Somali Pirates: Vigilantes Turned Corrupt

            After reading the articles and discussing in class, I agreed that the Somali pirates were acting out of necessity to protect their country’s resources by preventing illegal dumping and fishing in its waters. I considered them to be a “coast guard” because they were protecting the waters for the sake of all Somalis, regardless of the widespread international opinion that they were acting as pirates. I thought that because there was no other option for enforcement, the Somali pirates were justified to act illegally and seize property in exchange for money. I also assumed that the money would somehow benefit the families and networks of the pirates and thus benefit Somalia in some way.

            It was clear from class discussion, however, that our view of the Somali pirates would change drastically if we found that their intentions were not as honorable as had been portrayed. Their status as “vigilantes” depends greatly on their actions; if their motives are selfish, it would be correct to call them pirates and attempt to put an end to their illegal actions. After further researching the actions of the so-called Somali coast guard, it is clear that they are in fact pirates. Because their illegal actions no longer benefit the Somalis and Somali resources they once set out to protect, the international community should attempt to put an end to Somali piracy.

            Somali pirates started out demanding “fees” for foreign ships fishing illegally in their waters. They also sometimes robbed U.N. ships carrying food in an attempt to distribute the food to refugee camps instead of allowing the shipments to be seized by warlords. While these acts of piracy were first noble, today’s Somali pirates are almost solely concerned with the multi-millions in ransom they can collect from seizing foreign ships.  Thus, these pirates can become extremely wealthy and seek out luxurious lifestyles in a country widely affected by poverty and famine. In class we debated whether this would still somehow benefit other Somalis—either by buying goods and services or simply sharing their wealth with others. While this may be the case to an extent, much of the wealth garnered by Somali pirates has escaped the country as they seek out luxury homes in places like Kenya.

            Additionally, the Somali pirates are not just failing to share their riches with other Somalis—they may actually be harming the food supply of millions of Somalis. Because of the high number of attacks by pirates, it has become increasingly difficult for the U.N. to continue sending provisions. Now, foreign warships must ride alongside the food ships to stand guard and protect against piracy. Naval deployments are very expensive, however, making this practice unsustainable in the long run. If countries cannot continue accompanying U.N. aid ships, it may disband shipments to Somalia altogether, which could lead to widespread starvation.

            Finally, Somali pirates are no longer just targeting the boats that are illegally fishing or dumping. They are targeting any and all ships, including passenger ships, and disrupting legal, commercial trips. Because the Somali pirates are not providing any wealth to other Somalis and are potentially threatening the food supply of millions of Somalis, their only reasonable justification for piracy would be to protect the environment. It is clear, however, that these pirates are no longer acting to protect Somalia’s resources because they are seizing ships that will just yield the most in returns.

            For these reasons, it is important for the international community to attempt to put an end to the Somali pirates to protect international trade and the residents of Somalia. I agree with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that countries should not negotiate with pirates because it perpetuates acts of piracy after proving that pirates can become extremely wealthy. In the case of Somalia piracy, there is low risk and high reward. They are not accountable to any stable government, so they do not fear judicial punishment.  Although the use of force is not preferable, it may be time for the international community to work together to disable this network of pirates. The U.N. has passed a resolution allowing for the invasion of Somalia to stabilize the government and potentially eliminate the pirates, but the U.S. has been hesitant to act based on its unsuccessful history in Somalia.  Regardless, because so much international trade must pass through Somali waters, and because it would be unwise for ships to fight back themselves, an international attempt to end Somali piracy is necessary.

International Piracy: Who Is Truly Robbed?

            Throughout the evolving dialogue of the past several weeks, the consideration of environmental degradation as a threat to national security has been both legitimized and reinforced.  While I firmly believe that there exists an inherent link between the ability of the state to continue and the stability of their environmental resources and climate, it is worth questioning the degree to which a state should act in order to protect the well-being of the environment to allow for the preservation of the state. In a controversial case study regarding the incidences of piracy (as defined by the international community as a whole) by Somalian fisherman, the question of state protection interfering with human rights is one which demands to be answered. Though scholars more greatly bound to the realist perspective may argue that any lengths of precautionary measures on the part of the state are appropriate to protect the continuance of that state, I would argue that when humanitarian rights are compromised on a recurring, international level, the state’s perceived threat to national security should become secondary to the well-being of the international community at large.     In the instance of Somali piracy, the current situation lacks a clear action pattern to be taken by international regimes such as the United Nations due to the varied dialogues from both parties involved. From the perspective of the Somali pirates themselves, their actions in seizing and taking hostage of foreign ships in Somalian waters are legitimate and well-deserved. In fact, the Somalian fisherman identify the true “sea bandits” as the illegal poachers who rob the Somalian people of their vital fishing resources, and the shipping companies that continually dump waste into Somalian waters, further harming their primary economic activity. In response to this threat to the well-being of the economic and environmental sanctity of the Somalian people, the fisherman and unofficial “coastguards” of Somalia seize the ships and persons they identify as the perpetrators. Regardless of how you view the situation, neither party is entirely faultless in their actions. The exploitation of Somalian resources and degradation of their waters by foreign entities is undoubtedly something which needs to be handled, but is the violation of human rights truly the answer? 

            Any international regime which values the sanctity of human lives and their well-being would answer this question vehemently and bemoan the actions of Somalian fishermen in their efforts to protect their environmental and economic well-being; the value of human lives within the international community at large is not something which can or needs to be compromised for the national insecurity of one state. It is necessary for an international regime to make efforts to combat this culture of violence which has been perpetuated within the Somali people since the early nineties, as well as incentivize international companies to change their actions in the poaching and flagrant pollution of Somalian resources. The well-being of the international community cannot fall to the wayside as a state attempts to reclaim control over their resources, and for this reason I think stricter regulation of the fishing habits of foreign entities in Somalia, as well as educational opportunities within Somalia are necessary. In order to combat the exploitive actions of foreign companies in Somalia, international regimes such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization could fine parties for partaking in the illicit abuse of Somalian resources, or restrict the sale of these products.  

With regard to halting the frequency of pirate actions on the part of the Somali people, a greater level of involvement is required than just an increased presence of naval ships. While piracy in the region has been on the decline since a sharp peak in 2011, the fact remains that the culture of violence is one which has become an accepted norm in Somalia. The retaliatory level of force is perceived as normal, and this pattern demands to be changed for the safety of the international community, economy, and basic human rights. By implementing educational programs in schools, encouraging the diversification of the Somalian economy so to allow the impoverished with means to make a living outside of piracy, and respecting the legitimate concerns of Somalis with regard to the degradation of their environment, it is possible to curb the pirate culture which has been present for so long. While the necessary actions may seem idealist on both party sides, the compromise we currently face is not one worth making; human rights cannot be subservient to the well-being of a given state, and the international system can eradicate this problem by effectively intervening on both sides of the problem. 

Is Shrimp Farming Threatening the National Security of Honduras?

            Honduras is the second poorest country in the world, where 66.2% of its people live in poverty (Ceciskids). Coupled with the worst gang epidemic on the planet, Honduras experiences an extreme level of intrastate violence. This high level of national failure has resulted from the nation’s lack of effective government regulation, stable economy, or sustainable environmental practices. Environmentalists have especially criticized the last point, Honduras’s environmental practices, which they have linked to the region’s high level of violence. In particular, the expansion of Honduras’s industrial shrimp farming, which is their third highest source of foreign exchange, has resulted in an increase in conflict. Industrial shrimp farming, which poses an imminent threat to the region, should be considered an issue of national security.

Numerous organizations have dedicated themselves to improving conditions in Honduras. I have developed a personal stake in this goal by joining one of these organizations, Students Helping Honduras, which sends thousands of volunteers to build schools in Honduras annually. This winter, I will be traveling to Honduras with Students Helping Honduras to assist in building a middle school in the village of La Democracia. Although the mission of Students Helping Honduras does not directly relate to the environment, it supports the overall goal of repairing the nation. However, this goal cannot be accomplished without considering the environment. The numerous problems suffered by Honduras work like an interconnected web in that they all affect one another and therefore must all be resolved together. Insuring that all of the children living in Honduras are given the opportunity to have successful futures cannot be accomplished by only providing them with schools and education. Education is a promising step, which Students Helping Honduras successfully provides; however, more changes in the country need to be accomplished on a wider scale in order to repair the nation. I recognize that significant strides must be made in the nation’s economy and its society, which are both highly related to the environment. Shrimp farming depicts the relationship between these three sectors of the economy, environment, and society, and illustrates how problems in one area spread to the others, resulting in overall turbulence for the control.

Shrimp farming, which is highly related to the environment, is essential to the economy of Honduras and also affects the level of conflict in society. In Stonich and Vandergeest’s chapter, “Violence, Environment, and Industrial Shrimp Farming,” they describe how violent confrontations have arisen as a result of shrimp farming. They accentuate the linkage between violence and the environment, resulting from the development of industrial shrimp farming.

Stonich and Vandergeest emphasize that Southern Honduras is a “critically endangered region,” according the United Nations. Shrimp farming in Honduras occurs along the Gulf of Fonseca, which is one of the poorest and environmentally damaged areas in the nation. This body of water serves as an essential ecosystem, but is very vulnerable to pollution and siltation. Shrimp farming has caused several negative consequences on the environment including the degradation of agricultural land and surface water. Simultaneously, many negative social consequences have occurred as a result of shrimp farming, such as social dislocation, conflict over property rights, and displacement of local farmers and fishermen. Prior to Honduras’ shrimp boom, natives were allowed access to the wetlands to acquire resources themselves. However, when shrimp farming’s proliferated and shrimp farming interest obtained control over the region, these locals’ access became limited. As a result of limited access and these social consequences, conflict has ensued between shrimp farming interests on one side and local farmers, natives, and environmentalists on the other end. Most of the conflict occurs between well-organized peasant organizations and large shrimping enterprises. The latter has shown resistance to shrimp farming through noncompliance, protest marches, and violent opposition, such as destroying canals and burning buildings.

As a result of environmental and social harm caused by shrimp farming, the industry experiences economic harm. Although shrimp is a major export for Honduras, the lack of sustainability in the industry from exploitation and environmental damage is risking its longevity. Similarly, the high level of conflict in the region that has regulated from the government’s lack of regulation over the resource of shrimp has also endangered the future of the industry. Creating stable social, economic, and environmental structures simultaneously is necessary in order to alleviate the severe problems existing in Honduras. Therefore, environmental issues, such as the regulation of shrimp farming, should be considered an issue of national security. In order for a county to succeed and for their conflict to be reduced, their environment must be protected.

Additional Source: http://ceciskids.org/our-story/

Domestic Interests in International Environmental Law: Illegal Logging

            An article from the New York Times that we recently read in class discusses the conflict and violence that have ensued in Brazil over issues including deforestation of the Amazon, illegal logging, and land use. Ironically, I just completed a United Nations Security Council simulation in another class in which students played the role of states in negotiating a resolution over development and conflict in the case of illegal logging operations along the Peruvian-Brazilian border. After taking on the role of Russia in the simulation, noting the agendas of my fellow diplomats, and observing the provisions that other states requested during negotiations, I gained significant insight on the factors that influence states' attitudes toward environmental protection and related issues within the context of international law. The domestic interests of states and how a resolution will set precedent for future actions or policies seemed to be the key players in determining whether a state voted yes, voted no, or abstained from voting.

            The resolution noted that illegal logging along the Peruvian-Brazilian border has led to violence between indigenous people, degradation of the livelihoods of the indigenous people, displacement and destruction of valuable resources in the Amazon. After negotiation amongst states, the authoring country, Chile, proposed a final resolution that was to be voted on. The key points included in this final version were: instructs members to join the Organization of American States and encourages the OAS to intervene directly to prevent military escalation, encourages member states to ensure the protection of indigenous people, offers to dispatch an observer force to keep track of military operations, and calls upon each member state to secure their borders against illegal operations, human rights violations, and instability. Upon being assigned my role as Russia and reading the first draft of the resolution, I did not understand why states would vote against it. There did not seem to be any negatives and violence and resource depletion in the Amazon are clear problems. However, after investigating Russia's position in the UNSC and experiencing the negotiation, I developed a much greater understanding.

            While Russia is supportive of protecting the Amazon and upholding the rights of indigenous people, widespread civil discontent and human rights abuses exist in Russia. I, as Russia, ultimately was one of two countries to veto this resolution. I judged that Russia would not have passed the resolution because it would not want it to be used as precedent that might allow intervention in its own state. The other country that vetoed was China, and for very similar reasons. Though this class assignment was only a simulation, it still revealed to me a different perspective of international law regarding the environment. Despite unanimous agreement that the violence and killings in Brazil must be stopped and the unanimous understanding of the importance of the resources in the Amazon, the resolution did not pass due to domestic interests of two members of the security council.

            Though the United Nations is not the body that primarily deals with international environmental law, the environment is inseparable from certain issues pertaining to peace and international order. The simulation demonstrated the realist idea that the domestic interests of states and concern for security are the primary factors that determine the actions and decisions of states. In class we have debated over whether or not the environment is a threat to national security, and I believe that this case proves it is. The passage of international law concerning the environment is directly connected to the domestic and security interests of states. In many cases, such as the case demonstrated in the simulation, these domestic concerns can be an impediment to progress on environmental issues. Many environmental problems are widespread and require state involvement. However, I believe that developing effective programs and strengthening local and regional governments can often yield faster results than solving problems through national or international institutions. In the case of illegal logging and deforestation in the Amazon, I believe that the killings and conflict amongst farmers and indigenous people could be more effectively combated at a regional level with effective regulation and involvement of the locals. Hearing the opinions of the indigenous population and the farmers could build mutual empathy and foster an accepted solution, rather than having federal authorities play more of an imposing role. 

More rosewood, more problems: China’s demand for Siamese rosewood and its role in initiating conflict in the Mekong

In discussing forest violence in class, we honed in on three specific cases of violence in Sudan, Brazil, and Sierra Leone. As we know, these countries make up only a sampling of those suffering from violence that stems from their possession of rare and valuable timber. One aspect of this that we briefly touched on during lecture is the role of foreign or outside demand for these rare resources on prospects for violence within a state, or a region in general. Particularly, I believe that it is extremely important to acknowledge and discuss the direct role that outside demand for various abundant resources plays in causing specific regional conflict. China’s relentless demand for Siamese rosewood in the Mekong provides an excellent example of the detrimental power that foreign demand for a resource can have in fueling violence in a region. This case also shows why countries, like China, must be held accountable for their role in instigating conflict, as well as their involvement in illegally obtaining and importing such resources.

In recent years, environmentalists have seen consistent surges in demand for Siamese rosewood, a unique and extremely valuable, luxury wood native to states in the Mekong region of Southeast Asia (Phys). According to a comprehensive report from the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), illegal logging and immense corruption has contributed to the vast depletion, and near extinction, of the Siamese rosewood species, local to Thailand, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam (NY Times). The Chinese elite play the largest role in the demand for this depleting resource because of their lust for “reproductions of ornate high-end furniture from the Ming and Qing eras”, made specifically from precious “hongmu” or old redwood trees (Global Post). According to estimates, since the year 2000, China has imported an estimated $2.4 billion dollars worth of timber from the Mekong region, the vast majority of which is obtained through illegal logging efforts. To begin to understand how heavily China relies on countries in this region for this abundant, but now grossly depleting resource, it is necessary to note that in 2013 alone, Myanmar exported 273,000 cubic meters of rosewood to China, which was triple the volume exported in previous years. The EIA reports that this amounts to “one-thirteenth of the estimated rosewood stock in the [country]”, and with current logging rates, Myanmar’s forests will be completely stripped of the timber in just thirteen years (Eco-Business).

With China’s relentless demand for this rosewood, and the ability of this species to rake in “thousands of dollars per cubic meter”, local individuals attempt to take advantage of this and cash in on this lucrative, Chinese-driven market (Global Post). This has initiated a wave of physical violence throughout countries in the region as loggers clash with park rangers in their efforts to illegally harvest the rosewood. In the thick brush on the borders of Thailand and Cambodia, loggers often clash with Thai security forces, often leading to deaths and disappearances among loggers and locals seeking to make a quick return (Global Post). The EIA reports that in 2009, dozens of Thai forest rangers were killed and further, there has been consistent blaming between the Thai and Cambodian governments about local clashes that have led to the deaths of villagers seeking to cross borders to illegally harvest the rosewood (Global Post).

Because of increased local awareness of this loosely regulated industry, many locals have taken it upon themselves to cross borders and attempt to illegally harvest, thus initiating various small scale, but bloody skirmishes. This illegal industry essentially aids in exploiting the already poor economic situations of these rural villagers, because these rosewood buyers offer small sums of money (USD $25-$200 per excursion) to the local people to partake in this illegal harvesting, and unfortunately, this presents itself as the source of income for some (UCA News). Interestingly enough, buyers and middlemen who recruit from local villagers pay the illegal loggers in methamphetamines, which arguably, exploits and promotes other social issues in the region, and can keep individuals dependent on illegal logging for their drug habits (NY Times).

Although ample responsibility must rest on the nations with rich natural resources, foreign nations that demand and acquire such resources through illegal means must, too, be held accountable for their illegal activities and role in instigating regional conflict.

With the case of the Siamese rosewood, China, the largest importer of this timber, must be held accountable for its actions in continuing to import this rapidly dwindling resource. I would agree with the EIA’s assessment that China needs to take greater steps to curb the influx of illegal timber into its region, with the hopes that the nation can eventually be incentivized to ban imports of the rosewood altogether. If countries like China take responsibility for their actions, or are forced to take responsibility from international pressures, arguably much of the violence and exploitative nature of illegal logging can be mitigated because there will no longer be a market that drives individuals to commit illegal logging and kill for personal gain. Further, nations of the Mekong region will have the opportunity to recover from the economic loss stolen from them in the process of illegal logging. As demonstrated by China’s clear role in demanding and harvesting luxury woods in the Mekong region, it is necessary to devote ample attention to how this foreign influence instigates conflict in resource rich areas.

Sources:

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-china-demand-luxury-furniture-decimating.html

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/chinas-demand-threatens-rare-hardwoods-in-mekong/?_r=0

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140512/china-demand-luxury-furniture-decimating-rosewood

http://www.eco-business.com/opinion/surging-chinese-demand-rosewood-ruining-forests-across-southern-asia/

http://www.ucanews.com/news/demand-for-rare-wood-puts-cambodians-in-line-of-fire/70954

Securing the Environment, Securing the State

From the realist perspective of scholars such as Hans Morgenthau, the utmost goal of the state is survival. Like humankind, the state is willing to adapt, to evolve, and to respond to situations of crisis which threaten the perpetuation of the state, and the physical security of the state is of absolute importance. With this in mind, the concept of environmental degradation as a threat to national security is entirely legitimate, as the absence of a secure physical environment within a state would surely hinder the ability of the state to continue. Though various critiques of this link between environmental and national security exist within the academic community, I believe that there exists an inherent relationship between the degree to which a state’s environment is endangered and the state’s security.

While skeptics such as Daniel Deudney may claim there is little relevance or cause for linkage between environmental degradation and national security on the basis of “interstate violence having little in common with either environmental problems or solutions,” (Deudney, 1990) the very premise of national security – involving the physical continuation of the state – depends on resource access and reliability. Though I think Deudney makes a valid point in his assertion that the definition of national security is trivialized when scholars seek to incorporate too many elements which threaten the security of a state, I would contest that the environment is not one of these superfluous variables. Another critique which was vocalized in seminar revolved around the idea that the environment itself does not fundamentally result in conflict, it is citizens’ reactions to the environment which result in conflict and ultimately pose a threat to state security.

This critique, while well-founded and worth exploring, oversimplifies the scope of cases in which the environmental factors of a state influence the perceived national security. It could be argued that there exists a global spectrum in which some states are directly threatened by the environmental and climatic changes themselves, while others face security threats based upon the reaction of humans to the drastic changes in the environment. For example, a primary case in which environmental degradation influences the well-being of the state is that of Kiribati. This state, on the brink of disappearing entirely due to rising sea-levels, faces a direct physical threat to the security of the nation. Scientists expect the sea levels to engulf the island state before the end of this century, and as political officials scramble to relocate the citizens of the state it is clear that the externalities of global warming have posed endangered the ability of the state of Kiribati to continue. While this may be an extreme case in our current times, it acts as a wary beacon of the salience of this issue in the future.

Though our generation may not directly encounter states which face such evident threats to national security and ultimately the ability to continue, the inclusion of environmental degradation as a threat to security could also help prevent future generations from facing such a bleak fate. While little evidence today exists of environmental degradation and resource scarcity erupting into inter-state conflict, as humankind continues to expand and extend in size and numbers, it can safely be assumed that these issues will become pressing. Deudney berates the association of environmental vulnerability with national security on the grounds that, “it is not a claim about fact, but a rhetorical device designed to stimulate action,” (Deudney, 1990) meaning that this is merely re-definition for the purpose of incentivizing citizens. While this may be a residual effect, and that extending the definition of national security threats to include environmental qualms would be appropriate on factual grounds, this externality of the re-definition is not a malicious. In essence, the re-definition could help to curb the degradation of environment and ultimately minimize the risk to national security a state may face.

It comes as no surprise that the very definition of a word raises such heated debate in the international arena, as policy stems from the interpretation of what a concept encompasses. The idea of national security is one that is not to be taken lightly, but from the standpoint of the state’s security being contingent upon the ability of the state to physically continue to exist, the environmental threats which a state faces are valid components of the national security. Extending the definition of national security to include the threat of environmental degradation would not only enable state leaders to comprehend the salience of the environment to a greater degree, but also encourage policy makers to take necessary measures to protect the environment and ultimately the security of the state for years to come. 

Expanding on Homer-Dixon's Reasoning

Traditionally, cornucopians do not worry about protecting resources because they believe that humans will be able to develop technology in response to scarcity. Although this has appeared to be the case in history, Homer-Dixon criticizes the cornucopian theory by claiming that its purported trend may not continue to be the reality in the future. In Homer-Dixon’s discussion of the shortcomings of cornucopians’ theories, he cites seven reasons that human ingenuity will not be able to overcome scarcity. His seventh and final reason that cornucopians’ predictions will not come to fruition is that future environmental problems will reduce the supply of ingenuity available in a society. He elaborates on this point by explaining that environmental problems will create complex legal issues and social friction, thereby decreasing the ability of policymakers to be good “social engineers.” Homer-Dixon’s explanation of this point is underdeveloped, however, because the term “supply of ingenuity” can be much more expansive. To develop on Homer-Dixon’s reasoning, I also argue that the decrease in supply of ingenuity relates to two factors: decreases in investment in research and development for solutions to environmental problems, and more attention to national security issues raised by environmental problems. Then, I will explain how these reasons account for the likelihood that scarcity will be the most prominent cause conflict in the future.

First, as scarcity increases, the amount of money, labor and capital invested in research and development for environmental problems will necessarily decrease, which in turn reduces the supply of ingenuity. More money will be spent addressing the social inequalities caused by scarcity instead of developing solutions to prevent resource scarcity in the first place. During a water shortage crisis, more money would be spent on addressing the immediate water needs of the country’s citizens by providing bottled water than would be allocated on research and development for long-term water purification systems, for example. This redistribution of funding therefore limits the supply of ingenuity to resolve scarcity issues. Similarly, labor and capital resources will be selectively used to address pressing scarcity issues instead of researching enduring technological solutions. If not enough money, labor and capital are invested to encourage human ingenuity in solving environmental problems, Homer-Dixon will be correct in his argument that cornucopians mistakenly rely on technology development to resolve scarcity.

Homer-Dixon also explains that domestic social friction will reduce the supply of ingenuity, but I argue that it is more complex; national security problems will also affect nations’ abilities to be effective social engineers. As we’ve discussed in class, scarcity and environmental issues can threaten national security because they can disrupt the function of a state and the wellbeing of its citizens. In the face of environmental problems, governments will have to prioritize their agendas and choose between social welfare of their citizens, technological development and national security of the state. If a government prioritizes national security over technological development, more effort will be spent on developing effective international policies and defense strategies than on technologies to counteract negative threats of scarcity. As a result, supply of ingenuity toward domestic policy and technological innovation to resolve scarcity problems will diminish. Once again, as supply of ingenuity decreases, humans will be less likely to engineer a solution to scarcity. 

  Through my expansion of Homer-Dixon’s explanation, it is now even more convincing that humans will most likely not be able to develop technology to override scarcity problems. His seven factors culminate to the conclusion that because humans cannot avoid scarcity, the scarcity of renewable resources will be a cause of significant domestic and interstate conflict. Although some scholars advocate for the resource curse theory, and some believe instead that a combination of abundance of nonrenewable resources and scarcity of renewable resources is most likely to lead to states of conflict, I take a different approach. I believe that in the future the likely cause of conflict will be scarcity, not abundance. Eventually, overuse and exploitation of natural resources will cause nonrenewable resources to become scarce even in formerly abundant areas. As Homer-Dixon explained, human technology will not be able to preserve abundance of any resource. Furthermore, environmental degradation of seemingly renewable resources will cause further strains on supplies. As a result, there will be civil and international conflicts over the distribution of scarce nonrenewable and renewable resources, particularly in developing nations with weak political institutions. This scarcity of resources will be further exacerbated by rapid population growth.

Homer-Dixon's arguments that humans ingenuity cannot tackle scarcity problems are weakly stated, but overall accurate. Furthermore, his arguments lead us to the conclusion that scarcity of resources will be the most probable cause of conflict in the future.