The way wars are fought may have changed. But the reasons and the patterns have not. Vasquez, a prominent scholar and political scientist, has researched the causes of war extensively and came to a conclusion that there are certain steps to war. They are characterised by territorial disputes, long-standing rivalries, arms races, and hardliners. But these conclusions were made including conflicts dating back so far that true economic data was not available, and political motives were primarily supported by referring to the ideology of the state. As time progresses and information becomes more available to the general public, the true causes of conflict become more known.

I am currently writing a research paper stating a theory of the causes of war that is more relevant to the time that we live in. And with more extensive research, it may prove to be applicable to conflicts that have happened throughout history. This is not to say that this theory is 100% accurate, but it looks to be precise enough to explain most conflicts in recent times.

The theory: Two states will go to war if one of the states has a weaker economy, strong ideological leadership, and one of the states presents a threat to the free flow of vital resources.

For examples in my research, I am looking back only as far back as 1980s, at most of the conflicts that have happened between 1980 and 2005. The reasons for not including more recent conflicts (2005-2008) is because reliable economic data has not been released for all nations that have fought wars in the past three years, and controversy looms over the authenticity of some nations’ reports.

This theory is only concerned with the two states that originate the conflict. For example, in the US war in Iraq, this theory does not take into account British involvement at the origin of the conflict, because the US was the main instigator of the military confrontation. As my research progresses, I will write more articles on how the theory can be applied. The purpose is to try to predict future conflicts. It is necessary to define certain terms so that debate is not ignited over which nation is the attacking which nation, whether one is a defending nation, what is meant by ideology and what is mean by vital resources and so on.

The importance of this research is that the world’s consumption of natural resources is growing at an unprecedented rate. Before, states were concerned with commodities such as spices and timber, and the control of trade routes to gain power in the international arena, as well as garnering prestige with regard to that control and power. Today, states are concerned with controlling those things which satisfy growing demand at home, as their economies expand and people consume more and more resources in order to sustain economic growth.

Regardless of the reasons, resources are the root of necessity for territory. Two states will not fight over a piece of Sahara Desert unless they find some economic benefit in it.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.