- $1 billion Empire State Building IPO: why it won't be like Facebook IPO
- In surprise move, GOP leaders admit defeat in payroll tax battle
- More than 30,000 Germans turn out against anti-piracy treaty ACTA
- Does Obama blueprint reduce budget deficit fast enough? (+video)
- Pentagon budget: Does it pit active-duty forces against retirees? (+video)
- Murdoch media crisis deepens with five new arrests
- How Pinterest combines the best parts of Facebook, Tumblr, and Etsy
- US, China face 'trust deficit' as China's heir apparent visits
Fueling war
With the cold war over, more global conflicts are being spurred by a scramble for natural resources rather than by geopolitics, and poor countries rich in mineral deposits are the new focal point.
(Page 2 of 2)
"It is in part a resource war, but it is also about the balance of power in the Middle East," says Professor Klare, author of "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict."
The president's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, has said that the only interest of the US in the Middle East is "furthering the case of peace and stability, not [Iraq's] ability to generate oil."
Renner says: "Given US addiction to oil and Washington's long history of intervention in the region, this is a disingenuous, if not downright deceptive, statement."
By 2020, the Department of Energy calculates, the US will need to import 17 million barrels of oil per day - 6 million more than it does now.
By 2020, China's oil consumption will match that of the US.
"You are going to see greater competition over what oil is left," cautions Klare.
The US, China, Europe, and Japan will be struggling to assure that their oil companies will have access to oil in the Caspian Sea basin, Russia, Africa, Latin America, as well as the Middle East.
The US military and other security agencies have a growing interest in the issue of resource wars. Klare spoke on the topic to the National Defense University last month. The CIA and National Intelligence Council have studies on the issue. More Washington think tanks are exploring it. The House Committee on International Relations held hearings on imported oil last summer.
But at present, it is resources other than oil that are involved in many civil conflicts. Renner estimates that rebels, warlords, repressive governments, and other predatory groups have taken resources worth $12 billion to $15 billion in just the 1990s from a selected number of nations (see chart, left).
Some of that money went to buy weapons, especially small arms from Eastern Europe or elsewhere. Ukraine alone has shipped $30 billion in arms around the world, one report says, mostly taken from stocks that belonged to the former Soviet Union.
An unknown portion of resource money has ended up in secret bank accounts or otherwise fattened the pocket books of thugs and crooks passing for government and rebel leaders.
To prevent or end resource wars, several solutions are being implemented or explored. One, the certification of diamonds in an attempt to prevent the sale of those "blood diamonds" coming from areas of conflict, may already have helped in Sierra Leone and Angola, says Collier of the World Bank. Bush officials suspect that some illicit diamond money helped finance Al Qaeda.
Another initiative calls on multinational companies investing in developing countries to make public how much they are paying for access to resources. Often that amount is not known, making it easier for leaders in poor nations to divert payments for oil or other resources from constructive nation-building activities to financing war or for European vacations and mansions.
Global Witness, a London-based advocacy group, has been investigating the exploitation of resources in Angola, Cambodia, Liberia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It urges companies to "publish what you pay" for resources.
BP (British Petroleum) did this in Angola last year. But more than 30 other oil companies active in the nation have not, after the Angolan government objected.
Last summer, British Prime Minister Tony Blair proposed such "transparency" rules for companies at a UN conference in Johannesburg. That idea will be explored at a World Bank workshop in the New Year.
One suggestion is that stock exchanges deny listing to corporations engaged in resource extraction that refuse to make public the taxes, fees, royalties, and other payments they make to host governments. Renner figures this would help nongovernmental organizations that have campaigns to "name and shame" multinationals.
Other potential "sticks" are international sanctions and embargoes, gem and timber certification to screen out illicit materials, and judicial action. Another goal is to reduce the traffic in small arms - weapons of choice in these conflicts.
On the "carrot" side, industrial nations could offer other countries help in attracting reputable companies to invest in their resources if they go about it in an ethical way. That might include short-term "risk insurance" to pay compensation if a commodity's price dives.
Page:
1 | 2



