Spellchek has posted many times on natural resources, energy access and distribution as being the reasons behind the bulk of global conflicts. Religion and land are usually cited as the top reasons for war, however, even those are sometimes merely a front for a natural resorces basis. The fight over natural resources goes back centuries and still sits at the top of the list for governments to consider when making policy.
The next two globally intertwined conflicts fit the bill. Syria, which is primarily over pipeline distribution routes, and the lesser known China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, which is over the massive Chunxiao gas field.
Russia has been repositioning assets into the Mediterranean for the first time in decades – http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130521/181260167/Two-Warships-Join-Russias-Mediterranean-Task-Force.html.
Mere coincidence with the escalating rhetoric for more direct U.S. involvement in Syria? That may be the ‘official’ bill of goods being peddled but you can draw your own conclusions as the U.S. Marines with their assault ships are now in Israel coincidentally – http://www.investingchannel.com/article/229312/Russian-Pacific-Fleet-Warships-Enter-Mediterranean-For-First-Time-In-Decades-To-Park-In-Cyprus.
You may recall that the first Sino-Japanese war was fought over land in the form of North Korea – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sino-Japanese_War.
As a newly emergent power, Japan turned its attention toward Korea. In order to protect its own interests and security, Japan wanted to block another power from annexing Korea or maintaining dominance in Korea, or at least ensure Korea’s effective independence by developing its resources and reforming its administration
Interesting that is was U.S. intervention in 1854 that led Japan to become involved in global trade.
It is likely a common misunderstanding that nations intervene in foreign conflicts in an effort to secure assets for themselves. Iraq for oil as an example. Some would also suport the idea that to the victor goes the spoils as a form of repayment. The idea being that the U.S. nation built in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it’s OK to take their oil as repayment.
The problem is that you are painted a tyrant and occupier by most. If your agenda is global conquest, you would follow this logic as an aura of fear is preferable anyway.
History is replete with failed global tyrants and the governments of the world take notice, particularly the so-called superpowers. It is considered more efficient strategically to pursue what we see today. Proxy wars and interventions designed to ensure global access to natural resources as a way of denying opponents a strategic edge. Doesn’t matter if it’s water, land, gas, oil, precious minerals, whatever it may be, if it can be made available to a global market than no one country can control it.
It becomes clear when one studies the seemingly random and irrational pattern of interventions based upon issues such as human rights and third-world poverty. The way in which countries pick and choose their battles. The U.S. getting involved in Syria would qualify as Assad killing his own people is repeated daily in many other countries around the globe in which we don’t intervene.
This is not to say that natural resources are always the reason behind conflicts. The spread of Islam via the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda is very much ideology based and fully supported by our President even if he’ll never declare it. His actions defy him. It may seem to be a conflict of interest with the President’s personal agenda and the nation’s agenda. Yet any good politican always finds a way to make their personal beliefs coincide with their professional role.
Many times multiple agendas come together at certain points. Obama and the democrat party are one. His agenda is much bigger than the party, yet they are often bedfellows where the agendas align.
Any hopes for global peace and a lessening of wars and conflicts is folly. Simply way too many fingers in the pie for that to ever happen.
Spellchek 