In the past, war was based on the number of soldiers and horses that a particular group had. The more the number of horses and soldiers the higher the chances of winning the war. That later changed into war being based on how strong a country’s economy is as compared to the opponent country or enemy. For instance, the United States of America is regarded as a superpower country because of the stability of its economy. When a country is able to afford expensive weaponry for its army officers it acts as a catalyst for wining in a specific war. Poor countries which cannot afford such expensive weaponry become vulnerable and hence may be colonized so easily ( Lindert & Williamson, 2016). When some countries, especially those that have a stable economy, show similar interest on a given country where they see opportunities of possible boost of their economy because of the discovery of a valuable mineral, they may resort into war just to determine who is strong and who should benefit from that country of interest. In this regard, I therefore agree that economic factors contribute or are the major causes of war and in the following discussion we shall see some of the reasons why this is so.
Previously in the 18 th century, if a country was large but unable to collect taxes, it would be poor and therefore affording weaponry and food for its soldiers would be a problem. When such a country fights with a small country that is able to afford food and weaponry for its soldiers, the likelihood of winning that war is low. With the modernization of the industry, there has been a tremendous increase in the economic status in many countries and many are now able to afford modern and powerful weapons which if utilized well could make them winners in a war. Also, the advancement in the technology means that war is now based on which country is strong in terms of the economy. With a stable economy, a country can afford to buy powerful weapons for its army. For instance, in the two world wars (I and II), the country that was wealthiest won the wars indicating how important the economy influences war ( Lindert & Williamson, 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
All leaders across the world have a desire of being in power. To be in power, a country has to defeat all the other countries in terms of technology and weaponry. While struggling to develop their economy so as to afford such machinery, those countries that are already in power feel threatened and since the politicians in that country never wish to loss their superiority, they may choose to the fight that country that tries to outdo them before it fully stabilizes its economy ( Lindert & Williamson, 2016). For example, the war in Iraq, was as a result of superiority complex between the United States and the Iraq, each country trying to prove that they are superior to the other in terms of weaponry. The United States won the war given that it had superior weapons and huge numbers of soldiers who were properly trained and all that specifically depends on how strong a countries economy is. Maintaining a large number of troops during war by providing them with food and ammunitions can be a hard task especially if a country is poor.
The other reason why most wars happen between different countries is the influence of the capitalists. Even though they do not directly get involved in the war, they act as inciters of war and when that happens they are able to make lots of money. It is in fact the major cause of international rivalries which most likely lead or cause war. For example during the First World War, it is believed that the influence of the capitalists like Kaiser and the individual acts like that of Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip at Sarajevo contributed a lot into the outbreak of the war. The aim of the capitalists was to make more profits despite the fact that people were being killed. During this war approximately sixteen million native inhabitants were killed and many Congolese labors especially those who failed to collect rubber were severely punished and some even cut off their hands and legs.
Increased economic competition between the capitalists causes rivalry between the local capitalist, foreign capitalists and even the government. As the government tries to ensure that it stops this rivalry, the capitalists plot on how it can disrupt the government and paralyze its operations so that they become the beneficiaries and therefore, the best way is to cause war. In the last resort therefore, the fight results to wars of the conquest. Here, the main objective for each capitalist is to attain control of the markets and /or the territories which are believed to be rich in minerals and other highly valuable resources. The capitalists become aggressive especially if they realize that those territories have an exploitable working class, that is, the people who are yet to understand the importance of the resources that are available in their regions ( Betts, 2015).
When the capitalists who are in ownership of huge sums of money invest in a particular area, region or country, they always ensure that they secure optimal security for their properties even if there is war. This results into conflicts over trade routes, markets and raw material which lead or cause war. For instance, the German competition contributed into the First World War. Here, the German capitalism begun to challenge the British and the French Capitalism who were dominant during that period. As more industries grew in German, the production and the exports increased and was almost catching up with those of France and Britain. For example, by the year 1914, Germany was developing new industries like electrical, textile and chemical industries, and therefore exported more and imported less as compared to Britain. As the German industries grew each day, a fear of being dominated increased among the British and the French capitalists. That therefore, led into war which saw the Germans win over the French and as at that time the French lost its prestige and also some of the key regions like the Alsace and Lorraine which were rich in iron ore and coal mines.
The scramble for Africa was another major cause of war. By the time the Germans came to Africa, it found that the British and French had occupied regions and countries located along the ocean. Africa was seen as a region with great benefits, most minerals were obtained from Africa and more especially slaves who at that time were valuable as slave trade grew each day. Therefore, no country wished to be left out and the more the scramble, the higher the rivalry which led into war. This therefore means that the First World War did not begin overnight over an assassin’s ammunitions at Sarajevo, but it was the consequence of several years of conflicts among the capitalist.
Civil wars witnessed today in Africa by youthful combatants who have not received any military training is mainly as a result of capitalists influence. We have seen some dangerous groups emerging like the Boko Haram whose main aim is to kill innocent civilians and create fear among them. All that can be considered as a result of both external and internal influence especially by the capitalists. Countries rich in minerals like Congo, Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone can centers of interest by the capitalists whose main aim is to make more profit out of those resources ( Prunier, 2016). When external and internal capitalists compete for such resources they are likely to cause war. Even though the presence of minerals contributed to the occurrence of the war, their absence as in the case of Somalia can also result into war. In Somalia, the Militia group, Al Shaabab, which is believed to be funded by external countries who are after selling their manufactured weapons and ammunitions, has made that country unhospitable for many years. Other wars like the Rwandan genocide that saw many people killed on the background of ethnic differences may have been propagated by the economical influences. This is because when there is a poor economy and a low income within a country, people can easily be swayed into violence ( Prunier, 2016).
Liberia’s civil war was majorly as a result of economic influence. Greed among the warlords to have control over the natural resources in Liberia and therefore make more profits made the country turn into a war zone ( Prunier, 2016). Among the warlords, Taylor armed his soldiers using powerful weapons which made him conquer areas with most valuable natural resources. He fortified business as normal in territories that were under his command, exporting diamonds, iron ore and timber from his territorial zones in return for high taxes, which were specifically paid to him. Since the civil war, Charles Taylor has been associated for making use of his resources in supporting the criminal rebels of Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone. For that reason, the United Nations enforced sanctions on Liberia in 2001 to stop and block Liberian diamond transactions, to limit international tourism by top Liberian executives, and to put up with the weaponries ( Prunier, 2016).
The South Sudan Conflict of 2013 was purely as a result of economic issues, the two top officials who were fighting for power each had personal interests. Depending on the ideologies and the relation with the neighboring countries like Uganda, the leaders received supports on the basis of whether or not if they win they will become business partners with those particular countries that helped them. It is believed that South Sudan is rich in highly valuable minerals and each party between the two leaders being aware want to have power so that they can control over these natural resources. However, it is indicated that the battle for South Sudan begun in the 1980s when the SPLA (Sudanese People's Liberation Army) who were mainly interested and wanted to control South Sudan fought with the government of Sudan over the issue. This saw over two million people killed and many others displaced from their homes. All this scramble was just to have control of the vast minerals that located in South Sudan including gold, copper, limestone and Zinc ( Prunier, 2016).
Lastly, the Spanish- American war was as a result of both countries and more especially America showing a keen interest in control of the Cuban Sugar which could boost the Americas economy with a very high margin. They also wanted to expand their power base and therefore wanted to take over the Caribbean. The fact that the only colony that was remaining for the Spanish was Cuba, they did not want to lose it because they knew if they did that could greatly affect their economy. This diverse interests on the same region for personal gain resulted into war between these two countries ( Lindert & Williamson, 2016).
From the above discussions, it is evident that despite the presence and influence of other factors, economic factors are the most influential factors that since time immemorial have resulted into war. The different examples of wars that have been highlighted above clearly were caused by the influence of economic factors. The capitalists in from different parts of the world have a huge influence into the eruption of war. Their economic interests for regions that they perceive to be very profitable to them either because of the availability of the market for their manufactured goods or because of the availability of a highly valuable natural resource within that region makes it easier to cause war especially if they face opposition from the government. They can fund criminal groups to do several attacks on that country so as to destabilize the government and the people of that country making it easier for them to come and exploit those resources. It is therefore absolutely true that if it were not for economic reasons, there could be less or no wars in the world because people will have nothing to scramble for.
References
Lindert, P. H., & Williamson, J. G. (2016). Persistent Debate, a New Approach, More Data, Rich Finding [Unequal Gains: American Growth and Inequality since 1700 Unequal Gains offers a radically new understanding of the economic evolution of the United States, providing a complete picture of the uneven progress of America from colonial times to today. While other economic historians base their accounts on American wealth, Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson focus instead on income—and the result is a bold reassessment of the American economic.... Introductory Chapters .
Betts, R. K. (Ed.). (2015). Conflict after the Cold War: arguments on causes of war and peace . Routledge.
Prunier, G. (2016). The Real Politics of the Horn of Africa: Money, War and the Business of Power, by Alex de Waal: Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2015. 280 pp. 69.95cloth/ 29.95 paperback/19.99e-book.
