Introduction
There have long been questions in the political science world regarding African nations and why African nations have developed in the way that they have. In general, African nations face high levels of corruption and conflict; some consider colonialism to be the most significant problem for Africa, but many political scientists consider the issue to be much more nuanced and much more complex than can be described only by the after-effects of colonialism (The Economist Staff). Significant bodies of literature have been written on each African nation, and to examine the historical trends for each nation independently would be beyond the scope of this discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to trace the trend of resource exploitation in African nations, particularly focusing on the exploitation of diamond production, and how this diamond production has influenced the development of these African nations.
Diamonds are often considered to be one of the resources that are exploited by foreign powers—developing nations that have access to significant diamond resources are sometimes said to have a “resource curse” (Frankel, 2010). This term is used to describe a resource that is quite valuable but has the paradoxical economic effect of dampening the economy as a whole (Frankel, 2010). In fact, the resource curse is also referred to by another name: the paradox of plenty. West African nations have, arguably, faced significant detrimental effects from their access to diamonds and this particular resource curse. This discussion will demonstrate the far-reaching effects of such a resource curse, and analyze how access to diamond resources has contributed to the Big Five themes of both environmental conflict and exclusion and the underlying structure and sociopolitical conditions within these nations. The critical tools that will be used are historical materialism and dependency, accumulation, and degradation.
Background: Sierra Leone, Botswana, and Resource Curses
Although the concept of the resource curse affects many nations in Africa (particularly in West and Southern Africa), and the trends of the region will be discussed in general, most of the analysis in the discussion will be done on two countries: Sierra Leone and Botswana. In some ways, these two nations have faced similar paths and struggles: both have significant access to diamond resources, both were colonized by European powers, and both are relatively small nations (Maconachie & Binns 2007; Maconachie & Binns, 2007; Iimi, 2007). However, their paths have also diverged significantly over time as well. Although both countries were colonized by the British, they have experienced different trends since their freedom from colonialism. Sierra Leone has experienced significant and bloody conflict for a number of years, and this conflict has undoubtedly had a formative effect on the way that the political structure is formed; Botswana, on the other hand, experienced apartheid but no bloody civil war (Maconachie & Binns 2007; Maconachie & Binns, 2007; Iimi, 2007).
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines both Sierra Leone and Botswana as countries that are “resource-rich” (Natural Resource Governance Institute, 2016). This means that both these nations have significant natural resources, and are on the list of the 51 countries that control the bulk of the world’s limited natural resources (Natural Resource Governance Institute, 2016). The question remains, then, as to why countries like Botswana and Sierra Leone continue to fall behind in development. These countries do indeed have access to resources that are very important for global development, so their economies should be strong: however, they fail to even attain a median level of achievement in terms of economic strength and power.
The Political Nature of Resource Curses
Resource curses can and should be understood in political terms rather than environmental terms because of the general trends in countries that experience resource curses. Robbins (2011) writes, “So it is best to suggest at the outset that political ecology is a term that describes a community of practice united around a certain kind of textPolitical ecology, moreover, explores these social and environmental changes with an understanding that there are better, less coercive, less exploitative, and more sustainable ways of doing things” (Robbins, 2011). The developed world is, clearly, benefitting more significantly from the resources in countries like Botswana and Sierra Leone than the people in general are. There are more people living in poverty in these countries than there are living in wealth; while poverty is slowly shrinking in African nations, there is no doubt that it is still a very significant concern moving forward (Lujala, Gleditsch, & Gilmore, 2005). The resource curse has also played a very significant role in the political development of these countries: both still exhibit significant problems with corruption and a lack of engagement between the people and the government as a whole. The idea that these nations—nations that are rich in resources but lagging behind the developed world in terms of infrastructure and economic development—might be lagging as a result of their resources is one that is founded entirely in a political understanding of the intersectionality of economics and ecology.
Today, colonialism is an era of the past, but that does not mean that elements of colonialism do not still exist: on the contrary, there are still economic forces that exist within a globalized world that encourage companies and corporations to engage in business practices in countries like Botswana and Sierra Leone (Wright & Czelusta, 2007; Frankel, 2010). Understanding that the economic forces that drive companies to places like Botswana, Sierra Leone, and much of West Africa have had a political and developmental effect on these regions gives a foundational structure for investigating the politicization of industries like diamond mining (Robbins, 2011; Boschini, Pettersson, & Roine, 2007).
The Big Five: Political Ecology
Robbins (2010) suggests that there are five major theses that apply to ecological conflicts and difficulties, and that nearly every issue can be confined by investigating these theses. The issue of resource curses requires the investigation of environmental conflict and exclusion, as well as the political objects and actors within the country (Robbins, 2010). Environmental conflict and exclusion requires an investigation of the access that individuals have to the environment and the conflicts that arise as a result of their exclusion from the natural resources of a given environment. In Sierra Leone and Botswana, Maconachie and Binns (2007) suggest, companies control the diamond mines and the people of the country have access only insofar as they provide labor to these large international companies (Maconachie & Binns, 2007; Maconachie & Binns, 2007).
As such, the people of Botswana and Sierra Leone have little ability to maximize their country’s natural resources because they must struggle against the large and powerful international corporations—corporations that have traditionally enjoyed immense financial success around the world (Maconachie & Binns, 2007; Maconachie & Binns, 2007). While not officially a racial, classed, or gender struggle, there are elements of struggle between the developing world and the developed world that can be seen when looking at the relative power of the diamond industry and the diamond corporations and comparing it to that of the people of Sierra Leone and Botswana.
The presence of the diamond companies in Africa is certainly not new: western companies have been mining diamonds in Africa for a number of years. Although there have been movements towards more ethically sourced gems, there is no doubt that there are still diamond companies that are engaging in exploitative or illicit practices in the diamond mines in Africa (The Economist Staff, 2015; Tran, 2012). Perhaps most importantly, however, they have historically engaged in illicit and exploitative practices—and there is no doubt that these practices have shaped the sociopolitical conditions in which these countries currently find themselves enmeshed.
Corruption still runs rampant in many parts of Africa, and Sierra Leone in particular has fallen victim to massive amounts of corruption within the government sectors, although Botswana is likewise not without corruption (Natural Resource Governance Institute, 2016; Maconachie & Binns 2007; Maconachie & Binns, 2007; Iimi, 2007). Corruption levels are linked to the resource curse: the lack of stable political infrastructure means that the people of these nations see little in the way of profit from industries like the diamond mining industry (Frankel, 2010).
Corruption, as previously discussed, is still a significant problem in countries like Botswana and Sierra Leone. These countries have a political ruling class that is quite wealthy, while the majority of the people still live in poverty. This wealth disparity is linked to the resource curse that is endemic to these countries: the diamond mining resource curse. Indeed, Sierra Leone has been involved in violent civil conflict a number of times directly as a result of the economics associated with diamond mining and class struggle (The Economist Staff, 2015; Tran, 2012). While Botswana has been somewhat more successful at alleviating corruption and avoiding violent conflict, corruption in political structures as a result of the resource curse still abounds (Natural Resource Governance Institute, 2016; Maconachie & Binns 2007; Maconachie & Binns, 2007; Iimi, 2007). Diamond mining has had a profound impact on the political development of these countries, and is likely to have a continued effect in the future.
Conclusion
The economic difficulties for countries like Sierra Leone, Botswana, and other resource-rich African nations have certainly been formative for these nations and for the region as a whole. There is no doubt that the developing world has been exploited in a plethora of ways by the developed world; African nations have, by and large, been exploited more than many parts of the developing world. The existence of the resource curse in general underscores the political and exploitative nature of this historical relationship.
There is no way to undo the damage that has been done by exploitative actions in the past, but looking back on the political ecology of different countries and how a resource curse like diamonds has influenced these countries’ development is particularly important. No two countries share the same history, but when they show convergent development—particularly in negative areas of development, like poverty and corruption—it is important to understand the role that the past has played in the development of these structural issues.
References
Boschini, A. D., Pettersson, J., & Roine, J. (2007). Resource Curse or Not: A Question of Appropriability*. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics,109(3), 593-617.
Frankel, J. A. (2010). The natural resource curse: a survey (No. w15836). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Iimi, A. (2007). Escaping from the Resource Curse: Evidence from Botswana and the Rest of the World. IMF Staff Papers, 663-699.
Lawson-Remer, T. & Greenstein, J. (2016). Beating the Resource Curse in Africa: A Global Effort: Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from http://www.cfr.org/africa-sub-saharan/beating-resource-curse-africa-global-effort/p28780
Lujala, P., Gleditsch, N. P., & Gilmore, E. (2005). A diamond curse? Civil war and a lootable resource. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4), 538-562.
Maconachie, R., & Binns, T. (2007). Beyond the resource curse? Diamond mining, development and post-conflict reconstruction in Sierra Leone.Resources Policy, 32(3), 104-115.
Maconachie, R., & Binns, T. (2007). ‘Farming miners’ or ‘mining farmers’?: Diamond mining and rural development in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(3), 367-380.
Natural Resource Governance Institute. (2016). Report | Natural Resource Governance. Resourcegovernance.org. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from http://www.resourcegovernance.org/resource-governance-index/report
Robbins, P. (2011). Political ecology: A critical introduction (Vol. 16). John Wiley & Sons.
The Economist Staff. (2015). The twilight of the resource curse?. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21638141-africas-growth-being-powered-things-other-commodities-twilight
Tran, M. (2012). Are natural resources a blessing or a curse for developing countries? | Mark Tran. the Guardian. Retrieved 8 March 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/oct/25/natural-resources-blessing-curse-developing-countries
Wright, G., & Czelusta, J. (2007). Resource-based growth past and present.Natural resources: Neither curse nor destiny, 185.
