Why has armed conflict come to be viewed as the great tool of social, political and economic development? Could it be wrong to bring about desired developments of democracy by force of arms? This Third World Quarterly article examines the association between theories of violence as a tool of development, and practical efforts to develop policies based on such theoretical arguments. The article firstly offers an analysis of violence and development in theory and practice. Secondly, it outlines and discusses the dark realities of war. The article concludes that the theory of pursuing broad political, social and economic development by violent means is reckless.
Since the 19th century, the concept of war has shifted dramatically. It has evolved into a practice which ironically is utilised to bring about change and development. In the last century, numerous examples of the use of violence as justification in order to establish democracy and stability can be seen across the globe from Haiti and Kosovo, and this century’s ongoing ‘War on Terror’. However, the outcomes of these examples suggest doubting the use of war as a developmental tool. The link between war and development can be traced back to the early period of human history. Key historic patterns reflect on the use of war to further the development of ‘civilisation’ – including power – and resorting to violence to improve standards of living and security.
Despite arguments that war is waning in practice, the empirical evidence suggests otherwise with armed conflict remaining a vibrant virulent force. The article challenges the argument that the number of wars are decreasing on the following basis:
- Recent declines in global warfare totals based on numbers of wars underway simply reflect a coming-down from a spike of conflicts that arose out of the last decade of the Cold War
- Since 1950 there have been over a dozen big-kill wars, triple the number that arose in the first half of the 20th century, six times the number from the second half of the 19th century.
The article also highlights key issues which have to be considered in order to understand how and why armed conflict had taken such a dangerous new turn, these included:
- The traditional ‘barriers to entry’ for becoming a viable combatant have fallen. It is no longer necessary that the warring parties be nation-states or empires. Ethnic and sectarian factions, as well as terrorist and insurgent networks, have already shown their potency.
- Coupled with the empowerment of networks is the proliferation of weak states which are especially vulnerable to war.
- There has also been more motivation to engage in violent conflict since the end of the Cold War, coming particularly in the form of ethnic hatred as a result of the mistakes made when national boundaries were drawn leading to resentments over wealth and power distribution.
In conclusion, the article argues that the theory of pursuing broad political, social and economic development by violent means is reckless. If force and development are to be linked, it should only be in reference to bringing the ethical sensibilities of wealthy and powerful states finally into line with their advanced economic, social and political capacities.
