STWR - Share The World's Resources

Introduction

Development and peace have been two of the major concerns of national and international political economy for more than fifty years. Yet there is considerable disagreement as to the nature of the relationship between these two economic and political phenomena.

Some (such as the “liberals/neoliberals”) argue that development encourages peace. People in better economic condition are less likely to initiate violent conflict both because they are more content and because they have more to lose from the physical danger and economic disruption that war brings. Others say that development discourages peace, either because the continued development of some depends on their forceful suppression or control of others (as the “dependency” theorists argue) or because development increases the capacity to build and mobilize military power (as the “neorealists” argue). Still others (such as the old-line “realists”) argue that development and peace have no significant connection to each other.

In order to better understand the power and limits of the relationship between development and peace --- and in particular to explore whether development and peace naturally do, or can be made to, reinforce each other --- it is useful to begin by setting the terms of reference. What do we mean by “development”? What do we mean by “peace”? What do we mean by “militarization”? And what do we mean by “war”?

The purpose of this essay is to show that: one, an historical debt exists, which is owed by the rich and developed countries of the North (Western Europe and North America) to the poor and underdeveloped countries of the South (Africa, Latin America and Asia); and two, unless that historical debt is paid back in part (given its magnitude, it would be impossible to reimburse it in full), humanity will not be able to build a ‘better world’, that is, a viable and sustainable world, in which sufficient levels of justice, liberty and peace exist.

Two essential and crucial questions are: What is that historical debt made up of? And: When was it contracted? The answer to the first one is: That historical debt has two parts: material and moral. The material part is made up by the sum-total of all the human and natural resources that were forcibly taken (or stolen, to call a spade a spade) by the rich and developed countries of the North from the poor and underdeveloped countries of the South. The moral part is made up by an enormous amount of pain and suffering that was inflicted on the populations of the poor and underdeveloped countries of the South by the rich and developed countries of the North while incurring that historic debt. The answer to the second question is: That historical debt was contracted during the last three to four centuries, during the three historical periods known as slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism.