International Resource Conflicts NS4053 Week 9.2

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.

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 markets and access to resources leads to war Other social sciences: psychological, sociological, anthropological.

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 – British and Germany 1900s-1945 (United States in 1945). – US and Soviet Union (United States in 1991). – United States and … ?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Spratly Islands

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.

Chinese strategy Use economic power of attraction to convince some states to minimize claims. – Malaysia and Brunei. Harass vessels performing economic activities in zone without 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.

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

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 – 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.