内戦への軍事介入の主な動機はやはり油
Intervention in civil wars ‘far more likely in oil-rich nations’
Wednesday 28 January 2015
According to academics from the Universities of Portsmouth, Warwick and Essex, foreign intervention in a civil war is 100 times more likely when the afflicted country has high oil reserves than if it has none. The research is the first to confirm the role of oil as a dominant motivating factor in conflict, suggesting hydrocarbons were a major reason for the military intervention in Libya, by a coalition which included the UK, and the current US campaign against Isis in northern Iraq.
It suggests we are set for a period of low intervention because the falling oil price makes it a less valuable asset to protect. “We found clear evidence that countries with potential for oil production are more likely to be targeted by foreign intervention if civil wars erupt,” said one of the report authors, Dr Petros Sekeris, of the University of Portsmouth. “Military intervention is expensive and risky. No country joins another country’s civil war without balancing the cost against their own strategic interests.”
Iraqi forces recaptured the country's largest oil refinery, in Baiji, from Isis in November Iraqi forces recaptured the country's largest oil refinery, in Baiji, from Isis in November (Getty)
The report’s starkest finding is that a third party is 100 times more likely to intervene when the country at war is a big producer and exporter of oil than when it has no reserves. “After a rigorous and systematic analysis, we found that the role of economic incentives emerges as a key factor in intervention,” said co-author Dr Vincenzo Bove, of the University of Warwick. “Before the Isis forces approached the oil-rich Kurdish north of Iraq, Isis was barely mentioned in the news. But once Isis got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike Isis targets,” he added.
Britain has a long history of foreign intervention. If viewed through a lens of economic incentives, a stark pattern begins to emerge, according to the report’s authors.
Britain intervened in Nigeria’s civil war between 1967 and 1970. Because the British government was heavily dependent on oil located in the eastern Nigeria, stability in the region was critical.
Likewise, Britain invaded oil-rich Iraq in 2003. Political analysts across the globe maintain the US-UK invasion was in part motivated by a desire to control the region’s oil reserves.
Finally, in 2011 Britain partook in a Western coalition that intervened in Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya in 2011 – another state noted for its plentiful hydrocarbon reserves.
By contrast, Britain failed to intervene in Sierra Leone's 11-year civil war (1991-2002), which ravaged the nation and left over 50,000 dead.
The British government also failed to intervene in war-torn Syria, after President Bashar Assad was alleged to have launched a chemical attack against his people in 2013. Much like Sierra Leone, Syria is not a big oil producer.
外国が内戦への介入する率は、油資源のある国の場合、ない国よりも１００倍高くなるとして、イギリスの、ナイジェリア、イラク、リビアへの軍事介入、シエラレオネ、シリアへの軍事不介入の例をあげている。
戦争は金がかかるから、元を取れる見込みのないところには介入しないわけである。
Remembering Saudi’s King Abdullah: "He Was Not a Benevolent Dictator, He Was a Dictator"
英国でも米国でも、地域の安定と、油のためには、残酷な独裁者に感謝までするわけですね。
