Certainly, X, many conflicts ARE over resources. But that still would not explain why a particular conflict is between say, "Serbs" and "Croatians," or "Serbs" and "Albanians," or whatever. Why, in short, is the conflict over resources between two (or more) ethnic groups? Why not between rich and poor, or men and women, or young and old, or some other such division? In other words, I would say that the question -- whom is the conflict between ? -- is at least as important as the question of what the conflict is over.
Besides, many conflicts expand far beyond their original base. A conflict that began as a simple conflict over resources can end up being a conflict over power, broadly understood; or over self-image (as in Kosovo, incidentally), etc. It would be reductionist, therefore, to see it only as a conflict over resources, particularly in cases where the original cause is no longer at work.
Joan |
