‘History is written by the victors’, is a recurring theme in many of the blog posts that I’ve read. I have been left wondering, what happens to the narrative of rebuilding countries post war, how the destruction of infrastructure, has ongoing effects on communities.
Why do wars, and armed conflict primarily take place in developing countries? Why don’t wars take place in The US or Europe? More importantly, who gets to decide where war takes place?
Armed conflict has ongoing repercussions within the environment it takes place, much of this is a narrative that is often unheard of. An article by the Stockholm International Peace Research institute comments on this; ‘Armed conflict often leads to forced migration, long-term refugee problems, and the destruction of infrastructure. Social, political, and economic institutions can be permanently damaged.”.1( Figure 1)
The article also drew important concerns with the ongoing impacts of civil war, and that the indirect effects of conflict are equally significant. Stating that for every child casualty in conflict, another infant will die who would have survived. This increase in infant mortality rate, is due to increased spread of disease and decreased access to healthcare.
Burundi and Burkina Faso, two central African countries which held similar GDP growth until 1990, until Burundi erupted into civil war stemming from ethnic divisions. However, during and after Burundi’s civil war the gap between the two country’s GDP, average income,and infrastructure continued to widen. This seems a given, however it highlights how civil war,armed conflicts, and Proxy wars have continuous ongoing effects within countries that limit their abilities to rebuild. The majority of Proxy wars take place in undeveloped countries. Which increasingly limits their ability to develop infrastructure as well as economic, social , and political development. ( Figure 1)
After the major players, being the US and Europe, saw the destruction within Europe from WW2, they no longer wanted armed conflict on their own soil. After which, major players have continued to engage in Proxy wars. For example The Vietnam War, which was part of The Cold War, and between the US and Russia. Daniel Byman comments on this; “ States use proxies for many reasons. For the United States, the issue is often cost: Locals fight, and die, so Americans do not have to.”2 (Figure 2)
In summary, much of the armed conflict that takes place in developing countries, are Proxy wars, and the major players play a large contribution to these. However they are removed from, the suffering and collective experience that countries endure, when armed conflict takes place. Many of these are over resource control, or US/ Russia power struggles. Overall, I think it’s very problematic and just down right horrible, whilst there is a large sense of avoidance, or even non recognition, of the ongoing social, economic, and political repercussions which war torn states face.
- https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2015/consequences-internal-armed-conflict-development-part-1#:~:text=War%20kills%2C%20and%20its%20consequences,institutions%20can%20be%20permanently%20damaged.&text=Part%201%20focuses%20on%20how%20conflict%20affects%20development. ↩
- https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/21/why-engage-in-proxy-war-a-states-perspective/ ↩
What a thought-provoking post – thanks for this. I really agree, and you’ve put the spotlight on something that doesn’t get enough attention. What could be done about this? Powerful countries seem to get away with everything, and they’re permanent members of the UN Security Council, so it’s likely that this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. I’ve found that the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) theory really helps understand why this is case. TWAIL says that international law benefits Western states and disadvantages non-Western states. Countries like the US and Russia know there will be no repercussions, because they’re the ones who tend to impose them in the UN. Their decisions have a huge impact, on an international level, and the consequences are rarely aired out so much. It’s not fair to be born in another country and if conflict breaks out, or your country is used as a proxy, to be totally unprotected and another number in the death toll. I think the only way this can be looked at is by a restructuring of the international legal system – if powerful countries rely so much on others, then they should get their privileges taken away. This was such a good read 🙂
A very interesting issue that you’ve raised here – we focus so much on ongoing battles/wars, it is easy to overlook the impact they can have months/years/decades later. I was particularly interested in your findings on the relative impacts of civil war on Burkina Faso and Burundi, as both countries are ones I had little prior knowledge on.
When researching into my own blog post, the topic of the general location of humanity’s arose for me as well. Intriguingly so, I came to a very different conclusion to yours in regard to whether warfare dominated in developed or developing countries. Taking a classical approach of politico-economic development, I instead believe that Europe has been a hotbed of warfare for centuries – France, Britain, Germany and Russia (all regarded as developed) have only been formed as modern states through hundreds of years of violence.
However, I do agree with your point about the differing importance that is placed on such wars. Throughout high school (studying Cambridge, an international curriculum), we were exposed to a very Eurocentric view of war, focusing on large scale conflicts between nation-states such as Germany and France. In covering these conflicts in-depth, we neglected to look at alternative views on war, such as looking at the local effects of these events or considering the environmental/cultural impact. Looking at the deadliest wars of the 21st century, the battlefield has indeed shifted away from Europe towards the areas you raised – although certainly European countries are still involved in a proxy sense. Going forwards, I believe it is important that some educational and media reform is seen so that horrific events, such as the ones you mentioned, are properly addressed. Interesting post!
1. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/12180516/Geography-of-violence-Map-records-every-battle-ever-fought.html
2. https://www.britannica.com/list/8-deadliest-wars-of-the-21st-century
Historically, there definitely have been significant conflicts in the USA and Europe, though in more recent history, these “superpowers” have indeed caused unrest in so many other nations through proxy wars, leaving behind a trail of destruction for others to pick up.
I think your question, “Who gets to decide where war takes place?” is a very interesting one. When conflict between nations becomes active war, often one nation is forced to defend what is theirs because of the intrusion of another who is threatening their way of life. Nowadays, we are encouraged to think of ourselves as global citizens: part of a community of people made up of hundreds of cultures and nations, yet war creates divides and leaves messy remnants and broken people in its wake.
What would it take for humans to begin to see the similarities over differences – to appreciate cultural identity while also carrying solidarity that comes from being one species? What would it take for “superpowers” to see that people in Vietnam, Korea, or Russia are people, just like Americans? For war to no longer leave a trail of death and dismay, but for conflict to be resolved through communication and empathy? Ah, if only!!