This is not true, and it's relatively easy to prove.
It's nary impossible to 'extract resources' when nations are 'unstable'.
'Instability' means nothing can happen in the long term, and most of the necessary underlying necessary factors can't exist either.
'Instability' means contracts are ripped up, money disappears, rights are re-allocated, 3rd parties drop out etc. etc.. IMF contracts for the development of 'an electricity' grid - essential in doing anything - fall through.
And nobody is afraid of 'competition' from a completely underdeveloped nation. In some very niche cases (perhaps some unique resource), but that's negligible.
It's actually completely the opposite:
Everyone wants stability.
Stability means the system can start to develop, resource extraction starts to happen, but more importantly - 'the rest of the economy' starts to need and consume things. Factories buy German equipment, they buy gear from Caterpillar, they need IT from Cisco, they build dams using requiring myriad tooling, consulting from IBM and Accenture.
Consumers start to buy cars from Toyota and Ford, business need financial services from NY and London, they need loans and investment from abroad, they start to buy iPhones, Androids, they use Facebook, Twitter.
If you want to be cynical, then you can say what the West wants is 'stability' over democracy, which frankly is not entirely irrational.
Consider the situation in Saudi Arabia. House of Saud is held in power by the US, with the guarantee that the 'Oil Flows' and is sold at market prices to 'whoever'. Implicit in that is the nation remains stable. That they do not become a vassal of Russia or China etc., and that they act as a 'good neighbour country' and mostly they do. (Not always). Internally - it's not so nice. Lack of democracy and human rights, however, there's enough pressure for progress to be made, and there is.
Gadaffi was literally a terrorist, he shot down an airliner (Lockerbee). But via is 'nice guy son' was being 'rehabilitated' (i.e. image was cleaned up), because we don't mind and evil turd, as long as there is stability. Unfortunately, the 'Arab Spring' happened, his people rose up, and there was a civil war. Western involvement probably shifted the outcome, but the resulting instability was inevitable - and Oil contracts went to shit. Nobody wants that.
In reality - intervention in utterly chaotic and despotic states is just hard. You can train 'Your Man' and when he gets into power, he's not much better than the last guy.
Arguably, the West could steer more clear of it, but 'lack of involvement' is also a choice.
Botswana in the last couple decades has prospered amazingly - they are stable. They are a shining example for Africa. 'The West', China, India - absolutely want it to be like that, it's good for everyone.
It's nary impossible to 'extract resources' when nations are 'unstable'.
'Instability' means nothing can happen in the long term, and most of the necessary underlying necessary factors can't exist either.
'Instability' means contracts are ripped up, money disappears, rights are re-allocated, 3rd parties drop out etc. etc.. IMF contracts for the development of 'an electricity' grid - essential in doing anything - fall through.
And nobody is afraid of 'competition' from a completely underdeveloped nation. In some very niche cases (perhaps some unique resource), but that's negligible.
It's actually completely the opposite:
Everyone wants stability.
Stability means the system can start to develop, resource extraction starts to happen, but more importantly - 'the rest of the economy' starts to need and consume things. Factories buy German equipment, they buy gear from Caterpillar, they need IT from Cisco, they build dams using requiring myriad tooling, consulting from IBM and Accenture.
Consumers start to buy cars from Toyota and Ford, business need financial services from NY and London, they need loans and investment from abroad, they start to buy iPhones, Androids, they use Facebook, Twitter.
If you want to be cynical, then you can say what the West wants is 'stability' over democracy, which frankly is not entirely irrational.
Consider the situation in Saudi Arabia. House of Saud is held in power by the US, with the guarantee that the 'Oil Flows' and is sold at market prices to 'whoever'. Implicit in that is the nation remains stable. That they do not become a vassal of Russia or China etc., and that they act as a 'good neighbour country' and mostly they do. (Not always). Internally - it's not so nice. Lack of democracy and human rights, however, there's enough pressure for progress to be made, and there is.
Gadaffi was literally a terrorist, he shot down an airliner (Lockerbee). But via is 'nice guy son' was being 'rehabilitated' (i.e. image was cleaned up), because we don't mind and evil turd, as long as there is stability. Unfortunately, the 'Arab Spring' happened, his people rose up, and there was a civil war. Western involvement probably shifted the outcome, but the resulting instability was inevitable - and Oil contracts went to shit. Nobody wants that.
In reality - intervention in utterly chaotic and despotic states is just hard. You can train 'Your Man' and when he gets into power, he's not much better than the last guy.
Arguably, the West could steer more clear of it, but 'lack of involvement' is also a choice.
Botswana in the last couple decades has prospered amazingly - they are stable. They are a shining example for Africa. 'The West', China, India - absolutely want it to be like that, it's good for everyone.