Culled from www.gaskiya.net

Background
From the very 'first' wars fought in Congo Kinshasa (later Zaire) and Nigeria (the so-called Biafran war), Africa has experienced several incidences of armed conflict over the years.The1970's witnessed the 'wars of liberation' in places like Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, while similar actions firmed up in South Africa.
The international community prefers the phrase 'armed conflict' to 'war.' Nonetheless, according to Carl von Clausewitz, the foremost theorist (and one of the greatest military strategists of all time), this phenomenon is intricate and is made up of rational and non-rational forces. Although he defined it as relating to policy and should therefore be a tool of that function, in Africa, it was not exactly controlled and was therefore not a tool of its political masters. At best even when it was 'controlled,' it often went awry and was more of a loose cannon that landed on unintended targets. This could be seen in the large civilian population (non-combatants) who ultimately paid with their lives even if they were never involved in combat, in the large population of the maimed and psychologically traumatised populace and in the huge destruction visited on non-military infrastructure and items indispensable to the survival of the civilian population by the belligerents. In effect, war took a great toll on the African people, their environment and infrastructure, their livestock and their wildlife.

Armed Conflict and its impact on Africa's economies

As a 'developing' continent, Africa has had its growth stunted by these wars, even if some of them were, in the view of several scholars, defensible (those fought to liberate the continent from colonial, especially Portuguese rule). The cost of those liberation wars were underwritten by many generous supporters, ranging from the early independent African regimes (Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea etc), Diaspora elements and with material support coming from the then 'eastern' bloc (he defunct USSR and Cuba). Those opposed to these wars also provided support to the establishment that was challenged by the liberation movements. In effect, states like the United States, Portugal, Israel and the United Kingdom in particular provided support to the regimes being opposed by nationalist movements and this scenario continued until the end of the cold war when the atmosphere became more pliable to ending what was left of the wars that had continued to rage. It is doubtful however, if the actual cost in financial terms has been precisely denominated in Naira, Rand, Franc, Shilling, Dollar, Leone, Dinar or Pound.

The civil wars of the 1990s that were fought ostensibly with a view to changing regimes the armed opposition considered as 'recalcitrant' (in Chad, Liberia, DRC etc) were financed by illegally mined mineral resources within the territories where the wars were being fought, including the war launched in Sierra-Leone to 'wipe out corruption.' These minerals included uranium, diamond, gold and the unquantifiable wealth of the Congo, ranging from timber to an assortment of precious stones. Perhaps the cost of purchasing weapons, platforms and devices used to prosecute these military campaigns remain a good index of providing an insight to the overall cost of armed conflict. In 2007, a report by the British Charity, Oxfam, put the cost of weapons used to prosecute campaigns on the continent between 1990 and 2005 at USD18 billion a year—an aggregate of USD 300 billion—over the period. Perhaps this was the very first graphic illustration of the financial implication that armed conflict has on development in Africa.

Examining the problem in detail, the report, which focused on twenty-three African states (with the exception of Somalia), argues inter alia that:

Compared to peaceful countries, war-battered African nations have "50 per cent more infant deaths, 15 per cent more undernourished people, life expectancy reduced by five years, 20 per cent more adult illiteracy, 2.5 times fewer doctors per patient and 12.4 per cent less food per person," the report estimates.
On average, the economies of African countries affected by armed conflict contracted by 15 per cent and the impact generally worsened the longer a war lasted, the report further said.
The report based its figures on the ill effects on economic growth by estimating what growth might have been in countries if they had not suffered conflicts. During Guinea-Bissau's 1989-99 war, for example, projected growth was five per cent, but the economy decreased 10 per cent, it said.

"This methodology almost certainly gives an underestimate...It does not include the economic impact on neighbouring countries, which could suffer from political insecurity or a sudden influx of refugees. The study only covers periods of actual combat, but some costs of war, such as increased military spending and a struggling economy, continue long after the fighting has stopped."

Corroborating the above thesis, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary General, during a special security council debate on preventive diplomacy initiated during the Nigerian presidency of the council in 2010, informed the gathering that:

''According to recent studies, 15 years’ worth of development aid to Africa has been effectively cancelled out by the cost of war on the continent..''

Conclusion

While the exact cost of armed conflict on the economy of African states is debatable and still rising (Nigeria is reportedly spending USD1 billion in 2014 to completely upgrade its military in response to the on-going insurgency in her north-eastern region), reports such as the one quoted above, gives us a reasonable idea of what the continent has lost over the years following incessant conflicts. It is worrisome that several insurgencies have either persisted, expanded or began anew in such theatres as Mali, Libya, Algeria, Central African Republic, DRC, Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria etc. In view of this seemingly unending phenomenon, the challenge before Africa's leaders today is to intensify preventive diplomacy as this has the potential for significantly minimising the recourse to armed conflict.

It is gratifying to note that with growth rates in Africa averaging 5% of GDP, many states on the continent appear set for a golden future—provided armed conflict is vehemently discouraged as a means for settling disagreements and judicious use is made of this favourable economic condition.

Gaskiya.net is grateful to the International Network of African Researchers (INAR) as well as the author, Adebayo Olowo-Ake, for permission to publish this article and the views expressed therein are the personal opinion of the author. They do not represent those of his employers.

Shinor:
Culled from www.gaskiya.net

Background
From the very 'first' wars fought in Congo Kinshasa (later Zaire) and Nigeria (the so-called Biafran war), Africa has experienced several incidences of armed conflict over the years.The1970's witnessed the 'wars of liberation' in places like Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, while similar actions firmed up in South Africa.
The international community prefers the phrase 'armed conflict' to 'war.' Nonetheless, according to Carl von Clausewitz, the foremost theorist (and one of the greatest military strategists of all time), this phenomenon is intricate and is made up of rational and non-rational forces. Although he defined it as relating to policy and should therefore be a tool of that function, in Africa, it was not exactly controlled and was therefore not a tool of its political masters. At best even when it was 'controlled,' it often went awry and was more of a loose cannon that landed on unintended targets. This could be seen in the large civilian population (non-combatants) who ultimately paid with their lives even if they were never involved in combat, in the large population of the maimed and psychologically traumatised populace and in the huge destruction visited on non-military infrastructure and items indispensable to the survival of the civilian population by the belligerents. In effect, war took a great toll on the African people, their environment and infrastructure, their livestock and their wildlife.

Armed Conflict and its impact on Africa's economies

As a 'developing' continent, Africa has had its growth stunted by these wars, even if some of them were, in the view of several scholars, defensible (those fought to liberate the continent from colonial, especially Portuguese rule). The cost of those liberation wars were underwritten by many generous supporters, ranging from the early independent African regimes (Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea etc), Diaspora elements and with material support coming from the then 'eastern' bloc (he defunct USSR and Cuba). Those opposed to these wars also provided support to the establishment that was challenged by the liberation movements. In effect, states like the United States, Portugal, Israel and the United Kingdom in particular provided support to the regimes being opposed by nationalist movements and this scenario continued until the end of the cold war when the atmosphere became more pliable to ending what was left of the wars that had continued to rage. It is doubtful however, if the actual cost in financial terms has been precisely denominated in Naira, Rand, Franc, Shilling, Dollar, Leone, Dinar or Pound.

The civil wars of the 1990s that were fought ostensibly with a view to changing regimes the armed opposition considered as 'recalcitrant' (in Chad, Liberia, DRC etc) were financed by illegally mined mineral resources within the territories where the wars were being fought, including the war launched in Sierra-Leone to 'wipe out corruption.' These minerals included uranium, diamond, gold and the unquantifiable wealth of the Congo, ranging from timber to an assortment of precious stones. Perhaps the cost of purchasing weapons, platforms and devices used to prosecute these military campaigns remain a good index of providing an insight to the overall cost of armed conflict. In 2007, a report by the British Charity, Oxfam, put the cost of weapons used to prosecute campaigns on the continent between 1990 and 2005 at USD18 billion a year—an aggregate of USD 300 billion—over the period. Perhaps this was the very first graphic illustration of the financial implication that armed conflict has on development in Africa.

Examining the problem in detail, the report, which focused on twenty-three African states (with the exception of Somalia), argues inter alia that:

Compared to peaceful countries, war-battered African nations have "50 per cent more infant deaths, 15 per cent more undernourished people, life expectancy reduced by five years, 20 per cent more adult illiteracy, 2.5 times fewer doctors per patient and 12.4 per cent less food per person," the report estimates.
On average, the economies of African countries affected by armed conflict contracted by 15 per cent and the impact generally worsened the longer a war lasted, the report further said.
The report based its figures on the ill effects on economic growth by estimating what growth might have been in countries if they had not suffered conflicts. During Guinea-Bissau's 1989-99 war, for example, projected growth was five per cent, but the economy decreased 10 per cent, it said.

"This methodology almost certainly gives an underestimate...It does not include the economic impact on neighbouring countries, which could suffer from political insecurity or a sudden influx of refugees. The study only covers periods of actual combat, but some costs of war, such as increased military spending and a struggling economy, continue long after the fighting has stopped."

Corroborating the above thesis, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary General, during a special security council debate on preventive diplomacy initiated during the Nigerian presidency of the council in 2010, informed the gathering that:

''According to recent studies, 15 years’ worth of development aid to Africa has been effectively cancelled out by the cost of war on the continent..''

Conclusion

While the exact cost of armed conflict on the economy of African states is debatable and still rising (Nigeria is reportedly spending USD1 billion in 2014 to completely upgrade its military in response to the on-going insurgency in her north-eastern region), reports such as the one quoted above, gives us a reasonable idea of what the continent has lost over the years following incessant conflicts. It is worrisome that several insurgencies have either persisted, expanded or began anew in such theatres as Mali, Libya, Algeria, Central African Republic, DRC, Somalia, Kenya, Nigeria etc. In view of this seemingly unending phenomenon, the challenge before Africa's leaders today is to intensify preventive diplomacy as this has the potential for significantly minimising the recourse to armed conflict.

It is gratifying to note that with growth rates in Africa averaging 5% of GDP, many states on the continent appear set for a golden future—provided armed conflict is vehemently discouraged as a means for settling disagreements and judicious use is made of this favourable economic condition.

Gaskiya.net is grateful to the International Network of African Researchers (INAR) as well as the author, Adebayo Olowo-Ake, for permission to publish this article and the views expressed therein are the personal opinion of the author. They do not represent those of his employers.

Good, they should spend more on arms killing themselves than building infrastructure to better their lives.