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.