Energy Politics

Chapter 4. Conflict

Chapter 4 Conflict The drive to control oil and natural resources is frequently said to be a cause of wars between states and within states. Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that the global battle for control of energy has become a major source of conflict: ‘‘competition for access to energy can become the life and death for many societies.’’1 As we saw earlier, U.S. senator Richard Lugar, an elder statesman on foreign policy issues, views conflict over energy as a major source of future confrontations . He has called for NATO to alter Article Five of its charter so that energy embargos against a member state would be considered an attack on the alliance. ‘‘In the coming decades,’’ Lugar notes, ‘‘the most likely source of armed conflict in the European theater and the surrounding regions will be energy scarcity and manipulation.’’2 A long list of academics and pundits claim that competition for control of scarce energy resources will be a major source of conflict in the twenty-first century. Clearly, during wartime control of oil and other energy resources is part of the strategic aims of each combatant in order to sustain the war effort and in order to deny one’s adversaries access to vital supplies. Since Winston Churchill in 1912 led the British Admiralty to adopt oilpowered ships, and the subsequent building of armies based on oilconsuming vehicles, regular access to oil has become a precondition for conducting modern warfare. The birthday cake Hitler’s generals gave him in 1941 that was shaped like the Caucasus—and of which Hitler took at bite out of Baku—is a vivid and chilling symbol of the importance of oil riches in war. Moreover, the prevailing types of energy in use have a significant impact on the types and distances of wars states can fight. An excellent example of this principle is the effect the introduction of nuclear-powered submarines had on the dynamics of global nuclear deterrence. However, the role the drive to control oil and energy plays in spurring interstate wars or in intrastate conflict is far less clear. The thesis that Conflict 67 competition for access to energy serves as a source of armed conflict between states rests on the assumption of scarcity of supplies or future supplies. Yet no such scarcity exists: the market has continued to stay ahead of demand. Moreover, in a globalized oil market, possession of oil sources does not mean that a state is adversely affected by world price trends; thus, access to oil does not insulate a state from the economic threat of high oil prices. In addition, in times of conflict a state must possess not only access to external energy sources but the ability to transport that energy across vast distances. In a globalized world energy market , the idea of ‘‘controlling’’ access to energy sources abroad is antiquated, especially if a state does not have the military capability to actually exert its access to the resource. At the same time, the drive by most states to exploit additional energy resources is a growing source of border-delimitation conflicts. Until recently, many disputed borders areas—especially in the sea—have been left undetermined, since there was no concrete need for delimitation. However, with the discovery or the potential existence of oil and gas resources in many of these disputed zones, border-delimitation conflicts are emerging in a number of locations between states, especially in Asia. Key areas of contention and potential contention are the Caspian Sea and the Arctic Circle. There is no concrete evidence that energy supply relationships contribute to the alleviation of conflict. As seen in the previous chapter, peace and good relations between exporting and transit states and consumers must precede the decision to build a pipeline. In cases where the infrastructure was built prior to the establishment of cooperative relations (under colonial rule, for example), the inherited infrastructure can serve as a source of tension, and not promote peace. Interstate Conflict and Cooperation In a series of publications, Michael Klare has promoted the idea that at some point in the near future supplies of petroleum will not meet demand, there will be not be a viable energy substitute, and the world will encounter significant energy shortages, leading to the emergence of conflicts between states for control over resources. Writing in his book Resource Wars, Klare...