The cost of conflict on African development was approximately $300bn between 1990 and 2005, according to new research by Oxfam International, IANSA and Saferworld. This is equal to the amount of money received in international aid during the same period.
The study “Africa’s Missing Billions” is the first time analysts have calculated the overall effects of conflict on GDP and comes as diplomats from around the world arrive at the United Nations to discuss an Arms Trade Treaty.
It shows that on average a war, civil war or insurgency shrinks an African economy by 15 per cent. The continent loses an average of $18bn a year due to armed conflict.
“Armed violence is one of the greatest threats to development in Africa,” said Irungu Houghton, Oxfam’s African policy advisor. “The costs are shocking. Our figures are almost certainly an under-estimate but they show conflicts are costing African economies an average of $18bn a year. This money could solve the HIV/AIDS crisis, prevent TB and malaria, or provide clean water, sanitation and education.””
The research also estimates that 95% of Kalashnikov rifles used in these conflicts come from outside Africa. Kalashnikovs are the most common weapon in Africa’s conflicts. The combatants who ignore the rules of war and commit human rights abuses are almost always supplied from outside the continent.
Joseph Dube, IANSA Africa co-ordinator said: “This report describes some of the devastating economic impacts of the poorly regulated international arms trade and the shocking level of human suffering that this causes. As an African, I implore all African governments and weapons-producing governments to support a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty. This is a call for global cooperation and cannot be achieved working alone. The government whose factory produces the rifle is as responsible as the government who permits its ships to transport them. Similarly the states that unload the cargo must monitor whose hands these weapons end up in. Without this regulation, the cost and suffering borne by Africans will continue to be immense.”
Between 1990 and 2005, 23 African nations have been involved in conflict. Oxfam, IANSA and Saferworld calculated what these countries’ GDP would have been if there had been no conflict, by comparing them to peaceful countries of a similar economic status. For example, during Guinea-Bissau’s conflict in 1998/99, the projected growth rate without conflict would have been 5.24%, whereas the actual growth rate was minus 10.15%.
This methodology almost certainly gives an under-estimate. It does not include the economic impact on neighboring 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.
In countries affected by war the direct costs of violence (such as military expenditure or the destruction of infrastructure) pale in comparison to the indirect costs of lost opportunities. These include:
- Inflation, debt and high unemployment.
- Income from natural resources going to private individuals, rather than being invested in the nation as a whole.
- More people, especially women and children, die from the consequences of conflict than in the fighting itself.
The most common weapon used in African conflicts is the Kalashnikov assault rifle, the best known being the AK-47. Kalashnikovs are nearly all made outside Africa. African governments are convinced of the need to control arms transfers and have already taken encouraging initiatives at regional level. These are important steps but will not solve the problem on their own. The arms trade is global industry and needs a global, legally-binding Arms Trade Treaty.
Oxfam, IANSA and other NGOs are campaigning for an Arms Trade Treaty which would prohibit arms transfers if they were likely to be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law, or undermine sustainable development. Such a treaty would not prevent responsible arms transfers for defence, policing or peacekeeping.
Please note a video news release showing the effects of war on the Liberian economy is available for broadcasters.
1. For more information on the methodology used in this report, please contact the press officers above who can provide a full background to this paper.
2. In 2006, 153 states voted in favor of the Arms Trade Treaty at the UN General Assembly, 24 states abstained and only the US voted against.
3. Now the UN delegates will be discussing the Arms Trade Treaty in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, which is the debating forum for arms control.
4. During 2008 a Group of Governmental Experts, selected by the UN Secretary General, will meet to develop the next stage of the Arms Trade Treaty.
5. An Arms Trade Treaty would prevent arms transfers if they are used, or likely to be used, for violations of international law.
6. Over one million people from 160 countries have joined Control Arms’ petition to show their support for tougher controls on the international arms trade.
7. Two regional instruments in Africa have created standards for arms control. They are the Nairobi protocol for the prevention, control and reduction of small arms and light weapons and the ECOWAS convention on small arms and light weapons, their ammunition and other related materials.
Email
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
