrorism state of mind relative to before 9/11.  So, when we discuss the theory that all conflict is caused by natural resources, this example is not one that I think solely rested on the threat of losing natural resources.  Ross also argues that natural resources are never the only source of conflict.  

We’ve also discussed whether or not we believe in the resource curse.  Ross also opines that “for every resource-rich country that has suffered from violent conflict, two or three have avoided it.” I think that this is a true statement. When looking at the map in class of the oil-rich countries, Canada was just as bright red as the entire Middle East and Canada is traditionally a country that is conflict-free.  I think it provides an example of a nation that may not necessarily suffer from the resource curse.  The resources curse may have more to do with HOW a country uses the resources they have rather than whether they have it or not.  

Yergin also provides a really interesting narrative about the beginning of the extensive use of oil and explains what implications the quest for oil has on a number of different nations.  He explains how much of an economic tool oil can be and that it can provide vast amounts of wealth to individuals and nations.  The United States is surely an example of a country that has benefitted from the existence and use of oil.  However, he also provides us with the information that the United States, although one of the largest producers of oil, must import a generous amount of the oil it uses.  Another example he provides is Mexico, who flourished through oil only to have it undermine their economy.

I am certainly not suggesting that we shouldn’t be comparing and contrasting theories or choosing one that we agree with. But I think, in order to properly address conflict and potentially, environmental catastrophe or resources shortages, we have to look at things situationally.  I think its important to be able to apply both sides of a theory to an event or situation in the way that best fits.

What is Environmental Violence?

          In everyday life it is easy to recognize violence.  We see a fist fight break out, hear about a shooting on the news, or watch footage of combat abroad and automatically identify those situations as examples of violence.  But how do we define violence as it applies to environmental degradation, and not direct human to human physical harm?  Can environmental degradation be used as a weapon, like a firearm can, of violence against a person or group of people--or is violence the wrong term to apply to environmental disasters that cause harm?  I'm arguing that environmental degradation can be defined as violence when it causes direct harm to a person or group of individuals, and I am using three cases as examples of environmental violence in both the developed and developing worlds: the Bhopal disaster in India, Love Canal in upstate New York, and the Three Gorges Dam in China.
          During the "green revolution" in the 1960s and 70s pesticides were hailed as a global solution to increase agricultural production and end world hunger.  The Indian government jumped on this opportunity, creating policies to encourage Western companies to build large pesticide-producing plants in India.  Over a decade later in the 1980s, demand for pesticides had decreased greatly and one of these American-owned pesticide plants in Bhopal, India was set to shut down due to low operations, but without any potential buyers the plant continued to operate through 1984.  The local government in Bhopal knew that the plant failed to meet several industrial and safety regulations, but could not afford to enforce those regulations and instead put the burden of compliance into the factory operators' hands--so it continued to operate unsafely.  Late at night on December 2, 1984 a gas known as methyl isocyanate (MIC) began leaking from the factory as several safety measures failed to work and thousands of Bhopalians slept.  Exposure to this gas resulted in the death of over 8,000 people with more than 200,000 experiencing injuries, birth defects, and other complications related to MIC exposure.  With stricter enforcement and compliance with health and safety regulations, this disaster could have easily been avoided--but because of carelessness and greed thousands of people in Bhopal, India went to sleep on December 2, 1984 never to wake up again.  The eery details of this event, to me, surely can be defined as violence.
          Love Canal was another example of environmental irresponsibility leading to violence against an innocent population, but this one occurred right here in the United States.  At the beginning of the 20th century a man named William T. Love sought to dig a canal connecting the upper and lower Niagara rivers in upstate New York, with the hope of cheap power generation.  By 1910 the canal proved too expensive and digging was halted, leaving only a large ditch.  In 1920 this ditch was turned into a chemical dumpsite, before toxic chemical disposal was strongly regulated.  A few decades later, in 1953, a chemical company who owned the land where the canal resided covered it with earth and sold it for one dollar to the city, who proceeded to built countless homes and schools overtop of Love Canal.  In 1978, after a year of particularly heavy rains, the toxic waste began leaching up from the ground.  In following years disturbingly high levels of birth defects and cancer rates were observed in this area.  As a result of the realization that the toxic chemicals were responsible, many families were compensated and Super Fund was created in the United States.  Regardless, the high incidence of birth defects and cancer that continue to plague past residents of Love Canal and could have easily been avoided clearly define this issue as a violent environmental disaster in the United States.
          While my first two examples were of environmental incidents which directly caused the death, disease, or deformation of individuals; the displacement of large numbers of people can also be considered violent because of the harm it causes.  The Three Gorges Dam in China is the world's largest dam and was built as a potential solution to provide large amounts of energy to growing populations in China.  Since being built in 2006 the dam has created a lot more problems than energy.  It's construction and operations submerged 13 cities, 140 towns, and 1,350 villages, resulting in the displacement of over 1.4 million people--most without adequate compensation.  According to a recent report more than 100,000 more people may be displaced due to landslides and bank collapses caused by the dam.  I would not always consider the displacement of people for projects such as this environmental violence, although I would consider them unethical; but, the large scale displacement of the Three Gorges Dam and the huge number of towns and villages it left submerged, combined with disastrous effects of landslides and bank collapses that are leaving even more people without homes, combine to classify the dam as a violent environmental alteration.
          In class we've debated about the definition of "violence" as it applies to environmental degradation, and if the term can even be applied to it at all.  While I concede that there are several examples of environmental degradation that, while terrible, can not exactly be considered "violent"; I think the three examples discussed in this blog demonstrate that there are instances where environmental degradation has violent results.  The death and harm of innocent individuals, as well as moving millions from their homes without fair compensation, paint as much of a picture of violence for me as seeing war footage on the news or a fight between individuals.

Relying On Mega Corporations

While reading Windup Girl, AgriGen brought me to consider examples of corporations and industries that are large market and political actors. I thought about monopolies or near monopolies that exist in the United States, and realized their influence over our government and economies is just as real. Monopolies have their obvious issues like price setting and quantity control, but they also act in ways that cripple economies and governments.

            In a perfectly competitive market, if one seller shuts down, goes bankrupt, or leaves the market for whatever reason, other sellers make up for the production. But when a seller has too much power, its collapse causes a tidal wave that cripples the buyers. With GMOs, agribusinesses get entire farming markets in their pocket by creating higher yield seeds that need to be purchased annually. The kicker is that the designers of the seeds have a monopoly on the product because their patents last longer than the seeds are produced: the company designs new seeds before other companies can use them. This means that when Monsanto comes out with a new genetically modified cottonseed, farmers need to buy it to stay competitive, and Monsanto is essentially the only store selling it.

            It is easy to imagine the world of AgriGen and PurCal becoming a reality. Certain agricultural products in the United States are produced by a majority of GM seeds, such as cotton, corn, and soy. Imagine that a large producer of GM corn hits a speed bump, maybe it goes down like Enron, or is responsible for a disaster like BP and Haliburton. Then all of a sudden farmers cannot get their GM corn seeds because the floundering Monsanto either went bankrupt or had to downsize or could not produce the seed this year for whatever reason. But there is already an established reliance on the corn. So the farmers can grow unmodified corn, but as a result the plants yield much less product. What happens next? One of the most relied on crops in the world is absent from grocery stores. Pigs and cows go unfed and now there is less red meat. Staples like tortillas, and comfort foods like popcorn and chips are not available, because what little corn that is produced is fed to the pigs and cows so Americans can have there beef jerky and pork rinds. Probably the most important side effect is the shortage of whiskey, arguably in some respects the backbone of society. Quite frankly, I fear the immense effect orchestrated disasters could have coming from the many monopolies of firms and industries that exist in many places.

            This scenario could come from electricity providers, which typically have an outright monopoly in a region. Pepco could flip a switch and make the capital of the free world go dark. Water providers, trash collectors, even airport operators in some places have local monopolies. Bacigalupi presents an extreme case, as I am rather sure Monsanto does not have hit men, but his concerns are real. What I got most out of Windup Girl is the possible outcome of our society relying on a few mega corporations and giving them enough leverage that the consequences from there actions hit everywhere. Maybe the result is that like Anderson, people have difficulty finding a good piece of fruit. Personally, I am more concerned over the stability of the production of beef jerky, pork rinds, and whiskey.

A World Before Bacigalupi's

“As the global community sank deeper into a new age of post-development, the last remaining tribes native to the jungles of the Amazon found themselves forced to face the harsh realities that those living in the outside world had already become accustomed to.  Over the course of the twenty-first century, the rainforest had been rapidly hacked away until it was nothing more than scattered patches of woodland, some completely out of sight from one another.  The once mighty Amazon River now barely reached the Atlantic, as much of it had been diverted to quench the thirst of cities hundreds of miles away.  Ironically enough, many of those rich enough to afford convenient access to safe, clean drinking water had come to envy these tribes, despite the fact they could not drink from the water source that their ancestors had relied on for centuries without the fear of contracting illness or disease.  At least they could still experience what was left of the natural world.  Trees had seemingly become a lost aspect of towns and cities, and were now simply thought of as a crop, harvested to meet the growing demands of an overpopulated world.  While the months were quickly approaching the beginning of a new century, the year 2200 seemed to bring nothing worth celebrating.”

Although this mini future scenario seems extremely bleak, I really do not feel this pessimistic about the future, especially in terms of how environmental issues might be dealt with down the road.  However, I felt that it could potentially provide a possible description of how the world might have been before the one that Bacigalupi imagines in The Windup Girl.  While I will admit that I was unable to reach the end of the novel by the time I started writing this blog post, while reading it I could not help but feel that the theme of the story was quite pessimistic, and offered a pretty ominous outlook of what the world will become.  Many of the fears that we have in concern for environmental issues today seemed to become a reality in the book, and in some cases seemed to exceed them.  Sea level rise had reached the point where coastal cities required flood gates, GMOs had gotten way out of hand, and resources that are heavily relied on today had been completely depleted.

These are all obviously valid concerns, and arguably possible scenarios of the future, but in coming across them throughout the story, I could not help but question whether any effort had been made to stop these issues from occurring before Bacigalupi’s world.  Although efforts of environmental conservation are made apparent in the present tense of the novel, is it possible that previous generations had simply given up in their efforts to combat these problems?  This question may possibly deal with pessimistic views held by society in concern for pursuing environmental efforts.  It may also center on the argument that people are not willing to work on solving issues that do not have immediate impacts, and do not start until it is too late.  While I feel that it definitely important to maintain a level of caution in regard to what the future might hold, I also believe that optimism will be a valuable tool in helping to combat environmental issues, and ultimately get things done.