International Resource Conflicts

1. International Resource Conflicts NS4053 Week 9.2

2. Agenda • Theories of international conflict. • Debates about the behavior of great powers vis a vis rising powers. • Debates about the behavior of great powers in energy arena. • Discussion of contemporary case: South China Seas dispute • Policy tools available to resolve resource disputes.

3. Sources of International Conflict • Balance of power and the security dilemma. • Marginal cost/marginal benefit. • Information failure: “If the weak can’t win, then why is there war?” • Economic: competition for marketsand access to resources leads to war • Other social sciences: psychological, sociological, anthropological.

4. International relations and war:Theories of power transition • System ordered by dominant powers, but identity of dominant power changes over time. • Indicators: population, demography, political intentions. • Few rising powers accommodated without systemic conflict during the last 500 years. • Portugal/Spain and Dutch/English in 1500s and 1600s. • Dutch and British (British) in 1600s. • British and French under Napoleon (British) 1780s to 1815. • British and Germany 1900s-1945 (United States in 1945). • US and Soviet Union (United States in 1991). • United States and … ?

5. Rising powers today • BRICs: overused term that masks different trend lines • China, India, Brazil trend lines for great power status all point in right direction. • Russia trends point in wrong direction, mainly demography. • In power transition theory, most dangerous moment is when revisionist rising powers being to surpass status quo powers. • Which are the revisionist powers?

6. Risk of conflict over energy today • Dominant powers: • Pessimists fear war by dominant powers due to scarcity. • Optimists believe dominant powers already have mechanisms in place to secure access to energy. • Rising powers: • Status quo: their needs can be accommodated within existing rules, norms, regimes. • Dissatisfied challengers: want major revisions to system. • Is international energy regime a source of dissatisfaction for rising powers?

7. Rising powers and energy • Historical record is that great powers are tempted to militarize their international energy policy once they become dependent on imports. • UK following shift to oil to fuel high seas fleet. • Japan before WWII. • US after 1973 oil shock. • Chinese maritime and overseas economic strategy today.

8. Likelihood of major power war • Critique - lower than in previous eras because of: • Realist: Nuclear weapons • Liberalist: Dense network of international institutions that can be used to socialize and enmesh rising powers in the status quo. • There is always the possibility of misperception and miscalculation. • There is also the possibility of using the possession of nuclear weapons or participation in international regimes (e.g. duty to protect) as cover for war.

10. Case: South and East China Seas • Oil reserves estimated at: • 213 billion barrels (China estimate) • 28 billion barrels (US EIA estimate) • Natural gas reserves estimated at • 1-2 trillion cubic feet in East China Seas (US EIA) • CNOOC claims as much as 498 trillion cubic feet in So. China Seas • Conflicting maritime claims make it difficult to explore.

11. Spratly Islands

12. Conflict • Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan and China all claim parts of same waters. • Claims rest on: • Continuous occupation and use of islands • UNCLOS EEZ and continental shelf rules. • Historical claims (China) • Goes back to 1935 Nationalist government and resistance to Western colonialism in region. • Strongest resistance to Chinese claims from Vietnam and Philippines.

13. Chinese strategy • Use economic power of attraction to convince some states to minimize claims. • Malaysia and Brunei. • Harass vessels performing economic activities in zonewithout PRC permission. • Occasional limited military actions. • Try to keep the disputes bilateral and out of regional forums such as ASEAN. • Convince US to accept spheres of influence in East Asia and build maritime capability.

14. Opposition strategy • Vietnam: mixed strategy. • State to state: • Deny China claims under international law. • Submit joint delimitation plans for maritime claims with neighbors such as Malaysia. • License production and exploration by outside companies, lately from India. • Seek assistance from other powers, including U.S. and India. • Internationalize dispute in ASEAN forum • Party to party: business as usual

15. Opposition strategy • Philippines: more confrontational. • Deny China claims. • Seek assistance from other regional powers, including U.S. • United States and Philippines mutual assistance treaty dates back to 1951. • Internationalize dispute in ASEAN. • Deploy military forces to Scarborough Shoal. • Invest in additional naval forces. • Difficult to resolve because it is a source of nationalist political disputes in domestic politics.

16. U.S. responses • What is the U.S. national interest in this dispute? • Pivot to Asia • Regional alliances with Philippines, South Korea, and Japan. • Economic interests • Precedents on navigation and economic use of maritime areas. • What are the available U.S. responses?

17. Policy tools to resolve conflicts • Applies to both domestic and international conflict. • Based on the nature of the resource: • Energy tends to be concentrated and non-lootable. • Approaches • Non-interference: let somebody win. • Negotiated settlement to share resources. • Use sanctions to degrade the value of the resources involved. • Use military intervention to end the conflict.

18. Issues undermining policy implementation • Letting one side win: • human security consequences. • Implications for US interests. • Resource sharing: • Moral hazard associated with rewarding ‘bad’ actors. • Sanctions: • Depends on ability to enforce. • Regional cooperation is critical. • Intervention: • Ranges from balancing to direct use of force. • No plan survives contact with the enemy. • Other side gets a say too.

19. Things to think about • Indicators to watch: • Power transitions and how they are managed. • Political orientation of rising powers. • Behavior of energy-importing great powers. • Regional conflicts over energy and dominance. • What is US national interest in emerging conflicts over energy. • How is it changing? • What policy tools are most effective.

20. International conflicts over energy resources • International conflicts rarely over single dimension. For example • Gulf War I attributed to Iraq invading Kuwait over Kuwait’s exploitation of shared oil fields. • But also long history of territorial claims by Iraq over Kuwait that had nothing to do with oil. • Falklands-Malvinas war had an energy dimension • Rumors of natural gas and oil in surrounding waters • But also about sovereignty, history, and Argentine domestic politics.

21. Power transitions theory • Based on observation that major systemic wars (system re-ordering wars) are most likely when the dominant state is overtaken by a dissatisfied challenger. • Metrics of power: population, wealth, political ambition. • Premised on a world structured into hierarchies based on distribution of capabilities. • Premised on a world ordered according to rules, norms, regimes established by the dominant state and status quo major powers.