How to Stop War

Image by US Army Africa via Flickr

Humanity is always trying to find ways that saves people’s lives; from the Surgeon General’s Warning on smoking, to making cars safer, and even trying to find a cure for cancer by doing research on the International Space Station.  But, the funding for all these is a mere laughable percent of a percentage when compared to the spending that goes into wars.  More money is spent and more resources are used into building materials and training soldiers to kill, than is given to research to fight diseases.  That is how it has always been throughout time, from the dawn of man, and most likely will be until we are extinct.  War has been around for millennia.  It brings out the savage man from the wildman.  The question for thousands of years has been how do we avoid war? War is not always avoidable, but for the most part the reasons why wars happen are able to be fixed.  I am certain that the best way to avoid war is through economic progress.  This progress is best brought about through working with banks, foreign and domestic governments, and private businesses. These three institutions can easily work together to help growth in troubled countries and bring about stability before conflict arises. While war will always happen, the thought of an end to war forever is irrational and naïve, we can find ways to cut down on the number, occurrence, and destruction caused by them.             I acknowledge that economic growth is not the only way to prevent war, but I believe that by far it is the best.  Appeasement, authoritarian rule, and targeted military strikes only increase the chance of war. These only increase the stakes and odds of a conflict. Appeasement makes countries want more after they got want they want, since they realize others are willing to give in to their requests.  Authoritarian rule creates erratic, unpredictable countries that are liable to do anything. Military strikes cause mobilizations of armies, and tensions to rise.             The classic case of how appeasement failed is the Western powers and Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany.  With the rise of Nazi Germany, Hitler believed the German people needed “living space” so he actively sought to take over the surrounding countries.  He first captured the Rhineland, French territory, and then incorporated Austria into the German empire.  After those takeovers, Britain, France, and Italy stepped in.  Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia, saying after that he would be satisfied.  Prime Minister Chamberlain of the United Kingdom lead the delegation to give Hitler what he wanted, proclaiming that “there will be peace in our time.” Well, peace was not what exactly happened.  Less than a year later Germany invaded Poland, triggering the start of World War Two.             As far as authoritarian governments are concerned, a close look at any will reveal a very stable inner government and society (to a certain extinct) but a very tension laden and unstable foreign policy.  Iran is a prime example of an authoritarian regime. In the past years, strict control of society has achieved civil stability, but now society is striving for more freedom, promising internal fighting and probably a revolution like the one in 1979.  But as far as foreign and military relations the record is also grim.  A deadly war with Iraq in the 1980s caused the deaths of over a million people, many from the use of chemical warfare.              Today, Iran’s goal of enriching uranium for probable use in nuclear weapons has lead to numerous sanctions from other nations and trading blocks.  This has lead to radical threats and decisions by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  He has stated that war with Israel is imminent, and that attacks against Israel’s allies will happen if Iran does not get what it wants.              The situation that brings the stakes the highest and causes armed conflicts to occur is a targeted military strike or a pre-emptive strike.  Naturally a military missile, air, or Special Forces strike is an attack, and a declaration of war.  These strikes will only anger the people or nation targeted.  Armies will mobilize, the economy will gear for war, and the slightest mistake or provocation will cause all out war.  Former President Bill Clinton ordered a military strike against bin Laden in the early 1990s. A few cruise missiles were shot, but they failed to hit anything.  This only enraged al Qaeda, making them more radical and leading to the bombing of U.S. Embassies, a naval ship (U.S.S. Cole), and the attacks of September 11, 2001.             Hopefully I have put to rest the main arguments against economic growth as the best deterrent of war.  Appeasement only wets the appetite for more. Authoritarian rule allows for radicalism to spring up, which is a sure-fire way for wars to start. And pre-emptive strikes only bring the chance of war from a maybe to a will happen situation.             It is easy to see that the most stable countries in the world are those who are economically stable and diversified.  Western European and North American nations have very diverse economies and are wealthy.  Over the past half century no wars have occurred within or between these countries. Meanwhile, in the countries of the poorest continent, Africa, wars are continuous. The death toll is impossible to calculate, and the economic disruptions only hurt nations that are down-and-out.              Therefore, I suggest that through economic growth countries can stabilize and wars may be avoided.  The best way to achieve this economic growth is through banks, foreign and domestic governments, and private multinational corporations.  These groups and institutions will allow and help countries to gain economic growth, which will then stabilize social problems, and therefore avoid war.

            It must be noted that war occurs when a country is struggling for resources (oil as an example), or border dispute (Pakistan-India), or when threatened by another country.  Internal or civil wars occur when the people become isolated and no longer trust their government or leaders.  All these reasons can be boiled down into a fight over resources; resources = economic growth, economic growth = money and power. So “the newly mobilized masses expect to maintain their former standards of living at least and to live better if possible. These expectations, of course, require successful economic growth if they are to be met. If economic growth is negligible, the frustration is the inevitable result: thus the equation:

Social mobilization/ economic development = social frustration

“In other words, if economic development keeps pace with social mobilization then frustration is low, but if it does not, then frustration is high” (Odom 45-46).  If economic growth is low or receding, social bindings in poverty stricken countries fades away, leading to civil war, a coup, and maybe even genocide.  A nation or group may target wealthier nations if their economies are in shambles, either to grab the world’s attention, or as revenge for what they see as wrong doing by that country.             A civil war within a nation is usually caused when a ruling elite holds all the wealth and controls the economy, usually driving it into the ground. “Divisions within a country can provide the basis for civil war. Divisions such as those based on ethnicity, region, and religion can be a source of tension and, ultimately, conflict if the different groups clash and cannot resolve differences peacefully. According to the World Bank, if the largest ethnic group in a multiethnic society forms an absolute majority, the risk of rebellion is increased by approximately 50 percent. In such societies, minorities may reasonably fear that even a democratic political process will lead to their permanent exclusion from influence, regardless of the electoral system” (DeRouen 18).  It is obvious to see that the countries with the most economic problems are the countries with the most diverse social division, because a small majority will hold all the wealth and use force to control the other minorities groups or classes.             To stop, or avoid, these economically triggered wars, the world as a whole must be prepared to spend time and money in helping to build up these divided and war torn countries.  Banks, governments, and international multi-corporation businesses must work together, starting with banks and ending with businesses.             Banks are a leading role in helping to improve economies, especially in struggling Third World countries.  For a nation’s economy to grow, they need money.  Many poor countries do not have close to enough money to jump start new industries.  This is where banks come into the equation.  The World Bank is able to give out emergency loans to countries for help in economic growth or revival; “Together, we provide low-interest loans, interest-free credits and grants to developing countries for a wide array of purposes that include investments in education, health, public administration, infrastructure, financial and private sector development, agriculture, and environmental and natural resource management” (www.worldbank.org). These loans can be used by the country to put down capital to jump start industries at a low interest rate.  Other loans can be found from private banks and treasuries.  The willingness, amount, and rate may differ depending on the risk of the investment being made.  If a country can prove that it is stable and has enough willpower to support new industries, cash can be found anywhere, enough to start any industry, within its means.             Banks can also give advice on how to best spend the loans, how to repay them, and how to adjust the interest over time.  If the nation requests loans, banks should be willing to come together and each take an equal share into the loan, so that if the country does fail, or the loan has no hope of being repaid, the risk will be minimal and not fully impacting one bank.  So who will take these loans from the banks and begin the economic transformation?  Domestic governments are the best choice, since they can best place the money in the correct hands.  They know how best to suit the needs of their people, and what their country is best at making, also known as comparative advantage.  Domestic governments can also act as a leading hand for rapid growth.  They add stability and sense of security when it is needed most. “The issue of ownership of resources arises when they are spread unevenly, and this can cause conflict… the plundering of natural resources can finance opportunistic rebellions, and resources can motivate conflict, especially in the form of secessions. This is because secessionists claim both ownership of the resources and misuse of the money by national authorities through embezzlement by distant elites” (DeRouen 16-17).  Without a way to spread the resources evenly, war will happen. Sometimes, though, domestic governments are too corrupt to be able to handle money or be guiding a light, so foreign governments will step in.  This is risky, since it can be seen as foreign ownership or exploration of a nation.  But it will benefit each nation, distributing the wealth to the people, and making sure that loans are paid back.  Foreign governments are also endless suppliers of money, loans, educated workers, and capital.  Since the foreign government will profit from exporting good and the repaying of loans, the resources will be readily available to jump start the industries.  Foreign governments also bring with them foreign companies.  To many, foreign governments are seen as controlling and exploitive, but actually these international companies help create jobs, increase pay, and give benefits that are usually impossible if left to domestic companies.  The last step in building an economy is multinational corporations.  These have the know-how and will to create industries in struggling nations.  Cheap labor and abundant resources attract these corporations.  They can provide the capital to jump start businesses, and their wages are usually higher than agricultural work or manual labor, allowing for better living conditions.  Multinational corporations also may ease the tensions of war since each side will have much more to lose if war does break out.  One key point of evidence to this is that any two countries that have a McDonald’s have never gone to war against each other.  The multinational corporations will also help with fair trade initiatives.  Laws over tariffs and free trade will become more transparent if profits are at stake and because of a bigger influence on trade, the World Trade Organization and the United Nations will be more willing to spend time and resources developing the country.  As a middle, free wage labor, class emerges, poverty will dissipate, society will stabilize, and the risk of conflict will abate. The world has never been as interconnected as it is now; resources mined in Brazil are exported to China to be made into products to be sold in the United States.  It is no longer a world or mindset of “what happens over there does not affect me” but rather that what happens at the very corner of civilization can have a huge and lasting economic impact.  The world’s economies are tied so close together that when this recession hit, within a week the entire world was feeling its affects.  The different currencies are based on one another, and globalization has allowed for the greatest spread of wealth and goods in history. With this in mind, the way to avoid wars is to give poverty stricken and divided countries a helping hand.  Wars only cause markets to weaken, money to spent in huge sums, and scores upon scores of people to die; all of this weakens the global economy.  So it is the best interest of banks to give low interest loans to countries for capital.  If the country succeeds in making itself an industrial power, then the profits will be great.  Domestic governments need to take the lead in economic reform, stop corruption, and guarantee that the money is put in correct places and that the citizens’ basic needs are met.  Foreign governments should be willing to help also, by lending capital and knowledge, and encouraging businesses to start.  International multi-corporation businesses need to start up industries in these countries, and to take risks if they are feasible. War is a terrible human evil.  There have many theories and ideas about how to put an end to it, but still it rages on.  For the first time in history we have a chance to actually have an impact to avoid most wars.  A country that is economically stable and prosperous will not risk a war that could ruin itself, and the people of that nation will not want to risk their lives or see their country’s downfall for a minute argument or disagreement.