(Image Credit: Xinhua)
FOUR FACTS ABOUT FOOD AND WARS
1. The human population is gobbling up food and mineral resources like they’re Thanksgiving dinner.
2. As these resources decrease, civil wars increase.
3. Said resources are often located in countries festering with civil conflicts. Just look at Darfur, Tibet and Iraq.
4. This situation is looking to be one of the 21st century’s major headaches.
What’s a developed country to do?
According to the people at the Copenhagen Consensus, once a civil war looks like it’s finished, the cheapest thing to do is send in peacekeepers. They claim that the costs of sending in the blue helmets are far more reasonable then letting a civil war fester.
An extended civil war not only costs the stricken country 2% of its yearly economic growth, but limits foreign direct investment and resource access for the rest of the world. Add to that the regional crime and terrorism civil wars espouse, and suddenly peacekeepers start to make a lot more sense.
Here are the options Copenhagen presents:
DO NOTHING: NO VALUE FOR YOUR MONEY
Worldwide, wars in developing countries cost about $120-$500 billion/year. A country in a civil war losts roughly 2% of its growth per year. It takes 14 years, on average, to recover from a civil war. The interdependent world loses out on potential benefits provided by the country, such as resources and land for facilities. Many civil wars also become regional, which often aggravates crime and terrorism.
SEND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: DECENT ROI
Countries worldwide hand out $120 billion in foreign aid/year, covering the bare minimum of the costs produced by wars. If rich countries send a region enough money to cover the 2%/year growth costs, the odds of a (costly) future war decrease. An Economist article on the subject says each “percentage-point reduction in the rise of renewed violence is ‘worth’ (up to) $2.5 billion.” Financial aid, then, will pay off in the form of a secure future.
SEND IN PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS: BEST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK
Peacekeeping missions are the most powerful tool we have in preventing future conflicts. According to the Times Online, “spending $850m on a peacekeeping initiative reduces the ten-year risk of conflict re-emerging from around 38% to 7%.” The article says that each percentage point of risk reduction is worth around $2.5bn to the world.
In sum, if the world spends $1 billion per year on conflict reduction, the benefits (in terms of the country’s growth, stability, global security, etc.) add up to $12.6 billion. Every dollar invested returns $12.60 of positive benefit to the country and, as a result, the world.
With this reasoning in place, why does it take the UN so darn long to intervene in places like Darfur?
