A Calculated Cost of War

In the scorching desert sands of northern Mali, a ragtag militia, the Front for the Liberation of Azawad, had been waging a bitter conflict against the Malian government since 2012. The war had ravaged the region, displacing hundreds of thousands of people and leaving a trail of devastation in its wake. Yet, amidst the chaos, a peculiar phenomenon had emerged: the war had become a lucrative business. The Front’s leaders, a mix of Tuareg rebels and Islamist extremists, were amassing a small fortune from extortion, smuggling, and even humanitarian aid – all facilitated by the very conflict they were fighting.

The war in Mali is just one example of a disturbing trend: war is often more profitable than peace. In a world where conflict and instability have become increasingly intertwined with the global economy, some leaders and warlords have come to see war as a viable means of accumulating wealth and maintaining power. This is the argument made by David Keen, a leading political economist who has spent years studying the intersection of war and profit.

Keen points to the case of Sierra Leone, where the Revolutionary United Front, a notorious rebel group, was able to maintain a grip on power in the 1990s through a combination of violence, extortion, and exploitation of the country’s diamond mines. Similarly, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Lord’s Resistance Army, a Ugandan rebel group, has long been accused of using the proceeds from mineral extraction and timber sales to fund its operations.

The Political Economy of War

So, how does war become a profitable business? According to Keen, it often starts with a mix of opportunism and calculation. Warlords and rebel leaders identify areas where they can exploit existing power vacuums, often in regions rich in natural resources or strategic commodities. They then use a combination of coercion, intimidation, and manipulation to establish control over these areas and extract wealth from them.

In some cases, the international community – governments, NGOs, and aid agencies – inadvertently facilitates this process by providing humanitarian assistance, which can be diverted into the pockets of warlords and rebels. In other cases, external actors – from multinational corporations to foreign governments – actively support war efforts, either directly or indirectly, in pursuit of their own economic interests.

The consequences of this phenomenon are far-reaching. Not only does it perpetuate cycles of violence and instability, but it also undermines the very notion of peace as a viable alternative to war. When war becomes a profitable business, the incentives for peace-making are reduced, and the prospects for sustainable development are severely compromised.

Historical Parallels and Global Context

This is not a new phenomenon, however. Throughout history, war has often been accompanied by economic gain – for those with the power to exploit it, at least. The Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, for example, was facilitated by the gold and silver that flowed into the coffers of the Spanish monarchy. Similarly, the colonial era saw European powers establishing themselves as major economic powers through their control of colonial resources and trade networks.

Today, the global context is more complex, with multiple actors and interests at play. The rise of China and the resurgence of great power rivalries have created new opportunities for economic gain through war. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, for instance, has seen both Russia and the West engage in a high-stakes game of economic tit-for-tat, with Ukraine’s own economy caught in the crossfire.

Reactions and Implications

As the world grapples with the implications of war as a profitable business, reactions have been mixed. Some have called for greater accountability and transparency in the international aid system, arguing that the diversion of humanitarian assistance into the pockets of warlords and rebels is a major obstacle to peace-making. Others have advocated for a more robust approach to sanctions and economic coercion, aimed at disrupting the financial networks of rebel groups and warlords.

Meanwhile, some have pointed to the need for greater engagement with local actors and communities, who are often the most affected by conflict and instability. By supporting local initiatives and building sustainable development projects, international actors may be able to reduce the appeal of war as a means of economic gain.

Looking Ahead

As the war in Mali continues to simmer, and new conflicts erupt in other parts of the world, the question remains: what happens next? Will the international community continue to facilitate war, either directly or indirectly, in pursuit of its own interests? Or will it take a more proactive approach to promoting peace and sustainable development, even in the face of conflict and instability?

One thing is clear: the cost of war is no longer just measured in human lives and suffering. It is also a question of economic accountability, as the world grapples with the consequences of a system that often rewards power and profit over peace and stability.