Myanmar Spring Chronicle – March 1 View
MoeMaKa, March 2, 2025
The Interconnection Between Natural Resources and Armed Conflicts
History has shown that when a country is rich in natural resources but politically unstable, foreign powers seeking profit often intervene and manage these resources, a practice widely regarded as colonial exploitation. Throughout human history, political and cultural developments have been categorized into five major eras: the Primitive Age, Slavery Age, Feudal Age, Capitalist Age, and Socialist Age. Among these, the era of capitalist expansion saw centuries of colonialism, during which industrialized nations with advanced naval power, scientific knowledge, and military capabilities invaded less developed countries, seized their territories, and exploited their natural resources. These historical events are widely studied in schools, making them well-known facts rather than surprising revelations.
The end of World War II marked an opportunity to dismantle colonial rule, leading to a wave of newly independent nations that began managing their own resources, ushering in a new era of modern global history. These historical contexts highlight the close relationship between natural resources and colonialism, demonstrating how resource wealth has often been a key factor in subjugation and conflict.
In the 19th century, Myanmar’s abundant gemstones, teak forests, and strategic location—offering China access through its southwestern border—caught the attention of the British Empire, which was aggressively expanding its colonies worldwide. Myanmar’s vast natural wealth and geographical position made it a prime target for colonization, leading to the Anglo-Burmese wars. By 1824, Myanmar was embroiled in conflict with Britain, and within 60 years, it was fully colonized.
The question remains: Do natural resources cause armed conflicts, or do conflicts arise due to disputes over resource distribution? The answer depends on the specific historical and political circumstances of each case.
Myanmar’s colonial experience was deeply tied to its natural resources and strategic location. Similarly, more than 70 years of post-independence armed conflict can be partially attributed to disputes over resource control. The prolonged civil war has not only failed to resolve these disputes but has further depleted Myanmar’s natural wealth.
Following independence, the civil war, initially sparked by ethnic and ideological divisions, quickly became entangled with resource exploitation. After the 1962 military coup, armed ethnic groups expanded, leading to decades of conflict. Even after the 1988 pro-democracy uprising, the military government (then known as the SLORC/SPDC) continued to fund its operations through resource extraction, particularly timber, minerals, and border trade revenues.
Under military rule, ethnic armed groups such as the KNU, KIA, SSA, and KNPP financed their resistance movements by extracting and selling natural resources, including jade, gems, and timber. The post-1988 military governments, including SLORC and SPDC, intensified resource exploitation, using revenues from oil, natural gas, and mining to fund both the military and economic ventures controlled by military leaders and their business allies.
Resource extraction was not limited to government control; some ethnic armed groups that signed ceasefire agreements with the military also engaged in the trade. In regions like Hpakant, Mong Hsu, and Mogok, armed groups managed or taxed jade and gemstone mining operations, contributing to a cycle where natural resources fueled the ongoing conflict.
Recent developments indicate that in areas like Mogok, control over gemstone mining remains a contested issue amid ongoing instability. Mining operations continue at full scale, financing armed conflicts with the revenue generated. From jade mines in Hpakant to gold extraction along the Irrawaddy and Chindwin rivers, the exploitation of natural wealth remains a critical factor in Myanmar’s civil war. Armed groups often do not directly engage in mining but rather sell extraction rights to business affiliates and external investors.
Concerns have been raised over the increased mechanized mining activities in Mogok, as reported by BBC Burmese. Similarly, recent reports about oil fields in Myanmar’s Myingyan District have sparked debates on the direct link between natural resources and armed conflict.
Ultimately, natural resource extraction as a means of funding armed conflict is a common pattern worldwide, not just in Myanmar. Even in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, resource agreements are being leveraged to secure military aid from allies like the United States. This global pattern underscores the persistent interconnection between resource wealth and war.