WaPo | The “thirst for oil” is often put forward as a near self-evident
explanation behind military interventions in Libya, for instance, or
Sudan. Oil, or the lack of oil, is also said to be behind the absence of
intervention in Syria now and in Rwanda in 1994.
This of course
clashes with the rhetoric around intervention, or its stated goal. No
world leader stands before the U.N. and says they’re sending in the
tanks because their country needs more oil. Such interventions are
usually portrayed as serving directly non-economic goals such as
preserving security, supporting democratic values, or more generally
promoting human rights.
But this is often met with skepticism and
media claims that economic incentives played a key role. Was Iraq
really “all about oil?” It’s worth asking whether this viewpoint has
some mileage, or if it is instead purely conspiracy theory.
It’s a
question we’ve addressed in our research on the importance of oil
production in attracting third party military interventions. In a new
paper co-authored with Kristian Gleditsch in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, we model the decision-making process of third-party countries in interfering in civil wars and examine their economic motives.
Our
research builds on a near-exhaustive sample of 69 countries which had a
civil war between 1945 and 1999. About two-thirds of civil wars during
the period saw third party intervention either by another country or
outside organization.
All about the oil
We
found that the decision to interfere was dominated by the interveners’
need for oil – over and above historical, geographical or ethnic ties.
