It is desire for resources that triggers political interests. Control over the natural resources has been a significant determinant of war. Rentier-state theory argues that countries rich in natural resources tend to experience higher levels of conflict and economic instability.
The contemporary consciousness is well aware of the role of natural resources in the Iraq-Iran war, the Iraq-Kuwait war and the Falkland Islands. Presently, there are territorial claims over areas that are thought to be mineral-rich, such as South China Sea, the East China Sea, the border between Sudan and South Sudan, the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, water and oil conflicts in the Middle East and many more.
John Bakeless emphasised that the rise of industrialism has led to the struggle for raw materials. Michael T. Klare, a prominent figure to focus on resource-driven conflicts, in his book “Resource Wars,” argues that competition for natural resources is a primary cause of global conflict. According to him, resource scarcity will be the dominant cause of war in the 21st century. The ambitions tied to the acquisition of resources compelled formidable Roman civilisation to go for military campaigns across Europe, Africa, and the Near East. The conquest of the Po River Valley, Gaul, and Romans occupation of present-day Tunisia, became a crucial source of grain production. Egypt was often cited as the “breadbasket of the Roman Empire.” Genghis Khan’s conquest of China and the establishment of the Yuan Dynasty were driven by the desire to control the fertile plains of the Northern Chinese region and the Yangtze River Valley. The Mongols invasion of Persia and the establishment of Ilkhanate is another significant event.
With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, fossil fuels emerged as strategic resources during the 1700s. By the late 19th century, the discovery and utilisation of oil and natural resources further solidified the importance of natural resources. Paul Collier in the “Bottom Billion” has argued that the wealth of natural resources, such as oil or diamonds, can fuel conflict in developing nations, leading to corruption, instability, and prolonged civil war.
Colonial wars were driven by the relentless pursuit of resources. The Scramble for Africa was a period of aggressive European colonisation. The Belgian exploitation of the Congo Free State, the Anglo-Zulu war and the Aglo-Boer Wars were driven by motives to acquire valuable resources. South Africa has been a battleground of colonial powers due to its massive gold and diamond reserves.
The Maji Maji rebellion demonstrated the aggressive revolutionary reaction of the local population against German exploitation of cotton plantations. Opium wars were fought for the imposition of the highly profitable but devastating resource: opium. The Qing Dynasty’s defeat resulted in the “Century of Humiliation.” WWII was driven by geopolitical ambitions, but underlying these motivation was intense competition for natural resources. The Battle of Stalingrad was a desperate attempt to seize Baku’s oil fields. Hitler’s plan, as outlined in Generalplan Ost, was to turn Ukraine into a breadbasket for the Reich. Germany’s early invasion of Norway was driven by the need to secure Swedish iron ore, transported via Norwegian ports. Coal and Iron ore compelled Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. In the case of Pearl Harbour, the immediate trigger for Japan’s attack on the United States was the American oil embargo, which threatened to cripple Japan’s military. The British safeguarded oil fields in Iran and Iraq, which were essential for maintaining Allied fuel supplies. Similarly, oil was the lifeblood of the Cold War as both superpowers sought to secure oil reserves, particularly in the Middle East. The DRC was thrown into chaos due to its massive reserves of cobalt, copper, and uranium-all crucial for Cold War industries. The Angolan Civil War was not just a Cold-War ideological conflict but a fight over oil and diamonds.
Oil is arguably the most coveted strategic resource of modern times. The Middle East, home to over half of the world’s proven oil reserves, has been the playground of major powers. Since the 1970s, Western oil consumers shifted their focus from OPEC to non-OPEC resources. However, by the 1980s, OPEC regained influence due to the depletion of non-OPEC sources. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE were strategic actors in upholding low oil prices. The excessive oil production by Kuwait triggered the Gulf War.
The US intervention was framed as the liberation of Kuwait, but the Bush administration was less concerned about any moderate increase in the price of oil than about the prospect of strong Iraqi influence over oil policies. An unnamed US official is quoted as admitting that if Kuwait exported oranges instead of oil, the US would have barely reacted. The later Iraq war was heavily linked to securing oil resources. Post-invasion, Iraq’s oil industry was rapidly privatised, with western firms playing a dominant role. The Saudi-Iraq tensions are escalating due to influence within OPEC and an endeavour to secure oil transit routes such as the Strait of Hormuz. Water disputes are intensifying across North Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile River is the source of conflict between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan.
In the 21st century, resource-driven conflicts are more complex than ever, shaping geopolitical alignments, economic strategies, and even military doctrines. Modern economies rely heavily on rare-earth minerals which are essential in a range of common electronic applications and clean and green technologies. In recent years, the China resource diplomacy aims at getting access to natural resources. Rare earth materials are concentrated in a few countries, so the actions of individual exporters, specifically China, have crucial impacts on global flow. “While the Middle East has oil, China has rare earth minerals,” said Deng Xiaoping.
China controls 60%-70% of rare earth mining. China’s cut in REM export due to its realisation of acute energy security challenges triggered a set of trade disputes in the World Trade Organistion (WTO). There are international suspicions that China is abusing its rare earth exports as a political weapon. In response to the trade war and US tariffs, China can cripple the US defence sector, semiconductor industry and clean energy transition.
China is now the largest trading partner of Africa and China’s Export-Import Bank aims to invest more than $1 trillion by 2025. The market opportunities on the African continent are enormous. The World Bank estimates that the African market alone could be worth $1 trillion by 2030. For China, critical natural-resource shortage and the need to expand global demand for Chinese goods make Africa a great choice for investment.
Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China is planning to import more African goods and raw materials for its domestic markets. Beijing has invested billions in roads, railways, ports, and energy projects in Africa to facilitate resource extraction.
On the other hand, Russia has been endeavouring to tap into the energy reserves of the Arctic and the commercial value of the Northern Sea Route and has made China its significant partner in this cause. The 2023 foreign policy of Russia has mentioned the Russian Arctic among its priorities. Vladimir Putin sees Arctic oil and gas reserves as drivers of Russia’s economy, the Northern Sea Route as a strategically important route and increasing military presence in Arctic as a part of its defensive security. As the global strategic environment is changing, so is the need to acquire resources. The likelihood of intense relations is increasing due to an increase in global resource consumption. The debate is not whether the resource wars will continue, but the question is how to manage resource wars through diplomacy, economic coercion, or military force. Behind every conflict, there is a resource-driven calculus shaping the decisions of global leaders.
