The role that greed and grievance play in civil warfare is its introduction. Their role is a crucial and controversial one in the creation of civil wars. There were various arguments concerning their role in its emergence, with most for greed as the key factor as the backbone of most conflict including civil battle while a few others also consider grieve's role. However, it is my opinion that both work hand in hand to create the assault that is civil war. Some might even see how one begets the other, legitimizing the creation of one through the life of the other. In any event the role both greed and grieve play is one of any instigator. This paper will illustrates how both factors have intertwining assignments in the occurrence of civil warfare; the goal is to show how one factor's role affects the other and how one factors role can overlap and blur the other out. This may be done by looking at various explanations for civil battle related to greed and grieve separately. To discuss these conditions and their role in the introduction of civil war it is very important to comprehend what they mean and why they are believed energetic role players in the creation of civil conflict.
Civil Battle is discord that develops when militant communities of people harm a administration and or civilians persistently (Collier, 2003:54). What exactly is greed and how does it come into play in the incident of civil battle? Greed in line with the English dictionary (dictionary. com) is 'unnecessary or rapacious desire specifically for wealth or possessions'. It is the need to obtain more than you will need taking or having more of what you already have. So who is the greedy in civil war? Based on the definition, do the greedy exist in the sense of the term? If indeed they do, then it is very important to 'check out the way the greed produces grievance and rebellion, legitimizing further greed' (Keen, 2000:32) as part of its role in the occurrence of civil conflict through, the actions of the greedy.
Various economic and politics factors donate to the introduction and creation of civil war beginning with inequality in terms of source allocation to participation in your choice making process. There were various arguments as to what really triggers civil conflict; the visible answer is monetary inequality. The overall idea is that folks want more usage of resources and because they can not get it, they take it by power. In such a sense, then yes the greedy exist and play a significant role in the event of civil war. Alternatively, those who don't have access to recourses in any way and just want to enjoy the benefits and access to it to begin with (not more access) aren't greedy but needy. You see, the participants(people doing the real fighting, and protesting) of civil conflict are not performing regarding to greed, for greed as previous defined is desiring more of what you curently have. They on the other side just want usage of resources denied of them, denoting previous shortage.
It is not hard to link monetary need and lack of resources to greed even way more as the concentration is often on how the elite manipulate the situations to make civil unrest and strife, and exactly how they and a few others benefit from it. The mistake is at considering these categories of individuals to be the only stars of civil battle. The aim this is not to reduce the role of greed, for this plays just as important a role as grieve will as will be later talked about. The aim is to point out that it is important to consider those acting from greed and those from grieve, and the role of grievance in causing civil battle before offering all the credit to greed's role as the dominant player in the creation of civil turmoil. It is impossible for one factor (grieve or greed) to blend up conflict with no occurrence of the other factor.
The greedy, quite often are some enterprisers, rebel lords and their gangs, and some elites (including some governments) which have something to gain from civil unrest are motivated by their greed, their prefer to hoard more resources, their access to it, and the benefits gained from said resources (in form of work, education, wealth etc). Their interest is vested in the continuation of war and they also manipulate the grieve that is out there in the culture which more often than not is because their greed. These are the few Collier talks about when he says, 'civil battle creates monetary opportunities for a minority of celebrities even while they damage it for the bulk' (Collier, 2000:91). This brings me to the idea that the greedy are few but their impact and impact on the occurrence of civil war is big. Greed takes on a yet noticeable role in civil battle. The greedy few use the original grieve of almost all to progress their own economical agenda. Corresponding to Collier (2000), grieve is used to recruit celebrities in civil conflict.
To understand the role of grieve; it's important to identify it and consider what constitutes the sentiment. Grieve identifies pain over injustice or adverse conditions as used in the British dictionary 'grieve is to feel good sorrow, be psychologically distressed or oppressed and wronged' (Dictionary. com). This feature is evident when contemplating factors that contribute to civil war. Taking a look at the situation of Rwanda (Caplan, 2007) where the Tutsi had previously oppressed the Hutus during colonialism. The Hutu ethnic group embarked on an cultural cleansing quest of the Tutsi cultural group when they gained political ability. This example illustrates how grieve arrived to play for Rwanda's civil conflict. Ethnic distinctions, which resulted in oppression of 1 group by the other, created stress and grieve that erupted into assault.
The role of Grieve and greed as designers of civil warfare is evident in that they will be the foundations for each and every explanatory factor given for the incident of civil conflict. They will be the driving makes behind factors contributing to civil war like ethnic variations, manipulative leaders and so forth. For each factor related to greed, you can find grieve working with it so that it is easy for greed to be pursued, and for each and every grieve backed reason behind civil battle, greed is presently active. Both factors interact, greed creates grieve which is also easy for greed to emerge from that grieve (Cramer, 2002) without one, the other really does not exist in civil warfare. So far, the contribution and role of greed and grieve as individual factors in the occurrence of civil warfare in a country has been show, now target is directed to illustrate how their specific tasks intertwine and work together. This facet of the essay will examine the assignments both grieve and greed play in various greed or grieve specific explanations offered for the reason for civil war.
The most prominent explanation or contributing factor to civil battle in books and media seems to be economic agenda (Collier 2003) (greed reason) and inequality (grieve explanation) between categories and people in the world as previously noted. The idea behind this is that individuals engage in conflict to be able to advance their own monetary agenda, whether it is access to recently denied resources or even to gain more usage of said resources. Collier (2000:93-95) uses a volume of proxies to explain how greed motivates issue. For instance, the availability of major loot-able resources(also discussed in Collier, 2008) in a country creates an avenue for issue to build up out of greed because of what's to be gained from looting (whether it be profit from real sale of good or use of it). Another proxy used was the amount of young men without job prospects whose income earning potentials and educational levels are low (Collier, 2000:95).
According to this analogy jobless teenagers with no potential clients living in a country with plenty or somewhat large number of "primary resources" is a recipe for discord in said contemporary society because of idleness and option of loot-able resources and of course greed. These young jobless men without prospects don't have careers or proper paying careers because they are denied usage of proper and good or any form of education(also a factor that plays a part in grieve). They could have even one but cannot get any or good job because of inequality in the culture. A country with large "commodity exports" definitely has the resources to make things better for these folks or at least the means (sale of said item resources) to make things better. The option of teenagers and major export commodities shows how greed's role as a generator of civil conflict works. The reason also illustrates how grieve (also an instigator of civil battle) takes on its role in this dominantly greed backed justification. Grieve experienced within the unfavorable conditions and occupation status or shortage thereof of the "teenagers" led these to resort to conflict to acquire some of the monetary resources not made accessible to them. Collier's argument is the fact countries with "large key resources" are inclined to more civil conflict. The logic of his debate is the fact 'resource-rich countries have an increased probability for discord than resource-poor ones' (Soya, 2000:120). Well certainly, there is some credit to the logic because tool poor countries have little if any resources.
The difference between these two types of countries is the fact resource wealthy countries have resources. The scarcity of said resources within the united states where the great things about such resources are not noticeable or made similarly available to its people are bound to experience rebellion from the majority of the populace considering how only a minority benefits. The sense of injustice and feeling of unfairness likely to arise from the knowledge that certain resources are available but to only a few elite will do to bring about grieve. That is also more likely to encourage rebels and cause an uprising, and not just the idea that there surely is excess to obtain and more to be made from dark market so let us loot and make our very own revenue like Collier and Soya would have us consider. The greed proxies (available young men, primary learning resource and education level) and explanations show greed's role at work, and implies that of grieve in civil battle, illustrating how one cannot work without the other.
The grievance factors of civil battle and a few of the grieve supported explanations for civil conflict like variations and animosity existing between organizations in the society, and how they contribute to the introduction of civil warfare also illustrate the role of greed. The to begin many is 'fresh ethnic or religious hatred' (Collier, 2000:95). The reasoning behind this is that people fear so much what they do not know or understand. Therefore, a culture that is deeply segregated based on different ethnicities and spiritual views will experience civil unrest sooner or later or the other because the modern culture is invested in the differences that exist. Take for example the Biafra battle of Nigeria. The Biafra civil conflict broke out as a result of three major cultural categories (Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo) in the country, out which the Igbo were not represented in government. They no more were actively contained in politics after years of being at the forefront of Nigerian politics, and jogging the country with the last president (removed by way of a coup d'tat) being from the Igbo cultural group (Ralph, 2004). Their insufficient representation recommended their access to certain resources were limited. The cultural groups in vitality based on solidarity-favored members of their own cultural group, their parts experienced better systems of education, and career opportunity was regularly based on whom you understood and what cultural group you belonged to. They only cared about and helped "their own people" while users of other cultural categories were being slaughtered and maltreated. This would go to show how deeply rooted the society was in cultural identities and variations. So much so, that the Igbo believed oppressed and resentment grew. The problem escalated because of problems bordering the presence of crude petrol in the region of the country occupied by the Igbo. The gains made from the resources within their areas or "their lands" had not been distributed equally throughout the regions of the nation and especially not in the areas, they were found in. Furthermore, the Igbo leaders decided to keep carefully the profits to themselves to increase the quality lifestyle of maltreated cultural group participants (Global Security. org). Out of grieve over the degree of inequality in the nation the Igbo noticed the necessity to secede.
The Nigeria Biafra war illustration of ethnic identities and distinctions creating civil strife supports the theory that 'societies that are highly fractionalized by both ethnicity and religious beliefs' (Collier, 2000:95) will have significantly more occurrence of civil war. Furthermore, the illustration not only shows grieve participating in its role as a originator of civil warfare by supporting the grieve guaranteed explanation for causes of civil, in cases like this ethnic distinctions and inequality, it also shows greed's role in the occurrence of the Nigerian Biafra civil battle. The Igbo were oppressed, agreed but they did not threaten to secede until they lost their position of power in federal (an Igbo was at the presidential office) and found a justification (While using the proceeds to help the oppressed) to keep the benefits and revenue from the valuable natural reference found in the southeast region of Nigeria, where in fact the Igbo reside to themselves. The occurrence of such a very important resource like crude olive oil switched the Igbo greedy and their status of oppression created an avenue to the greed showing. They wished to keep the benefits from crude essential oil to themselves and break from the united states. Using the already existing situation of the ruling ethnic teams (Hausa and Yoruba), isolating resources predicated on ethnicity, and their greed in taking and keeping the benefits of the resources with no of computer trickling down to the Igbo put into the existing rage and grieve over inequalities that abound in the society and oppression. More importantly, it legitimized the greed of the Igbo group; if it was all right for the ruling groups to hoard resources, it was all right to allow them to take their resource and keep it for themselves. The ruling categories out of greed stored resources for themselves, this resulted in the neglected groupings (Igbo) grieve. Because of their greed, the ruling ethnic groupings (Hausa and Yoruba) desired to keep the tool within their grasps and electric power so they can benefit more from it. This greed possibly led them to resist the secession of the Igbo group away from the nation. The Igbo on the other give away of grieve over limited access to resources grew greedy and wished to break from the united states at the discovery of a valuable resource (crude oil) they wanted to keep to for themselves. This just goes to show how greed triggers grieve and exactly how both factors interact to control situations in a manner that results into violence.
Another grieve backed factor for civil conflict that presents the role of both grieve and greed as designers of civil warfare is the thought of economical inequality again. This factor shows the perfect romance between the functions of greed and grieve. The second option stemming from the unavailability of certain things like land for occasion which Collier (2000) uses as proxy for inequality to others because the elite of the modern culture have access to it. The greed of some in accumulation of resources for themselves and along the way causing grieve for those who don't have usage of or are unable enjoy certain benefits produced from it. Inevitably greed from one side in conjunction with grieve from another equals civil war or at least causes some type of conflict and much more so in a country with vulnerable governance.
A weak government implies 'federal financial incompetence' (Collier, 2000:96) and an lack of ability to regulate or prevent an outbreak of issue in case one comes from said incompetence. Where there can be an incompetent federal, greed and grieve come with an avenue to breed and strengthen one another in the creation of civil conflict. An incompetent administration is to some extent responsible for economical inequality. The government is tasked with the duty of making resources open to its citizens similarly or at least provides social safeness nets when and where needed. If the government does not provide these resources within an equivalent manner and create the same atmosphere, inequalities are bound to be more noticeable in the population and grieve from such inequalities as described earlier may erupt into civil battle. In addition, using a government that facilitates greed which is itself greedy and corrupt is another aspect in which a vulnerable governance can and often increases the occurrence of civil conflict and reinforce the role of greed and grieve as its creators. Through its greedy pursuits like recognizing bribes from elites to maybe have more electricity in certain places or a administration that fails to maintain general population amenities including the public school system because money for such maintenance out of greed are diverted to their personal accounts creates grieve. The ones that cannot afford private school for his or her kids or the ones that cannot find the money for to bribe them are in the end denied the utilization of and access to basic resources. This sort of behavior creates the foundation for inequality beginning with basic education, which would later represent in the areas of real life occupation and income amidst other things. Government incompetence improves the role of grieve and greed and creates a breeding ground for them to fester. A authorities with no desire to get rid of discord because of how they reap the benefits of it whether it is through bribes from those that want to keep the situation just how it is or based on their own interest legitimizes greed which goes on to build grieve which might or may well not become greed and the pattern continues.
Ultimately the role of greed and grieve in civil war is the creation of civil warfare. Factors that make clear why civil wars take place are based on greed or grieve and tend to be grouped as grieve founded or greed based mostly displaying how important their role is within civil war. With no presence of these factors (Greed and Grieve) civil conflict does not are present, it generally does not escalate and it generally does not continue. They are the petrol to the fireplace that is civil conflict. To conclude, greed and grieve as creators of civil conflict reinforce each. One will not exist with no other therefore to ignore the role of 1 in triggering civil war is to leave the a glass half-empty. To comprehend how various explanations of civil warfare factors work, it is important to identify that both grieve and greed work together to effectively create the problem. For without greed, grieve cannot effectively play its role and create civil warfare, and neither can greed without grieve.
Amartya Sen. (2008). Violence, Personal information, and Poverty. Journal of Peacefulness Research. 45 (1), p
Caplan, Gerald. (2007). Rwanda:Walking the street to Genocide. In: Allan Thompson The advertising and the Rwanda genocide. London: Pluto Press. p20-40.
Collier, Paul. (2008). The Discord Snare. In: Collier UNDERNEATH Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Declining and What Can Be Done About It. New York: Oxford University or college Press. p17-37.
Collier, Hoeffler, and Sambanis. (2005). The Collier-Hoeffler Style of Civil War Onset and the RESEARCH STUDY Job Research Design. In: Paul Collier, and Nicholas Smbanis Understandying Civil Warfare. 2nd ed. Washington DC: World Lender. p1-35.
Collier, Paul. (2003). What makes a country Prone to Civil War. In: Paul Collier, World Bank Breaking the issue trap: civil battle and development insurance policy. Washington, DC: Oxford school press and World Bank or investment company. p53-91.
Collier, Paul. (2000). SUCCESSFUL out of War: An economic Point of view. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p91-112.
Cramer, C. (2002). Homo Economicus Would go to Conflict: Methodological Individualism, Rational Choice and the Political Economy of Warfare. World Development. 30 (11), p1845-1860.
David Keen. (2008). 'Greed': Economic Agendas. In: Keen Complex emergencies. Cambridge: Polity Press. p25-50.
David Willing. (2008). Combatants and their Grievances. In: Keen Organic emergencies. Cambridge: Polity Press. p50-62.
David Keen. (2000). Bonuses and Disincentives for Assault. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p19-42.
Global Security. (nd). Biafra Warfare. Available: http://www. globalsecurity. org/military/world/war/biafra. htm. Last accessed 5 January 2010.
Indra de Soya. (2000). The Source Curse: Are Civil Wars Influenced by Rapacity or Paucity. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p113-136.
Jacoby, Tim. (2008). Grievance. In: Jacoby Understanding Turmoil and Violence: Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Approaches. London: Routledge. 103-123.
Raph Uwechue. (2004). The Revolution of January 1966- Mismanaged and Misunderstood. In: Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War: Facing the near future. Victoria: Trafford. p23-33.