A U.S. Congressional committee held a hearing on the "emerging threat of resource wars" in Central Asia, but failed to demonstrate that that threat was emerging, or even a threat at all.
The hearing was held by the House Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats and chaired by Representative Dana Rohrabacher who is bringing his idiosyncratic beliefs toward the region to the committee's work since being appointed to chair it earlier this year.
Rohrabacher opened the hearing with a dark warning, that "increasing global demand for supplies of energy and minerals is sparking intense economic competition that could lead to a counterproductive conflict. ... A zero-sum world where no one can obtain the means to progress without taking them from someone else is inherently a world of conflict. When new sources of supplies are opened, as is the case with Central Asia, there is still fear that there is not enough to go around and thus conflict emerges." But other than the general observation that China and India were both growing a lot and both needed resources, how conflict may emerge from that situation was not explained.
The expert witnesses who testified (no members of the U.S. government were present), politely noted that while there are resources in Central Asia and varying actors would like to have access to them, there is no sign of any conflict emerging. "It is true that there is resource competition in Central Asia, as is true around the world," said Ed Chow (pdf), an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who noted that he is advising the State Department on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline project. But he added: "With all due respect to the Committee, the concept of resource wars is often inflated."
Added Neil Brown (pdf) of the German Marshall Fund of the United States:
The drive for territorial control over energy resources remains present in the world,
although it tends to be more of an internal state occurrence than inter-state.... Fortunately, Central Asia is relatively calm on that front.
This is not to say that conflict over resources in Central Asia is impossible. Brown did mention the potential for conflict on the Caspian: "Delineation of the energy-rich Caspian seabed occasionally [enables] unwelcome tension between littoral states. In particular, Russia objects to a proposed TransCaspian Pipeline to diversify Turkmen gas export options through a link to Europe outside of Russian territory." And Chow noted that in fact water was perhaps the resource most likely to be fought over. "In Central Asia itself, my humble opinion is control of water resources are more likely to lead to direct conflict than with oil and gas," he told the committee.
But the focus on conflict is unfortunately characteristic of much of U.S. government work on the region. Of the previous hearings that Rohrabacher's committee has held during this session, here are the topics of the ones dealing with Central Asia and the Caucasus: "Islamist Extremism in Chechnya: A Threat to the U.S. Homeland?," "China’s Rapid Political and Economic Advances in Central Asia and Russia," and "Islamist Militant Threats to Eurasia." These are all no doubt issues. But are they more likely to lead to conflict in the region than, say, brittle political systems led by aging, corrupt and/or venal autocrats?
Joshua Kucera, a senior correspondent, is Eurasianet's former Turkey/Caucasus editor and has written for the site since 2007.
Sign up for Eurasianet's free weekly newsletter. Support Eurasianet: Help keep our journalism open to all, and influenced by none.