Tabbitha Greenough
Roots of War: Michael Klare on Resource Driven War
I chose to attend this event both for its convenience as well as its congruence with my own personal interests. I started my academic career as an international studies major, and one of the things I noticed was that my classes seemed to base the historical part of the curriculum on international conflicts or wars and their causes and consequences, so Prof. Klare’s specialty in globalization was of particular interest to me, in regards to the cause of hostilities. This event seemed to me to be a chance to hear something new about a familiar topic. Moreover, I was interested in the question and answer period, and whether that would bring about informed discussion, or as so often seems to happen, dissolve into grandstanding and angry debate.
One of the insights I took away from this talk was that, just as the causes for war have evolved and changed with the times, so too must those seeking to abolish them. What I mean is that, given the strong political ideologies that lead to the wars of the 20th century, the methodologies of those peace activists who opposed them may have been better suited to that atmosphere. Today, when wars are being fought for what’s sold as ‘survival’, perhaps the techniques applied must emanate the same urgency. In particular, Prof. Klare made numerous references to the inability of the planet to sustain the current rate of consumption, and how often the struggle for scarce natural resources is what is the cause of violent conflict. This creates a strong bridge between the peace community and the environmental movements, as they both now clearly have cause to work toward a more sustainable global culture. Following the “strength in numbers mantra” the collaboration of large movements toward the same goals, even if for different reasons, can provide a much more efficient and prominent voice. The interrelatedness of these issues exemplifies why those who hold possession of, and thus, profit most from many or most of the world’s resources are so often unwilling to contribute to a culture of peace via resource access equality.
Overall, while a number of the people had probing questions, I did
observe that the large majority of the audience tended to agree or identify
with Prof. Klare’s opinions and observations. I asked Prof. Klare a question
regarding his statement that we must change the way we think about and share
resources. While I believe this to be true, I wondered how we are to more
equitably share access to necessary resources, when given the current monopoly
of capitalist systems, access to these is held in private ownership- especially
without resorting to some type of force. Prof. Klare assured me he did not
support private ownership of resources such as water, but unfortunately this
situation already exists in many places throughout the world, including in the
This talk related to much of the course material and discussion in that with the exportation of U. S. culture, those who feel denied of or oppressed by what others have want to consume at the same rate and scale as those in the United States. As the Earth cannot possibly support the increased consumption of natural resources, competition for them will become a growing cause for violent attacks and organized crime. Thus, it is incredibly important to begin to practice peace in a consistent, thorough, practical way so as to subvert the current course toward militaristic monopoly of vital resources.
The talk also reinforced the necessity of prioritizing the global community over nations, even over nationhood. The currently held idea is that the more friends or allies a country has, the more dangerous it is. This is a backward idea, as we should be encouraging cooperative collaboration and unity in order to resolve globally perilous issues. The importance of the interrelatedness of all people and the planet was further impressed upon me by the growing use of access to waterways and bodies of water as political or profitable leverage. Rivers and other naturally occurring necessities recognize no national borders, and yet, due to the random chance of geography, one state may possess the ability to deprive another of access to essential materials. It is incredibly important to recognize the dependence of all people on the overall health and sustenance of the planet and the ability to gain access to crucial raw materials.
Prof. Klare’s historical survey of past wars over resources was interesting to me in that ancient wars were very often in the same places in which there are current conflicts over the right to access some of these same necessities. As a whole, they are places with a lack of at least some vital resources and too many people for the environment to sustain. However, as the current diaspora of American culture encourages ever more people to consume, the thought occurs to me that even in the face of such obvious disaster, it seems hypocritical of the American population to now, in effect, simply say to the rest of the international population, “Yes, we’ve been consuming all we want for years, but you can’t do that now that you have the chance, because it’d be catastrophic.” People won’t accept that. The American people have to live the actuality of a sustainable society, and even then, it won’t make a difference unless others can be convinced to voluntarily collaborate and take part in the effort.
Prof. Klare emphasized the necessity to aid the developing world to establish itself in a more environmentally responsible way, mentioning the use of more efficient irrigation systems. One key point I felt he failed to make was that of the damage done to locally based agricultural operations by the monopoly of genetically altered seed strains owned by corporations like Monsanto. The inability of these seeds to reproduce fruit from their seeds, as well as their ability to solely withstand the company’s pesticide, mean that farmers are reduced to dependence upon a business with capitalist pursuits for the ability to eat or make a living, as well as the longevity of their enterprise. If we are serious about helping these countries to develop ecologically and sustainably, they have to be able to escape from the profit-driven cycle of dependence on commerce for agricultural continuity.
I also spent some time feeling torn over the idea of ending suburban sprawl by getting people to live in large urban living centers. While I know that cities have less of a carbon footprint due to decreased use of automobiles and more compact living spaces that require less energy and water, the part of me that was raised on a rural Massachusetts farm and enjoys having no neighbors and large backyard events is repelled by the idea of living in close contact with so many people. The talk that I went to strongly reinforced my belief that already settled rural areas need far more efficient, economical, and ecological public transportation and to implement greener building processes. Shared agricultural intentional living centers and cohousing also seem like a viable and yet less congested way of decreasing emissions and pollution produced by communities.
All in all I found that I developed some of my current ideas to a greater extent along the theme the speaker presented and discovered some new areas in which to explore for an improved understanding of the issues at work and perhaps how to resolve them. I think that attending more such events in the future would continue to advance my comprehension of the variety of ideas and potential solutions and how we might begin to implement them.
Go to the blog entry to leave a comment.