The economics of war
Published Date: 05 March 2025
Published in: Business Recorder
Is war an instrument for restoration of peace or is it a necessity to keep the wheels of the economy moving and rolling? Human history is replete with wars and battles that took place with two-fold objectives.
Firstly, the domination through annexation of lands, leading up to subjugation of people, and secondly, to acquire Economic assets. These crude objectives have always been masked and obscured by a deliberate attempt to legalise the illegality of war through the smoke-screen of either achieving or protecting, freedom, emancipation, democracy and more recently from destroying the imaginary and illusionary weapons of mass destruction. (None were found).
Wars have pervaded all through human history. The shortest war took place between the United Kingdom and the Sultanate of Zanzibar. This lasted between 38-45 minutes only in 1896.
The longest war is the Reconquista (Spanish for reconquest). The duration of this war was 781 years, from 1337 to 1453. Human history is based on the theme of war and peace. While war is accepted as destructive, there are many proponents who look at war as a binding force.
The extent of human greed and arrogance has no limits or boundaries. The rulers (invaders) whom came through Khyber Pass or through the terrain of Sindh to get to Delhi were in search of wealth.
The notion of achieving something noble, as the purpose associated with the invaders/plunderers that was ingrained during school years, today stands decimated, through wisdom and better understanding of human nature and behaviour. The sole purpose was to acquire and amass wealth.
Sir Thomas Moore, the representative/ emissary of James I of England who came to the court of Emperor Jahangir, wasn’t a diplomat, He was a trader. It is always through trade relationships that one community has sought to dominate the other.
The British did precisely that in less than hundred years from 1857 to 1947. During this time they transferred from the subcontinent incalculable wealth to Britain; Shashi Tharoor, the Indian diplomat and politician, puts its value at an astronomical figure of over billions of pounds sterling.
War is justified with clichés like ‘to drop a gun, you have to pick up a gun.’ The savagery and destruction that war delivers upon innocent people comes with a promise of hope. “Every destruction shall be followed by construction and in order to construct there has to be destruction”.
(I have used these hackneyed phrases in college and university debates, in fact that’s the limited use they inherently had). The noble concept related to these pronouncements is unacceptable. Since year 1800 over 200 wars and battles have been fought, resulting in the loss of millions of human lives. During the last 300 years or so, people have engaged themselves into wars purely for gaining access to economic assets.
War is about economics. A military engagement yields a boost to several sectors of the economy from military supplies to cola cans and from fighter aircrafts to potato chips. During the Korean war (1950-53) the GDP growth rate of the US took a speedy northward drive, through massive government spending, that ultimately was financed by taxpayers, and in turn constrained the growth of investment.
The Korean war exacerbated consumer spending. Due to war, manufacturers of goods rushed to buy higher quantities of raw materials. This pushed the prices upwards. To United States, the war cost US dollar 30 billion (the value is of year 1953).
In terms of human lives, the loss was of 34,000 people. “The ’6 25 War” as the South Koreans refer to this engagement happened due to the adventurous attack by North Korea—the 1945 agreed dividing line of the 38th parallel latitude was violated. The war ended in July 1953 by which time it had boosted several economies, including Pakistan’s, which benefited most through its association with CENTO and SEATO.
In a war, both sides wish to win, while the facilitators and spectators on the world stage look at war as an opportunity to enhance their own economic well-being.
It is often said that the global community needs both: war and peace as both are essential for the world to remain in order. Peace gives stability, but only with war comes progress and development. It is the circumstances of individuals that allow for making a preference between war and peace.
The cost of war is extremely expensive. It is this nature of expense that is seen by many as a propeller to economic growth. The Vietnam War is estimated to have cost the US a staggering $357 billion.
The Gulf War-1 gave to the US economy an invoice of US$160 billion. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan had a whopping cost of $159.3 billion. It is another matter that Japan, Germany and Saudi Arabia footed the bill, substantially.
Justifying war and killing of innocent men, women and children for a noble purpose is outrageously revolting and nauseating. Nothing can justify the killing of humans or for that matter any living creature. No noble purpose can ever be achieved through an ignoble act.
Peace-making efforts haven’t been serious enough by global leadership. The history of peacemaking is extremely unimpressive. The unending wars in the Middle East and South Asia are a case in point.
The UN has failed in its obligations to prevent wars. Its charter made in 1945 referred to saving humanity from “the scourge of wars”. The story though is different. The UN itself estimates that currently around 2 billion people live in conflict areas.
If Leo Tolstoy wrote,’ War and Peace’; President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, wrote ‘War or Peace“. Tolstoy’s assertions included, “All we can know is that we know nothing. And that’s the height of human wisdom”. Dulles contended that to contain Communism, the US must respond with massive retaliation. He proposed the “rollback” of Soviet power and eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. Actually, this was achieved much later in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
A writer by the name of Rajeev Mudumba in an article published in ‘Mind Talk’ pompously glorified war. He wrote “Both war and peace are necessary for our world to function…. War is brutal and ugly, but it can also be a catalyst for change.
Peace is beautiful and calming, but it can also lead to complacency.“ Nothing can be more repulsive. The atrocious audacity of the writer can only be refuted wholesomely based purely on human values. Peace must be given a chance perennially; no loss of patience to basic human goodness is an acceptable position to adopt. War needs unified condemnation from the entire spectrum of global leadership.
Leaders may recall the infant years’ nursery rhyme, “The wheels of the bus go round and round….all day long”. I’m revising this, rhyme to read, “The wheels of the economy go round and round all through the wars”.
This is the attitude of the war mongering leadership. They consider war an absolute necessity for human good and economic prosperity. This is a very convoluted methodology for achieving economic growth and development.
Regrettably, the global leadership has ingrained it upon the world opinion that war and peace are conjoined and they shall remain eternal friends. Only the alternation between the two can sometimes be of long periods. Global leadership has imprisoned itself within the confines of war and peace instead of war or peace.
