Resource Curse vs. Government Curse

Resource Curse vs. Government Curse

The "resource curse" has often been blamed for conflicts around the world, as a result of international powers who carve up a country to grab its natural goods. However, the idea that a country is automatically doomed to failure because they have a wealth of resources is disingenuous. In reality, the definition of what constitutes a resource curse is blurry, and the difference between success and failure for a resource rich country primarily comes down to the management of that country.

In order to first understand the resource curse, one must first attempt to define it. As it turns out, this is a difficult task to do, which no one does in a satisfying manner. Generally when one thinks of a resource rich countries that are cursed, they are reminded of countries that are abundant in only a single natural resource. Sierra Leone is "resource cursed" because it has diamonds. The Middle East is "resource cursed" because it is full of oil. The implication is that these countries' economies are heavily dependent on the one resource they produce, and that international attention towards those resources is causing conflict in order for whatever interest groups can get a hold of it to make a large profit.

However, is having only one single resource really considered being "resource rich?" If a country has only one major natural resource that they are heavily dependent on, it means that they are less self-sufficient and more at the mercy of foreign powers. While they may be rich in the one export which gives the country international attention, they have as much of an issue due to lack of resources as they have due to an overflow of them.

If a country is defined by their reliance on a sole natural resource in order to be "resource cursed," then there are several examples of countries breaking that curse. Ideally, a country heavily dependent on an important natural resource should expect to have many foreign clients, and as a result should roll in a good amount of export money that they can use to build other sectors of the economy. Indeed, this is the case with the United Arab Emirates. While they are ostensibly "resource cursed" with oil, it understands the West's dependency on the resource, and has utilized that Western investment in order to build their service economy. Diversifying will also have the effect of securing the economy long term, if oil were ever to crash in price, lose its demand, or be depleted as a supply. Saudi Arabia is undergoing something similar, and has been relatively peaceful. Even Sierra Leone engaged with this mindset. Since diamonds have a seemingly insatiable appeal in the West, they have brought in large sums of export money, which the country has reinvested into infrastructure or other resources that they need. As a result, conflict in the region has seemingly died down, and civil war has not yet reignited in Sierra Leone since the early 2000s. That is not to suggest that these countries do not have their own share of problems, however, they are not currently marked by major conflicts or short term instability.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, are countries in the Americas, a region with multiple natural resources, and could potentially be defined as "resource cursed." Brazil, for example, can extract plenty of timber due to the Amazon, but it is also a major exporter in items like coffee beans or sugarcane. Chile first became rich off of its copper, but it has since become known for other things such as being a fertile wine country, and it exports a large amount of organic foods such as poultry, apples, or pears. These countries can be considered "resource rich," but are that way because they have myriad types of resources in their own country, limiting their dependency on imports. Despite being resource rich, and presumably resource cursed, the Brazilian and Chilean societies are not considered to be failing. Brazil has been touted as an emerging power, especially due to its association with BRICS, and has become one of the largest economies in the world today. Chile, meanwhile, has the highest human development in all of Latin America, as well as one of the region's strongest economies and highest literacy rates. While there was an expectation of these countries to be resource cursed for being rich with desirable natural resources, these countries are relatively stable and prosperous.

By contrast, Venezuela is similarly rich in natural resources, but is highly unstable. Its murder rate is one of the highest in the world. People there are starving, eating zoo animals or making soup out of grass, and inflation is so high in the country that some video game currencies are worth more than the Venezuelan bolivar.

The common thread between the cases of a resource curse are that the government is doing a poor job at managing the resources due to corruption or poor policy making. This is the underlying problem in each case, whether a country has one natural resource or many.

In reality, countries under the resource curse are in their situation for two reasons. The lack of any resources beyond the one they are rich in has created a dependency on foreign economies in the country, and even if they were able to be autonomous from the global economy, they would require a government that can properly utilize those resources. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider the problem to be one of poor governance, or at least label the problem a "singular resource curse."

Global Warming and Security

In the United States, we have Al Gore and his successors to thank for the national focus on global warming and climate change, at home and across the world.  Throughout the years, we have seen all ends of the debate.  We've seen Donald Trump claiming in 2012 that global warming was Chinese hoax in order to stunt American manufacturing.  And we've seen Senator Bernie Sanders, in 2016, claim that climate change is directly correlated to the rise of terrorism.  Now, while the latter probably got a few nods from his base and the former got a lot of people to scratch their heads, we've been devout of a lot of necessary honesty and substance in this extremely complicated, essential, and nuanced discussion.

Recently, the discussion has shifted towards whether or not climate change or global warming is to be referred to and treated as a security issue, especially a national security issue.  While military, Defense Department, or other national security protective measures would be greatly ineffective in affecting climate change, there is very little else that this nation could do to combat it.  Now, there are certainly claims that those who favor climate change legislation have offered bountiful suggestions as to how to effectively alleviate our climate problem.  However, it's not that easy.  Like in most issues, it's never that easy.

The points that most often drive the pro-legislation advocates are the "No Plan(et)-B" slogans and emphasizing that there needs to be a viable earth in order to sustain life.  While these are both true, it does not mean that since they have predicted an endgame for hundreds, or thousands, of years in the future that they are suddenly inerrant in their policy suggestions.  This false idea leads to much of the contempt and disdain that comes from the other side of the debate.  Further, many anti-legislation advocates oppose such policies because of the dooming repercussions that would follow.

A large portion of these advocates either understand or would be directly affected by the economic or personal implications of this legislation.  These people are miners, and other people throughout manufacturing states like West Virginia and Michigan.  These people, if we were to follow through with these damning policies, would lose their job, and their livelihood.  That, right now, is far greater a security issue to the men and women of the United States than anything else regarding the issue.  It is most viable that we work towards finding more substantial sources of energy that are efficient and safe while also protecting these people and their way of life.  It is common to spin the climate issue as a very urgent threat, but the reality shows that its effects will come far down the road, with enough time for us to solve the problem with utmost efficiency.  However, until then, the most pressing security threat will be that to the ontology of the individuals that these policies would impact.

Labels vs Actions: How to Actually Help Deal with Sierra Leone, Climate Change, and Tuvalu

           Of our most recent case studies, one theme was quite prevalent: when faced with some sort of human and/or environmental crisis, many of those in positions to help spend considerably more time debating what labels or pre-existing programs should be assigned to a situation in a foreign nation that requires some degree of international assistance. All too frequently, efforts to aid foreign countries rely too heavily on the idea that those offering the aid have the best solution to a problem, a solution that can be implemented across the board, regardless of varying circumstances. Often those attempting to help a situation fail to ask those who it affects the most what they need, what they want, or what they think the solution should be. This failure to properly acknowledge and validate the experiences and knowledge of the people in need of assistance, often results in programs and labels that don't necessarily help as much as they should, if at all.
            There is such an extreme emphasis from world powers and organizations like the U.N., for the world to agree on a set of labels and procedures, and to apply them universally even if they won't necessarily make any difference. Even when it comes to something like whether or not climate change should be considered a national security threat, those (often very powerful nations) who conclude that it should, attempt to push those who believe otherwise to follow in their footsteps. They often emphasize how many of the nations who view it as a regular environmental issue instead, should be viewing it as a national security issue more so than anyone because they are more directly impacted by climate change than most other nations. The end result of this is more energy directed towards trying to make all nations view climate change as a national security threat than at cooperatively dealing with the actual issue.
            A more obvious, blatant and specific example of this problem can be seen through an examination of the international political responses to Sierra Leone in the 1990s/ early 2000s. In Sierra Leone, following the resolution of the conflict between groups such as the Revolutionary United Front, mining companies, and the local government over diamonds, several international forces attempted to aid the nation. Post-conflict programs such as 'Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration' (DDR) programs were implemented. However, their impact disproportionally affected former male soldiers (who had been securitized by outside forces) and former female soldiers (who had not been securitized). Despite the fact that a significant amount of women had been soldiers, few girls or women went to these programs, due to a myriad of social reasons that outside forces failed to consider (e.g. that many women voluntary were the perpetrator of horrific wartime acts rather than their victims, that the programs division of children and adults based on age didn't  necessarily align with the personal and societal perception of female soldiers based on their experiences, etc.). This insistence on applying specific perceptions, solutions, and labels from aiding nations and groups hindered their ability to help Sierra Leone recover as much as they could have.
        In more recent times, a similar problem is occurring in response to climate change-related threats to the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu. Rising sea levels are threatening to completely submerge the island, leading many to assert that there will soon be a flood of Tuvaluan "climate change refugees" to neighboring countries like Australia, Fiji and New Zealand. There, of course, have already been Tuvaluans who have immigrated to these countries, so this perception of migration is not imagined, however, the perception of its correlation to climate change might be. It could easily be several more decades before Tuvaluans have to emigrate, and it appears that many wish to stay there, regardless of whether or not that is plausible or rational. Outside forces thus begin debating whether or not they can help save Tuvalu, whether or not they can or should help facilitate Tuvaluan migration, and whether or not Tuvaluans should be labeled as "climate change refugees" due to negative connotations of the term 'refugee'.The first two questions are of course significantly more important than the last, however, in most discussions, many neglect to properly acknowledge or validate the thoughts of Tuvaluans; something which will likely lead to yet another situation which could have ended better if only those directly affected by the crisis had been properly consulted and valued.

        Overall, there needs to be a stronger push to consult with those directly affected by human and/or environmental crises, to acknowledge their experiences and opinions and to incorporate them into any proposed solutions. That is not to say that the entire solution should be shaped solely around, say, the wants of those affected, but that at the very least those directly affected should be able to have a say in any plans concerning their future wellbeing. In order for nations and organizations who wish to help those affected by human and/or environmental crises to successfully offer useful aid, they need to remember that no label or program is 'one size fits all' and adjust any solutions they offer to accordingly incorporate the solutions of those directly affected.

Should the United States Have Intervened in Sierra Leone?

United States Intervention

            In 1961, the United States and Sierra Leone established diplomatic relations. Since then, the United States has aided the people of Sierra Leone in multiple ways, the most recent being during the Ebola outbreak in 2014. However, the United States was silent when the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), originating from Libya, entered the country in pursuit of diamonds in the early 1990s. For eleven years, the RUF terrorized the people of Sierra Leone, killing and cutting off the limbs of thousands. During this time, the United States was silent. Therefore, the question remains; should the United States have done more to help Sierra Leone or was it wise of the United States to keep their distance? A simple answer to this question is that it was wise for the United States to stay out of the conflict.

            It is important to mention that, in 1997, the United Nations Security Council placed sanctions against Sierra Leonne, and in 1999, the United Nations finally intervened. However, this was eight years after the beginning of the conflict, and the damage had already occurred. Also, getting a unanimous decision in the Security Council as to what to do about the conflict in Sierra Leone would have been extremely difficult to do because of the veto power of China and Russia. It does not mean the United States should have bypassed the United Nations though.

            As stated before, the United States and Sierra Leone do have diplomatic relations. However, having diplomatic relations with a country is a lot different than having a formal alliance with them. Alliances hold a more profound meaning because ties are stronger, especially when one is in need. On the other hand, diplomatic relations are merely friendly communications between two states, and the bond between these countries is not nearly as strong. Therefore, the United States was under no obligation to intervene on behalf of the Sierra Leonne government.

            It was also arguably better the United States did not send troops in to help fight the RUF. In the past, United States intervention has not led to a better government in the area, nor seen more peace. Although the civil war in Sierra Leonne happened before, the United States intervention in the Middle East after 9/11 could be an indicator as to what would have occurred in Sierra Leonne had the United States entered. Had the United States intervened, it is quite possible that they would try to take the lead in every aspect of the fighting. Thus, when the conflict was finally over, the United States would have felt that it was their obligation to “put the country back.” Had this happened, Anti-Americanism would have been a significant consequence.

            As seen in the Middle East, the United States’ intervention has seen a rise in terrorist organizations and attacks. While the Americans thought they were helping, the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria had a growing distrust in them. Had the United States intervened in Sierra Leone, this same reaction could have been a consequence.

            In the end, the United Nations applied sanctions on Sierra Leone which soon led to the conclusion of the civil war. Although the United Nations should have done something sooner, rather than waiting eight years to intervene, applying sanctions was the best option. For the United States, not intervening meant no American lives were lost, and anti-Americanism did not grow in the region.