Resources_Reflection Memo

In today’s class we discussed resources and their role in violent conflicts in Africa. We talked about many aspects, for example if the widely used mineral resources narrative is imposed internally or externally. I think that the narrative is mostly external because one thing that narrative should do is to offer an easy solution. As was said in the class the mineral resources narrative is something that impact us as western consumers. I believe that this narrative is so popular because we have the feeling that we can offer solution even though, as was already proved, not very useful one, which include many unintended consequences. This narrative also offers something that we as common people can do (stop buying products made of conflict diamonds and other minerals) so we can feel good about ourselves, we emotionally attach to the narrative and it becomes very successful.

     Another thing that we discussed is who benefits from the resources and what are the motivations. The resources were mentioned in the discussion as one of the motivations. The role of minerals is still very confusing for me because it sometimes seems that they are not important at all and even though they are used to sponsor the conflict there would be no difference if they would not be there, and sometimes it seems that the minerals are one of the main prices in the conflict. But as was said during the class I have to realize that we cannot even talk about the motivations of a whole group because every member has different reasons for joining, so while for someone minerals are important for someone else it is grievances rather than money from minerals. So how can we find a solution? Scholars keep discussing the role of minerals but if there are many groups and even each member within the group has different motivation how can we find effective solution? Should it include diamonds and other minerals, or should we focus solely on political causes of conflicts? The whole discussion about motivations also makes me wonder how much the role of minerals differ in each country? Were the mineral resources for example more influential in the conflict in Sierra Leone than in Democratic republic of Congo? Do they prolong the conflicts? Are there some groups that, as whole, fight solely over the minerals? I know that the war is not purely about resources, as was already said resources are important but the war is not only about them. But there are still many actors, so can we say about some group that their only goal are mineral resources? Can it for example be said about the government? It was said in class that president of Democratic Republic of Congo benefits from the mining a lot and he was able to accumulate wealth. Is it similar in other countries with resources? Are the governments also the primary beneficiaries? Or are the beneficiaries mostly the foreign companies? I remember that it was mentioned more than once in class that mostly the foreign companies benefit from the conflict and mineral resources. I do not completely understand that because I would say that conflict would make it more difficult for companies to get to these resources and with the legislation in place they have to often take the illegal route. But it seems obvious that they benefit from it in some ways and I was surprised to hear during the discussion how much is that and how much western companies actually profit from this conflict. I had some basic idea already after reading of the articles but after the discussion I was forced to think about it even more.

     We also talked about the role of militias, which was described as the voice of oppressed people, with the example from Nigeria. So, I have the impression that in Africa, at least with relations to minerals, rebels are the “good guys” while government is the “bad guy”. Of course, we cannot simplify it that much but the president in the Democratic Republic Congo benefits from the minerals while people does not. What about rebels? Is there any group that is, as in the example from Nigeria, the voice of oppressed people or do they used the resources only for themselves? We talked about the motivations, as I have already mentioned above, but we did not talk about what happens with the money from minerals. Are the rebels (I mean the individual rebels not the group as a whole) allowed to keep some of these money or the individual militia men get resources only from other activities like looting etc.? Do some of these rebel groups provide goods for some areas so they can gain support, or do they use civilians only to extract resources and not to give something to them in exchange for support? Does government use mineral resources to get support? I remember that diamonds played role in patrimonial relations in Sierra Leone but is it similar in other African countries that are rich in resources? It is becoming more and more obvious that we cannot treat Africa as one piece and that every state is very much different. The resources seem to play different role in different countries as well.

  The last major topic we discussed today was the theoretical level of greed and grievance theory. It is interesting to think about it. It was made clear that we cannot always clearly define what is greed and what is grievance and we all see it very differently. For me, most of the conflicts are over grievance. It is very difficult to imagine conflict that is purely based on greed. I am sure that there were some but for me the greed is always connected to grievance. We want something because we do not have it and we need it or we feel injustice that someone else have it and we do not. As my colleague said the greed is when we have enough and want more but for me when someone want something and decide to use violence to get it there is always some deeper reason that connects the greed to grievance.

     It was very interesting discussion and it raises many new question because this topic, as almost every other, is very complex. The role that mineral resources play, if there are group driven only by greed and by interest in controlling resources, hot the government and foreign companies benefit from it, what solution should we find and how to change the narrative to suit local people and not external actors (even though we heard today that these are used also internally) and many others.