Business for Peace — “Is Conflict More Profitable Than Peace?”
Modern society is rife with conflicts that call for explanation. The concept of profiteering from war dates back decades. This paper’s objective is to look into the stance taken by many that peace in today’s corporatism world can only exist if it somehow manages to become profitable. To do this, case studies will be used to support the analysis.
The involvement of economic aspects and commercial objectives in conflict is not so much a novel occurrence as it is a recurring trend throughout conflict history. Conflict frequently delivers benefits that give many parties a vested interest in the conflict’s longevity. Conflict profiteers span from individuals to corporations and states. Political leaders who build their reputation and influence by being strenuous and standing up to the opposing side, as well as military leaders whose reputation has been (or is) established by conflict victories, are examples of conflict profiteers.[1] Furthermore, youthful, poor, and uneducated males with no other means of support may benefit from employment as low-level military personnel. Another group that benefits significantly from conflict is the manufacturers of weapons and military technologies. From the illegal market on the street, where citrus is sold to war victims who lack the mineral advantages of vegetables and fruit, to the level of nations that sell nuclear weapons. Supply and demand will always be the driving force in business in conflict zones. Weapons, like violence, have been around since the dawn of time. A man’s desire to fight equals his desire for sex. Profits will always entice people, and stifling that component of human nature seems to be insurmountable. There will always be conflict, and there will always be people who profit from it.
Historically, wars have been fought over land and natural resources; today, however, they are fought over politics and events that occasionally cause the general public to become temporarily outraged. However, the vast majority of the time the population wants peace.[2] Today, war is used to dominate, annihilate, and terrorize other countries with the justification that it would lead to world peace. Unfortunately, in reality, there is virtually almost no integrity in war, and when it is over, noncombatants are left to pick through the ruins of the country where the battle was fought.[3] Studies demonstrate the growing “self-financing aspect” of many recent conflicts. With the end of the Cold War came a fall in state support, and both governments and rebel groups alike in many conflict zones began looking for new ways to make funds to finance their military operations.[4]
The end of the Cold War and decolonization have not ushered in a new era of international stability. New or recurring wars continue to leave entire regions and enormous populations in distress and uncertainty, despite the 1990s’ numerous peacekeeping and economic initiatives that were inspired by the more assertive global agenda. Many of the war economies that have emerged as a result of capitalist globalization and financial market reform are built around the exploitation and trading of natural resources including oil, wood, rare minerals, and narcotic plants.[5] Such “conflict commerce” funds enable the purchase of easily accessible weapons and military equipment, the employment of militants, the enrichment of corrupt warlords and government officials, and the procurement of the backing of neighboring states.[6] There are countless case studies. In Cambodia, both the government and the Khmer Rouge sold gemstones and lumber on Asian and European markets.[7] In Colombia, insurgents and paramilitaries became actively involved in the manufacturing and trafficking of narcotics as well as the laundering of their illicit profits through sophisticated semi-networks.[8] As a result of the United States government’s response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, both Pentagon funding and earnings for weapons contractors have dramatically increased.[9] By far, the biggest gainers from the post-9/11 spike in military spending have been businesses of all sizes. Military contractors received between one-third and half of the $14 trillion in Pentagon spending since the start of the Afghan War. Some of these businesses made earnings that were generally regarded as legal.[10] Other earnings came as a result of dubious or dishonest business methods, such as fraud, exploitation, price hikes, or extortion.[11]
Governments in transition or semi-democracies experience the most conflict, whereas established democracies and authoritarian regimes experience the least. The true conflict is being played in the boardrooms of multinational corporations, where the forces of the oil and arms industries are making a comeback against those of the new global capital. Companies that manufacture arms, ammunition, and armaments in this dystopian society do so for financial gain. Although many believe that the governments of the countries where their headquarters and base of operations are located regulate their manufacturing, this is not the case. The companies are either free to produce as many military arms, armament, and weapons as they want and sell them to the highest bidder (free market system) after the State they operate under has had their first preferences. The world’s problems do not change no matter how many wars are fought. The entire scheme is referred to as the “Military-Industrial Complex” simply because we are unable to identify any one of the co-conspirators.[12] When the mainstream media bombards people with war-related topics, one can bet a lot is going on behind closed doors. The Rohingya persecution in Myanmar is just one example of how mainstream media outlets have been used to commit crimes against humanity, instigate armed conflict, repress internal opposition, meddle in democratic elections, and more. Companies that manufacture military weapons do not benefit only from the sale of their commodities and weaponry. Selling just amounts to stockpiling — and stockpiling does not ensure future commerce — these weapons must be utilized. Thus, simply using these weapons amounts to gains in unseen ways that decrease state stockpiles and aid in future production.
Profiteering from conflicts is a significant component. Governments provide substantial sums of money to support the entire system. The amount of money that is financed by loans from international banks is sucked up by government defense contractors. The majority of the money is used by the federal government to pay exorbitant amounts for anything valuable. As a result, obtaining a contract for defense purposes is the private sector’s dream come true.
It is what I would refer to as capitalism’s “sleight of hand.” The industrial revolution and capitalism have both been beneficial in putting food and other necessities on so many people’s tables. However, capitalism has evolved into a very dangerous idea that participates in the operations of the Military-Industrial Complex and contributes to all of these endless conflicts.[13] If we ask each of these industries separately, they will all give us the same answer: they were all in it for the profits. That is the beginning of neoliberal capitalism, in which anything goes and everything is justified as long as these businesses generate profits. It is a system of uncontrollably voracious predators. It seems that the world accepts conflict profit as the ultimate religion. The issue will persist despite all efforts to eradicate it, whether on a local or national level. Contrary to popular belief, all people who have awakened or are awakening are participants in this game. Everyone is complicit in this heinous and corrupt sociopolitical system. We are not part of the solution; rather, we are part of the issue. Every man and woman possess violence, even if they are only passive observers and participants who unwittingly permitted all of this to occur by agreeing with popular ideologies (such as capitalism, socialism, or communism) and by the manufactured mass consent of those who were too oblivious to see, notice, or connect the dots regarding what was happening or had occurred.
References
[1] Macartan Humphreys, “Economics and Violent Conflict,” Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, February 2003, https://hhi.harvard.edu/publications/economics-and-violent-conflict, 5.
[2] Mats R. Berdal, Greed & Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2000), 6.
[3] Berdal, Greed & Grievance, 10.
[4] Frances Stewart, “Root Causes of Violent Conflict in Developing Countries,” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) (BMJ Group, February 9, 2002), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122271/.
[5] Philippe le Billon and Joanna Macrae, “The Political Economy of War: What Relief Agencies Need to Know,” Humanitarian Practice Network, July 1, 2000, https://odihpn.org/publication/the-political-economy-of-war-what-relief-agencies-need-to-know/, 12.
[6] Stewart, “Root Causes of Violent Conflict in Developing Countries,”
[7] Philippe le Billon and Joanna Macrae, “The Political Economy of War, 15.
[8] Philippe le Billon, “The Political Ecology of Transition in Cambodia, 1989–1999: War, Peace, and Forest Exploitation”, accessed November 12, 2022, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-7660.00177, 5.
[9] William D. Hartung, “Profits of War: Corporate Beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 Pentagon Spending Surge,” The Costs of War, September 13, 2021, https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2021/ProfitsOfWar, 4.
[10] Hartung, “Profits of War: Corporate Beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 Pentagon Spending Surge,” 6.
[11] Hartung, “Profits of War,”6.
[12] Berdal, Greed & Grievance, 35.
[13] Mark Harrison, “Capitalism at War,” The Cambridge History of Capitalism, 2014, pp. 348–383, https://doi.org/10.1017/cho9781139095105.011, 350.