The Typologies Of Armed Conflict Analysis

5108 Words 21 Pages
Register to read the introduction… It discusses that the Resources are likely to influence the type of violent conflict required and feasible to achieve political and economic aims. Although such bi-dimensional lecture of armed conflicts has obvious limits and caveats given their multi-dimensionality, Table 1 presents a tentative typology associating the geography and political economy of resources with specific conflicts and provides examples. The relationship between the nature of a resource, its location and concentration or mode of production, and conflicts is complex and these hypotheses need further investigation. However, this basic assessment indicates that a point resource may be more easily monopolised than a diffuse resource, but that its desirability usually makes it vulnerable to contestation and often depends on international recognition for mobilizing investors, hence the likelihood of coup de etat or secession as a function of relative proximity. Rewards from resource control are maximized by insurgents when resources are easily accessible and marketable and sufficiently valuable, such as distant diffuse resources, hence the association with warlordism. Finally, proximate diffuse resources involving large number of producers would be more likely to lead to rebellion or rioting in nearby centres of power (provincial or national capital). Much of the political ecology literature on resources and conflict has dealt with diffuse, proximate resources and has thus focused on conflicts characterised by rebellion and rioting. The remaining three types of conflict (violent state control, secession, and warlordism) have received less …show more content…
The economic agendas associated with the exploitation of resources can also influence the course of conflicts through their ‘criminalisation’,asfinancial motivations may come to override political ones. Financial self-interest may motivate individual soldiers, local commanders, and their political backers to sustain profitable conflicts thereby securing their stake in the resource wealth. Such ‘free-lancing’ and the attendant anarchy usually results in violent competition. Yet, it can also involve accommodation between opposing factions who find a mutual benefitina‘comfortable military stalemate’, leaving the territory and its population under a no-armed conflict-nor-peace situation; that is a ‘stable’ conflict situation. While this situation may reduce the intensity of warfare, the stake that belligerents have in maintaining a status quo of entitlement based on violence often prevents successful political and economic reforms and a rapid transition to sustainable peace. A state of armed conflict provides belligerents with economic and political entitlements and opportunities that cannot be achieved by peace or even victory. Indeed, peace is likely to erode the sources of sustenance of warring parties: fear and hatred as well as ‘legitimated’ repression on the political side; as well as outside assistance and violent asset transfers on the economic one. Furthermore, entrenched interests associated with the capture of rents, together with the difficulty of reversing perverse economic effects can result in a lack of political consensus for reform. At the extreme, even a leader committed to a peace agreement may not be able to ensure its enforcement by followers and subordinates more influenced by their personal economic gains than the structure of authority in the armed

Related Documents