War, Resources and the Myth of Civilizational Conflict -By Moh. Ja’far Sodiq Maksum

Global conflicts are often framed as clashes of identity, religion, culture, and ideology. From the Middle East to Eastern Europe and Latin America, violence is frequently explained as the inevitable outcome of deep civilizational differences.

It is a powerful narrative. But it is also incomplete. A closer look at history suggests that many conflicts are driven less by identity than by competition over resources and economic survival. From ancient empires to modern geopolitics, the underlying logic remains strikingly consistent: securing access to land, energy, trade routes, and labor.

A Pattern Across Time

Ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia and Rome did not expand merely for symbolic dominance. Their expansion was tied to the control of fertile land, water systems, and trade networks. Similarly, maritime kingdoms in Southeast Asia sought to dominate strategic sea routes that enabled economic prosperity.

Colonial expansion followed the same pattern. European powers moved into Asia, Africa, and Latin America to secure spices, minerals, and labor. Slavery and extractive economies were not incidental, they were central to the functioning of a global system built on unequal exchange.

As Karl Marx argued in his concept of primitive accumulation, colonialism was not just territorial expansion but a process of transferring wealth from colonized regions to centers of power. The global economy, from its inception, was structured around asymmetry.

Imperialism Without Occupation

In the contemporary era, imperialism has not disappeared, it has transformed. Direct territorial control is no longer necessary. Instead, influence operates through economic, financial, and technological systems. As Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri suggest in their concept of Empire, power today is diffuse, embedded in networks of institutions, corporations, and global regulatory frameworks.

States do not need to occupy territory to exert control. It is often sufficient to shape global markets, financial systems, and supply chains.

Dependency theory, developed by scholars such as Andre Gunder Frank and Samir Amin, helps explain why many developing countries remain structurally constrained despite formal independence. Integration into the global economy often comes with limited autonomy, locking states into positions that reproduce inequality.

The Central Role of the Dollar

At the heart of the current global system lies the US dollar. As the dominant reserve currency, the dollar facilitates global trade and financial stability. Yet it also concentrates economic power. Access to financial systems, credit, and global markets is often mediated through institutions and mechanisms linked to dollar dominance.

Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is instructive here: power is sustained not only through coercion but through systems that appear natural and inevitable. The dollar-based system exemplifies this: widely accepted, yet deeply embedded in unequal structures.

Susan Strange’s notion of structural power further highlights how control over finance and production allows certain actors to shape the rules of the global economy itself.

Resources and Modern Conflict

Energy: particularly oil and gas, remains central to understanding contemporary conflict. As Michael T. Klare argues in his work on resource wars, competition over strategic resources increasingly shapes global tensions. Regions rich in energy often become sites of prolonged instability, not only because of internal dynamics but because of their importance to the global economy.

Countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya and Venezuela illustrate this pattern. Despite their differences, they share key characteristics: resource wealth, political instability, and contested positions within the global economic system.

This does not mean that all conflicts are externally driven or economically determined. But it does suggest that resource control and economic structures significantly shape the conditions under which conflicts emerge.

The Limits of the “Clash of Civilizations”

Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis argues that cultural identity is the primary driver of post-Cold War conflict. While identity can indeed mobilize societies, it is rarely sufficient to explain why conflicts occur.

Critics such as Edward Said have shown that such frameworks often reduce complex realities into simplified binaries, obscuring underlying power relations.

In many cases, identity functions less as a root cause than as a narrative tool: used to justify actions that are fundamentally tied to strategic or economic interests.

This perspective aligns with Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory, which situates conflict within a global structure marked by inequality. It also echoes Noam Chomsky’s argument that ideological narratives often serve to legitimize policies driven by material interests.

Conflict as a Multidimensional Process

At the same time, it would be misleading to reduce conflict solely to resource competition. As Johan Galtung’s work on structural and cultural violence suggests, conflict emerges from an interplay of material conditions and social meanings. Economic inequality, political interests, historical grievances, and identity all interact in complex ways.

Constructivist approaches in international relations further emphasize that how actors interpret the world: through ideas, identities, and narratives. shapes their behavior.

In other words, conflict is neither purely material nor purely symbolic. It is the product of their interaction.

A System Under Strain

The post-World War II global order has proven resilient, but it is increasingly under pressure. Shifts in energy markets, rising geopolitical competition, and growing efforts to reduce reliance on the dollar, often described as “de-dollarization”, reflect a system facing new challenges.

These developments do not yet constitute a coherent alternative order. But they signal a growing perception that the existing system may no longer be fully equitable.

Beyond Simplistic Narratives

Many global conflicts, whether in the Middle East or Latin America, are often interpreted as part of efforts to maintain the stability of a particular global order, including the dollar-based economic system established after World War II. From a critical political economy perspective, this system is not merely a technical mechanism of exchange but also an instrument of power shaping global relations.

However, caution is necessary to avoid oversimplification. Not all conflicts can be reduced to a single overarching explanation. Rather, they often emerge from the intersection of local, regional, and global interests. Domestic factors such as elite rivalry, political fragmentation and social dynamics are often just as influential as external pressures.

Understanding to Break the Cycle

History shows that civilizational conflict tends to be cyclical, emerging, subsiding and reappearing in different forms. As long as basic needs: food, energy, and welfare, are not distributed fairly, the potential for conflict will remain.

Therefore, solutions cannot rely solely on military approaches or symbolic diplomacy. More structural and transformative efforts are required, including fairer resource distribution, reform of the global economic system, equitable cross-cultural dialogue, and strengthening the economic sovereignty of developing countries.

Ultimately, civilizational conflict is not merely about who is different, but about who controls the resources of life and how that control is distributed.