War and Conflict

To illustrate the differences between old and new wars, let's see the characteristics of each, side by side.

Table 1 - Differences between 'Old' and 'New' Wars.

Examples of war and conflict

Let's look at some examples of fairly recent wars and conflicts below:

• The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in 2022 can be considered a hybrid of Kaldor's old vs. new wars.

• The 1992-1995 Bosnian war and the 2011 Syrian civil war are examples of 'new wars'.

• Examples of ongoing conflict include: Saudi Arabia and Yemen; conflict between India and Pakistan in the Kashmir region; and the Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar.

What are the causes of conflict in developing countries?

Though many writers agree with the nature of modern war and conflict, i.e. typically defined by 'new (civil) wars', the causes of war and conflict vary depending on the theoretical positions that one takes.

In short, there are roughly 3 competing arguments. These are:

1. Neo-Malthusian,

2. Modernisation, and

3. Dependency theory-based perspectives.

Let's have a look at each in turn.

The Neo-Malthusian argument

• Malthusian theory states that "food production will not be able to keep up with growth in the human population, resulting in disease, famine, war, and calamity" ¹ (Kagan, 2021: online)

• Neo-Malthusian theory differs on two accounts.

  1. Population size should be controlled through birth control methods rather than general behavioural change. I.e. through contraception and sterilisation vs. Malthus' beliefs that there should be delayed marriage and abstinence.

  2. Neo-Malthusianism more strongly places the burden of overpopulation onto the working classes - they are the ones who are responsible for the increasing birth rates and supposedly growing societal ills. Therefore, Neo-Malthusian's believe birth control methods should be focused here.

Civil wars in developing countries are a manifestation of a struggle to survive. This struggle to survive for Neo-Malthusians (Robert Kaplan, 1994) is a result of:

• Uncontrolled population growth and overpopulation
• Environmental scarcity
• Resource depletion

Or, as Kaplan (1994: online) himself wrote:

The Modernisation argument

Modernisation theorists like Mohammed Ayoob (1995) see war and conflict in developing countries as a part of the development process. Civil wars are due to the 'traditional' beliefs and hierarchy systems present within developing countries.

Ethnic rivalries within nations, low standards of living and weak forms of governance mean there is little to lose and little to prevent if groups within that nation go to war with one another.

Modernisation theorists believe that civil wars will become less common the more these countries economically develop and adopt 'modern', i.e. Western, practices and values. For example, when countries adopt free trade and democratic practices.

Fig. 1 - Graph of global conflict deaths since 1935. Is the world really a more peaceful place due to the global increase in democracy?

The dependency argument

Dependency theory sees the causes of conflict in developing countries as arising from external factors. Specifically, it analyses civil wars in a global context.

Mark Duffield (2001) argues that growing inequalities fuelled by exploitative relationships within globalisation have led to more poverty. In turn, this leads to increased frustration and desperation that can take the form of civil war and conflict.

Examples of external factors include:

• Unfair terms of trade - This leads to millions of local farmers in developing countries being unable to match global prices, pushing them further into poverty.

• The direction and misuse of aid - This is particularly felt when governments siphon off money for themselves or when aid is tied to particular projects affecting only a minority.

Another external factor is the interference by other (mainly developed) countries, none more than the US. How so?

Well, by (1) supplying arms and (2) engineering military coups.

Noam Chomsky (2004) went so far as to say that the United States is the world's largest terrorist, having been involved in over 50 military conflicts with other countries since World War II. Alongside this, David Harvey (2005) argues that the war in Iraq was all about oil.

Fig. 2 - The costs of war - life in refugee camps.

Evaluation of different arguments

After a read of each, you can hopefully see that each argument about the causes of war and conflict has both strengths and limitations.

Strengths

• The Neo-Malthusian position brings attention to the fragility of peace for many in the developing world.

• The modernisation argument does seem to be correct in saying that the more economically developed a country becomes, the less war and conflict is likely to occur.

• The dependency argument successfully highlights how economic development, and underdevelopment, are tied up in external and global policies and actions that are often beyond their control.

In many ways, the dependency argument expands upon the analysis laid out by the modernisation argument. However, it would disagree as to the source of conflict, i.e. it is not 'traditional' belief and hierarchy systems that are at fault.

Limitations

• Each position is framed by the grander theoretical narrative they exist within. In other words, the more general positions set out by Malthusian, modernisation and dependency theory each limit what they can point to as the source of war and conflict. They over-emphasise the validity of their position by only drawing a single conclusion for the source of all conflict.

The conflict trap

Paul Collier's (2003) concept of the 'conflict trap' is perhaps the best bridge between these theories.

In other words, the more impoverished a country is, the higher the likelihood of conflict. Once conflict has been established, economic development declines, which in turn increases the chance of conflict even further.

Importantly, Collier highlights that the reasons for poverty (and therefore conflict) are multifaceted - there are both internal and external factors. For Collier, it is also important that developed countries help intervene in these conflicts early.

As a result, Collier is effectively combining the arguments from all three of the positions above!

The impact of conflict on economic development

The effects of war hold long-term negative consequences, particularly for developing countries. Some of these are:

• War is expensive. Funds that would otherwise go on improving economic and social indicators of development are now lost. For example, it takes away the amount of money spent on building schools or hospitals.

• War destroys infrastructure (e.g. buildings, roads, power supplies) and stops international trade. With many developing countries' economies dependent on international trade for their economic growth, it can worsen levels of poverty and increase levels of debt.

• War harms educational attainment and disrupts healthcare services. Schools may be shut down, children may not receive an education, and already limited resources in healthcare settings will now have to be used on battle-related injuries. Not only this, but war can lead to longer-term health issues. The atrocities of war and conflict can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), general mental and emotional distress, and increased rates of suicide.

• War leads to mass displacement and refugees. There are currently 80 million refugees. Refugee camps can have poor sanitation and food shortages and often are not able to provide schooling for young children.

• War leads to long-term economic problems. The Global Peace Index notes that in 2019 alone, the impact of conflict on economic development cost $40 trillion to the world's economy.

• Collier's conflict trap (2003) highlights how once a country has engaged in civil war and conflict, the likelihood of it happening again increases greatly.