The relationship between petroleum resources and armed conflict has occupied a central place in the political economy of Africa. Although oil does not automatically generate war, petroleum wealth can alter the incentives and capabilities of states, political elites, rebel movements, and external actors. Oil revenues can finance state coercion, sustain patronage networks, increase the value of territorial control, and provide armed groups with incentives to capture or disrupt production. At the same time, grievances surrounding environmental degradation, unequal revenue distribution, political exclusion, and the appropriation of resource rents may transform oil-producing regions into sites of prolonged conflict. This article examines the political economy of “oil wars” in Africa through a comparative analysis of Nigeria, Angola, Sudan and South Sudan, and Libya. It argues that oil should be understood less as an independent cause of war than as a conflict multiplier whose effects depend on institutional quality, state capacity, political exclusion, territorial geography, and international involvement. The article then examines Türkiye’s increasingly important role in African energy geopolitics, with particular attention to Libya and Somalia. Türkiye’s engagement combines energy diplomacy, infrastructure, security cooperation, maritime interests, commercial relations, and diplomatic mediation. The article concludes that Türkiye’s expanding role illustrates the transformation of African oil politics from a predominantly Western-centered system toward a more plural and competitive geopolitical environment.
Indeed, Africa possesses some of the world’s most strategically significant petroleum resources. From the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Guinea, from Angola to Libya and Algeria, and from Sudan and South Sudan to emerging hydrocarbon provinces in East Africa, oil has shaped state formation, political institutions, international relations, and patterns of economic development. Yet the proposition that oil necessarily causes war is too simplistic. A large body of political science research has identified a statistical relationship between petroleum dependence and civil conflict, but the mechanisms behind this relationship remain contested. Michael Ross, for example, argues that petroleum wealth has been associated with authoritarian durability, corruption, and an increased risk of violent conflict, while also emphasizing the importance of institutional and political conditions.
The central question, therefore, is not simply “Does oil cause war?” but rather: Under what political, institutional, and geopolitical conditions does oil contribute to the emergence, escalation, or prolongation of armed conflict? This distinction is particularly important in Africa. Oil-producing countries differ dramatically in their political institutions and conflict trajectories. Angola experienced a prolonged civil war in which oil revenues became an important source of state financing, whereas Nigeria experienced recurrent violence concentrated particularly in the oil-producing Niger Delta. Sudan and South Sudan demonstrate how oil can intersect with questions of territorial sovereignty, ethnic and political exclusion, and state formation. Libya, meanwhile, illustrates how control over oil infrastructure can become intertwined with fragmented sovereignty and external intervention.
The African experience therefore suggests that petroleum is best understood as a political resource rather than merely an economic commodity. Oil generates rents, and rents generate political struggles over who controls them.
The Resource Curse
The concept of the resource curse refers to the paradox whereby countries possessing substantial natural-resource wealth may experience weaker institutions, economic distortions, corruption, authoritarianism, and conflict rather than broad-based prosperity. The literature does not suggest that resource wealth mechanically produces these outcomes. Instead, petroleum creates particular political incentives because oil revenues are highly concentrated and can generate substantial rents for governments. Ross’s review of the literature finds relatively robust evidence linking petroleum wealth to several adverse political outcomes, while also emphasizing unresolved questions concerning causal mechanisms and variation across countries.
Oil differs from many other natural resources because it can generate very large revenues without requiring extensive taxation of the domestic population. This can weaken the traditional fiscal relationship between citizens and the state. In a conventional taxation system, governments depend on citizens for revenue and therefore have incentives to develop administrative capacity, provide public goods, and maintain a degree of political legitimacy. In an oil-dependent rentier state, governments may obtain a significant proportion of their income from external resource rents. This can reduce their dependence on domestic taxation and facilitate patronage and coercion. This mechanism does not inevitably produce violence, but it can make political competition particularly valuable and therefore potentially more dangerous.
One mechanism through which oil can contribute to conflict is the increased value of territorial and state control. Where petroleum revenues constitute a large share of national income, controlling the state can provide access to enormous financial resources. Consequently, political struggles may become struggles over the control of the resource itself.
This logic is particularly important in civil wars. A rebel organization does not necessarily need to produce and sell oil directly. It may seek control over oil-producing territory, pipelines, ports, refineries, or government institutions that distribute petroleum revenues.
In this sense, oil can transform a political conflict into a high-value contest over sovereignty. Research on natural resources and civil conflict has identified several mechanisms connecting resources to violence, including grievance, financing opportunities for rebels, weakened institutions, and the strategic value of controlling resource-rich territory.
Oil as a Source of Conflict Financing
Oil can also help finance armed conflict. Unlike some easily lootable commodities, petroleum generally requires substantial infrastructure and technical expertise. Nevertheless, armed groups may obtain revenues through: illegal tapping of pipelines; theft and illicit resale of crude oil; control of oil-producing territory; taxation of oil-related economic activity; attacks on infrastructure in exchange for political concessions; cooperation with political or commercial intermediaries.
The Niger Delta provides a particularly important example. Research on Nigeria shows how oil production became associated with violent protest, security privatization, and the securitization of local development. Oil companies and local communities became embedded in a complex security environment involving state institutions, corporations, political actors, and militant organizations. Thus, the economic value of petroleum can make conflict financially sustainable.
The political economy of oil conflict cannot be explained exclusively through economic “greed.” Communities living in oil-producing regions may experience environmental damage, land loss, unemployment, displacement, and political marginalization while observing enormous revenues being transferred to central governments.
This creates a potentially powerful grievance mechanism. The World Bank literature identifies several pathways through which natural resources may contribute to conflict, including perceived injustice, environmental damage, unequal distribution of revenues, rebel financing, and weakened state institutions.
The political geography of oil is therefore crucial. A country may possess substantial petroleum resources while the populations living closest to extraction sites receive relatively limited economic benefits. Where political institutions provide few peaceful mechanisms for expressing grievances, resource politics may become securitized. The Niger Delta demonstrates this dynamic particularly clearly.
The Niger Delta and the Politics of Extraction
Nigeria represents one of Africa’s most important examples of the relationship between petroleum and political conflict. Oil transformed Nigeria’s political economy after large-scale commercial production expanded during the twentieth century. Petroleum revenues became central to government finance and exports. At the same time, the Niger Delta, where much of the country’s oil is produced, experienced severe environmental and socioeconomic tensions. The conflict cannot be reduced to a simple struggle between local communities and oil companies. Instead, it involves multiple actors: the federal government; state and local governments; multinational oil corporations; local communities; militant organizations; political elites; criminal networks.
Research on the Niger Delta emphasizes that oil companies developed different strategies for managing security threats as anti-oil protests intensified from the 1990s onward. These strategies increasingly incorporated private security, community security, corporate security, and development programs.
The Nigerian case demonstrates that oil can produce a security dilemma at the local level. Communities demand greater political and economic control over resource-producing areas; the state interprets some forms of mobilization as threats to territorial and economic sovereignty; companies seek to protect infrastructure; and militant groups exploit the resulting environment. Consequently, oil becomes simultaneously an economic asset, a political grievance, and a security problem.
Oil Revenues and the Financing of Civil War in Angola
Angola provides a different illustration. The Angolan Civil War, which lasted from 1975 until 2002, emerged primarily from political and ideological struggles that were deeply connected to the Cold War. Oil was therefore not the original cause of the conflict.
Nevertheless, petroleum became extremely important to the economic sustainability of the Angolan state during the war. The government controlled important offshore oil resources, while the opposition movement UNITA derived substantial revenues from diamonds. This created an asymmetric resource-financing system in which competing sides were able to sustain military operations through different forms of resource wealth.
The Angolan case therefore challenges a simplistic interpretation of the resource curse. Oil did not necessarily initiate the conflict; instead, it increased the government’s capacity to finance warfare and reduced the immediate fiscal constraints associated with prolonged military mobilization. The broader literature similarly cautions that the relationship between petroleum and conflict involves multiple causal mechanisms and that the empirical effects vary across cases.
Oil, Secession, and State Formation in Sudan
The experience of Sudan and South Sudan is particularly significant because petroleum became directly connected to questions of territorial sovereignty and state formation.
The political conflict between northern and southern Sudan had deep historical, political, religious, and economic dimensions. Oil intensified the strategic importance of territory because significant reserves were concentrated in areas that became central to disputes over autonomy, borders, and revenue sharing.
The independence of South Sudan in 2011 did not eliminate the petroleum conflict. Instead, the division of Sudan created a new structural problem: much of the oil production was located in South Sudan, while important export infrastructure—including pipelines leading toward the Red Sea—remained connected to Sudan.
This generated a form of mutual dependence. South Sudan required access to Sudanese infrastructure to export petroleum, while Sudan required transit revenues and continued economic relations with South Sudan. The case demonstrates that oil can produce both conflict and interdependence. Petroleum can increase the value of contested territory, but it can also create economic relationships that make complete separation costly.
Oil and the Fragmentation of Sovereignty in Libya
Libya represents perhaps the clearest contemporary example of the relationship between oil and fragmented sovereignty in North Africa. Libya possesses substantial petroleum resources, and oil revenues have historically constituted the backbone of the country’s economy. Following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the country experienced prolonged political fragmentation and armed conflict.
The central issue was not simply who would control the oil fields. It also concerned who would control: oil terminals; pipelines; the National Oil Corporation; state financial institutions; export revenues; the political institutions responsible for allocating national income.
Consequently, oil infrastructure became embedded in the country’s broader struggle over political legitimacy. The Libyan case demonstrates the distinction between resource wealth and resource governance. The existence of oil does not automatically generate conflict. Rather, when state institutions fragment, the distribution of oil revenues becomes one of the central stakes of political competition. Oil therefore becomes a mechanism through which fragmented political authority is reproduced.
External Powers and the Internationalization of African Oil Conflicts
African oil conflicts rarely remain purely domestic. Petroleum connects African states to global energy markets, multinational corporations, international financial institutions, foreign governments, and military actors. The result is a layered conflict structure in which local, national, regional, and global interests overlap.
The resource-curse thesis remains influential, but it should not be interpreted deterministically. There are oil-rich states that have avoided large-scale civil war. Comparative research has therefore increasingly emphasized institutional conditions, income levels, state capacity, political inclusion, and mechanisms of revenue distribution. Ross notes that the resource-conflict relationship is robust in important respects but also contains significant variation and unresolved causal questions. Three institutional variables are particularly important.
Where citizens can monitor oil revenues, governments face greater constraints on rent extraction and corruption. Where oil-producing communities possess meaningful political representation, grievances are more likely to remain within institutional channels.
A state capable of regulating extraction, enforcing contracts, protecting communities, and distributing revenues can reduce some of the destabilizing effects associated with petroleum. Thus, the crucial variable may not simply be how much oil a country possesses, but how political institutions manage oil wealth.
Türkiye’s Emerging Role in African Oil Geopolitics
Türkiye’s growing involvement in Africa has become increasingly relevant to the continent’s energy and security landscape.
Türkiye’s contemporary Africa policy developed substantially after the launch of its Africa Action Plan in 1998 and accelerated after 2005. Academic research describes the subsequent expansion as involving diplomacy, trade, humanitarian assistance, infrastructure, security cooperation, and commercial engagement.
The Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes the policy as based on political, humanitarian, economic, and cultural relations and emphasizes the principle of partnership and “African solutions to African problems.” The energy dimension has become increasingly important. Türkiye’s expanding African engagement should therefore be understood not merely as a search for petroleum supplies. It represents a broader form of energy diplomacy, combining commercial interests with infrastructure, maritime security, diplomatic relations, and strategic positioning.
Libya occupies a particularly important position in Türkiye’s African energy policy because it connects North African hydrocarbons with the Eastern Mediterranean geopolitical environment.
Türkiye and Libya have developed extensive cooperation in energy and maritime affairs. Turkish officials have continued to emphasize hydrocarbon exploration, production, and trade as central areas of bilateral cooperation. In January 2026, Türkiye’s Energy and Natural Resources Ministry stated that Türkiye intended to become active in both onshore and offshore Libyan energy activities.
Türkiye’s involvement in Libya is not exclusively economic. It has also included security and diplomatic dimensions. Academic research characterizes Libya as an important case for understanding Türkiye’s combination of hard and soft diplomatic instruments in Africa and the Mediterranean. From an energy-security perspective, Libya matters because its petroleum sector possesses substantial potential while remaining deeply affected by political fragmentation.
Türkiye’s role therefore intersects with three different dimensions: Energy, maritime geopolitics, conflict diplomacy. This makes Libya a central case for understanding Türkiye’s emerging position in African oil politics.
Somalia represents another important dimension of Türkiye’s African energy strategy. Türkiye’s engagement with Somalia initially developed through humanitarian assistance, infrastructure, development cooperation, security assistance, and diplomatic engagement. Academic research has identified Somalia as one of the most important examples of Türkiye’s multidimensional engagement in Africa. Energy cooperation has subsequently expanded. In March 2024, Türkiye and Somalia signed an agreement concerning cooperation in offshore oil and natural-gas exploration and development. The agreement covers exploration, evaluation, development, production, transportation, refining, and sales. In April 2025, Türkiye and Somalia expanded this cooperation through an agreement concerning onshore hydrocarbon exploration and production. Türkiye announced plans to conduct exploration activities across three Somali onshore blocks covering approximately 16,000 square kilometers.
The expansion of Türkiye’s energy presence in Somalia is significant for several reasons. First, Somalia occupies a strategically important position along the Gulf of Aden and the western Indian Ocean. Second, energy cooperation is taking place alongside longstanding Turkish security and development engagement. Third, the Somali case illustrates how energy diplomacy can develop from a broader political relationship rather than emerging independently. By 2026, Turkish official statements described cooperation with Somalia as encompassing both offshore and onshore hydrocarbon exploration and production.
Türkiye’s Role as an Energy and Security Actor
Türkiye’s African energy strategy differs from the classic model in which a foreign power simply purchases crude oil. Research has emphasized that Turkish policy cannot easily be classified as either purely “soft power” or purely “hard power”; instead, Ankara combines different forms of political, economic, security, and institutional resources according to the specific context. The energy relationship is therefore embedded within a broader political relationship.
Türkiye’s growing involvement should also be interpreted within the wider transformation of African geopolitics. For decades, African petroleum politics were heavily influenced by European powers, the United States, China, Russia, and multinational oil corporations. The contemporary environment is increasingly multipolar.
Somalia’s engagement with Türkiye, for example, can be understood not simply as Turkish expansion but also as a Somali attempt to attract investment, develop resource potential, strengthen state capacity, and diversify international partnerships. Similarly, Libya’s relationship with Türkiye must be interpreted within Libya’s own fragmented political environment and its search for external partnerships. Thus, Türkiye’s role should not be conceptualized solely as an external power seeking African resources. It is better understood as part of a negotiated and increasingly competitive African geopolitical marketplace.
The expansion of energy cooperation also carries risks. First, petroleum projects in fragile states may become entangled with domestic political competition. If revenues are perceived as benefiting one faction disproportionately, energy projects may intensify existing tensions.
Second, offshore exploration can become connected to maritime boundary disputes. Third, energy infrastructure can become a strategic target for armed groups. Fourth, external security involvement can generate controversy if local actors perceive foreign involvement as political interference. These risks do not imply that energy cooperation necessarily causes instability. Rather, they demonstrate why resource governance is essential.
Conclusion
The history of oil conflicts in Africa demonstrates that petroleum is neither an automatic cause of war nor a politically neutral commodity. Oil becomes particularly destabilizing when it interacts with weak institutions, political exclusion, territorial disputes, corruption, environmental degradation, unequal revenue distribution, and external intervention.
Nigeria demonstrates the importance of local grievances and environmental politics. Angola illustrates how petroleum can finance an already existing civil war. Sudan and South Sudan demonstrate the connection between oil, territorial sovereignty, and state formation. Libya demonstrates how fragmented sovereignty can turn control over petroleum revenues and infrastructure into a central component-of post-conflict competition.
The broader lesson is that oil is best understood as a conflict multiplier. It can increase the financial value of political power, provide resources for armed actors, strengthen coercive states, intensify local grievances, and attract foreign involvement. But the political consequences of oil depend substantially on institutions and political structures. Türkiye’s expanding engagement adds a new dimension to this landscape. Through its relationships with Libya and Somalia, Türkiye has moved beyond a primarily commercial relationship with African states toward a multidimensional model incorporating energy exploration, maritime cooperation, security partnerships, diplomacy, infrastructure, and political engagement. Türkiye’s recent agreements with Somalia concerning offshore and onshore-hydrocarbons and its expanding energy cooperation with Libya illustrate the growing importance of energy in Ankara’s African policy.
At the same time, Türkiye’s role should be interpreted within the agency of African states themselves. African governments increasingly use competition among external powers to diversify investment, security partnerships, and diplomatic relationships. Türkiye is therefore one actor within-a wider transformation of African geopolitics rather than the sole determinant of its direction. The future of African oil politics will consequently depend on whether petroleum wealth is incorporated into inclusive institutions or remains concentrated within narrow political and economic networks. The central challenge is not simply to extract oil, but to construct political institutions capable of converting resource wealth into public welfare without allowing control over petroleum to become a substitute for legitimate political authority. In this sense, the fundamental question of Africa’s oil wars is ultimately not who owns the oil, but who governs the political and economic system surrounding it.
References
Andersen, J. J., Nordvik, F. M., & Tesei, A. (2022). Oil price shocks and conflict escalation: Onshore versus offshore. Journal of ConflictResolution.
Gençoğlu H. (2024) Batı’nın Afrika Talanı, Kronik. İstanbul.
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political ScienceReview, 97(1), 75–90. Cambridge University Press
Humphreys, M. (2005). Natural resources, conflict, and conflict resolution: Uncovering the mechanisms. Journal of Conflict Resolution.
Omeje, K. (2006). Petrobusiness and security threats in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Current Sociology, 54(3).
Ross, M. L. (2004). What do we know about natural resources and civil war? Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 337–356.
Ross, M. L. (2006). A closer look at oil, diamonds, and civil war. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 265–300. Annual Reviews
Ross, M. L. (2015). What have we learned about the resource curse? Annual Review ofPolitical Science, 18, 239–259. Annual Reviews
Süsler, B., & Alden, C. (2023). Turkey and African agency: The role of Islam and commercialism inTurkey’s Africa policy. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 60(4), 597–617. Cambridge University Press
Heibach, J., & Taş, H. (2024). Beyond thesoft–hard power binary: Resource control in Turkey’s foreign policy towards Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Balkan and Near EasternStudies, 26(3), 311–326. Taylor & Francis Online
Yimer, N. A. (2024). Understanding Turkey’s return to the Horn of Africa: Historical legaciesand their influence on current relations. African Identities. Taylor & Francis Online
Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. (2025). Türkiye will alsosearch for oil and natural gas in Somalia’s onshore areas.