The Most Expensive War Than Peace

The most expensive war than peace

The war arises as a violent response to a conflict that occurs between two or more actors. "Conflicts, the absence of peace and harmony are constant in the lives of people and societies" (Vinyamata, 2015). However, violent responses to conflicts can be avoided, since although conflicts are natural in the life of man, violent actions are not and therefore can be moderated. In this sense, to answer the question of whether the war is more expensive than peace it is necessary to understand the definition of each of these two terms (war and peace), since both have the characteristic of being very polysemic, it issay that they can have many connotations or meanings. In turn, it is important to understand that both war and peace entails to know which of the two represents more costs and understanding the relationship that these terms have, because you can talk about peace construction after a war has lived.

The word war can have many definitions. "War is a disaster produced by man" (Galtung, 1998, p.two). Other definitions establish that the origin of the war resides in a violent reaction to a conflict that is generated, this consequently the clash of the interests that occurs between the parties. Vinyamata (2015) points out that “many conflicts have their origin in the way of thinking, in mentally constructed myths and certainties for impulse of fear” (P.10). The above is related to the security factor that Hobbes mentioned in its political theory, since it is this element that will guide the actions of men to the construction of the State to leave the state of nature, where a state of war is perceived againstEveryone, this is where it stands out that the role of this state must be fundamental to safeguard the establishment of peace and security of society.

Peace for its part, includes aspects such as diplomacy and negotiation that although they are ways to limit war, they can also lead to it (Zartman, 2009). These two concepts are important instruments that are used for the construction of peace, on the one hand diplomacy is a way of managing relationships between states in a peaceful way, negotiation being its main instrument to resolve conflicts. This means that peace can be seen as a process in which the existence of a conflict must necessarily be recognized, since without the existence of one to resolve a peace study would be inefficient (Valencia Agudelo, Gutierrez Loaiza & Johansson, 2012). This shows that the main stage that a peace study should have is to recognize what type of conflict is being treated to find a way to solve it. In the above it is reflected that although they are terms that can be seen as opposites, they also handle a close relationship with each other, since one is a consequence of the other. However, they should not be confused and should not only be understood as opposites since these terms include a series of processes that are important to differentiate.

The war on the other hand, has the main characteristics of war attacks, deaths, weapons, among others. While peace has characteristics such as diplomatic conflict management, compliance with agreed agreements or points, adequate management of relationships, and others that demonstrate that war is much more expensive than peace. While both require an investment, the war requires a much greater expense both in economic terms and in physical terms, that is, in a constant war situation it will always seek to knock down the other to win the battle in this way by wearingTo his army physically, carrying deaths of combatants and also civilians.

War is one of the forms of conflict resolution and following. Galtung (1998) is a form of direct violence because it is visible through behavior. A war has its effects such as, the number of deaths, the injured, the displaced, the material damages, among others. Understanding that this is a form of conflict resolution. It is not a natural behavior of man. Which means that war can be limited, giving way to solving conflicts in a peaceful way or through negotiation.

With the absence of negotiation or search for peace, the state found at war has a higher expense in their budget, because they must dedicate part of this for the expenses that war brings as the armament as the main instrument, transportation, transportation, fuel for transport, the number of displaced by violence is increased, the number of victims is increased by the conflict, among others, which end up being a large sum of money that in other conditions the State can dedicate to other problems that it hasthe country. The above does not mean that peace does not require an investment. When peace processes are given, resources are required, only that when a state is in a war. This can be evidenced in wars already occurred in the world in which it is observed that the State has a much greater expense, product of a conflict that has prolonged over time.

To contrast the theory worked within the framework of the Conflict and Peace Seminar, it is necessarythe parties and the context in which it takes place. By 1948 the Colombian political scene was characterized by the confrontation between the liberal and conservative parties, which occurred within the framework of the period known as violence. This was triggered the magnicide of the liberal presidential candidate Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a fact that triggered a series of protests and disorders in the national territory. In 1958, for the sake of ending this period, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party formed a coalition called National Front, which sowed discontent by the parties that were not involved in the agreement. At the same time, the reforms on the agricultural sector or the repair to the victims were not in the background, this served as a culture broth for a new armed conflict within the frameThe Cuban Revolution.

The first period dates between 1958 and 1982, in this the proliferation of the guerrillas that contrasts with the rise of social mobilization and the marginality of the armed conflict are identified. The bipartisan political confrontation was radicalized to the point that armed groups committed violent acts, sexual crimes, dispossession of goods and massacres in a reflection of punishing the enemy (National Center for Historical Memory, 2013). To estimate the costs in human capital, the report of the Ministry of Agriculture of Tolima is used to illustrate the ravages of this period.

16 are estimated.219 Dead between 1949 and 1957, not including the dead with regular army forces, or in collective massacres, which were generally abandoned to animals, or thrown into the rivers and cliffs, and neither the casualties suffered by the armed forces were quantifiedthan 321.621 people (that is, 42.6% of the population of Tolima) suffered exile permanently or transiently (Ministry of Agriculture of Tolima, 1959).

The second period covers between 1982 and 1996, at this stage the scenario in the country was characterized by the growth and military expansion of the guerrillas, as there was also the emergence of paramilitary groups and in response to the propagation of drug trafficking, a collapse is observedpartial and a crisis of the Colombian State, in turn the new Political Constitution of 1991 in an environment of peace processes and reforms with ambiguous and partial results (National Center for Historical Memory, 2013).

Eduardo Pizarro cites a study by Kasuke Imain and Jeremy Weinstein on the impact on wars’ economy, which concludes that:

In countries in which the internal armed conflict expanded geographically beyond half of the territory, the economic growth rate was reduced by 1.25% annual on average and domestic private investment fell by 4% annual on average. (…) The fall in private investment was higher than the decrease in public investment due, above all, to the greatest sensitivity of the private sector against the economic uncertainty generated by war and its possibility of transferring its investments to regions with less risks. (Pizarro, 2004, P. 238).

The above is related to the Colombian case, given that the consequences of war in the country have hindered progress in economic development. Hegre & Sambanis (2006) states that these explode due to economic factors, such as low income and low growth rate, the government’s inability is perceived in parallel to provide the basic needs of its population, thus generating a prone environment to whicha conflict explodes;In Colombia it can be perceived that the expansion of drug trafficking and violent acts by groups outside the law resulted as a consequence of weak and unstable institutions which contributes to this situation can occur, but it is emphasized that reasonFrom conflicts is the shortage of resources, this economic factor is linked to the economic difference of social classes.

According to the National Center for Historical Memory (2013), between 1996 and 2005, the armed conflict recruitment threshold is marked. This third period was characterized by the expansions of the guerrillas and paramilitary groups, a state in crisis and in turn a political radicalization of public opinion is perceived towards a military solution of the armed conflict within the framework of international pressures due to the struggleagainst drug trafficking and the struggle of terrorism. 2002 constitutes a transcendental year given the end of the Government of Andrés Pastrana, which was synonymous with a failure in the peace firm with the FARC and the beginning of the government of Álvaro Uribe Vélez proposed hard hand with the guerrillas and a demobilization processof the United self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC). Although both governments had a marked difference in the way of solving the conflict, a search for economic resources and/or materials to face the situation is identified (Castellanos, 2013).

In the previous scenario described is that between 1999 and 2005, investments were made that added 10.732 million dollars. “Of these resources, US $ 6.950 million (64.8%) were executed as a Colombian fiscal effort, and US $ 3.782 million (35.2%) as contributions from the United States Government ”(National Planning Department, 2006). Thus, it was invested in the war against illicit drugs and organized crime inherent to them 6.165 million dollars, and in economic and social reactivation 1.715 million dollars. These figures are a clear reflection of how war does not allow the country to invest more in health, education, among other social factors since most of the resources were being destined for war (84%) and only 16% to theSocial field within the framework of Plan Colombia (Castellanos, 2013).

The failed peace process with the FARC during 2000-2002 meant the country in loss of material resources approximately 20 billion pesos, because many

Elements for the process were destroyed by the FARC (Castellanos, 2013). One of the most questioned results was the quantification of illicit crops, which grew substantially between 1998 and 2001 after 78.200 hectares at 163.000, according to the third

Plan Colombia Evaluation Report (2003).

According to DNP calculations, defense and security spending represented in GDP between 1996 and 2000 was 3.26%, while in the following years it demonstrated an increase

significant after 3.83% in 2001 to 4% in 2002. At the same time, the country was immersed in a crisis originated by fear of the high seamstary indices, murders, infrastructure attacks derived from the struggle for territorial control between guerrilla groups and paramilitary groups in the areas where there were noState presence.

The relationship between security and defense spending and GDP was 5.1% in 2002, 5.2% in 2003, 5.1% in 2004, 5.2% in 2005 and 5% in 2006 (National Development Plan2002-2006, p. 42), despite the fact that the figures of optimism against decision making to appease the conflict during the Uribe Vélez government, the conflict itself did not cease. The country had about two thousand kidnapped people registering, as well as 4.694 victims of antipersonas mines, this being a reflection that the violation of both human rights and international humanitarian law were worrisome for the international community. During the four -year period, the International Stockholm Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) placed the Colombian armed conflict as one of the most intense in the world, being among the five that produced a significant number of deaths per year. The other conflicts were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nepal, India-Kashemira (2006, p. 10).

The fourth period analyzed, covers the years 2005 and 2012, in this the failure of political negotiation with the paramilitary groups, deriving in a rearmament in groups permeated by the most challenging drug trafficking and dye in front of the Colombian state in front of the Colombian state. It is identified that there is a clash between the way of treating Colombian reality with the speech that Álvaro Uribe Vélez followed, where he conceived that the country did not face an internal armed conflict but a fight against terrorists, a line that did not follow the predecessor of him Juan Manuel Santos.

It should be added that in Colombia approximately 22 billion pesos per year to the security and defense sector, which implies that in the last ten years the armed conflict has cost Colombia, only on that front, only on that front, only on that front, only on that front, only on that front, Approximately 220 billion pesos (Castellanos, 2013, P. 94).

As a consequence of the conflict in Colombia, high costs were presented in terms of the ecosystem, as it is estimated that at least 3.000.000 hectares of forest were lost

and of this figure 58% of deforestation occurred in municipalities in the midst of the conflict; Likewise, this scenario contributed greatly to the proliferation of illegal mining practices, it is estimated that 86% of gold production in the country comes illegal, as it is also perceived that 60% of the water sources of the water sources of the country were partly affected by oil spills caused by the attacks of armed groups outside the law to oil companies (El Tiempo, 2016).

It is through the case of the Colombian armed conflict that is reiterated that war is characterized by being more expensive than peace, this in social, institutional, environmental and economic terms. Peace must be conceived as a more profitable purpose for all actors, since it is through the agreements and/or negotiations a solution can be found in the face of the high costs of war, and in this way it is possible to allocate greater resourcesto solve other problems that still cause ravages in society such as inequality or marginalization of minorities.

In the article War expenses versus peace expenses in the magazine Semana, Valencia (2017) affirms “332.95 billion pesos in the war at today prices have been invested;On the other hand, if the Havana agreements are fulfilled, in the next ten years, 25.3 billion will be invested in La Paz ". Taking into account the above, it is necessary to conclude that the relationship of the investment for peace in relation to that of the war results in a negative balance that indicates what was previously proposed, which is that peace has been economically more profitable. This is concluded, after the analysis of the high figures that were destined during the two governments prior to Juan Manuel Santos, years in which an increase in victims could be evidenced, a situation that decreased during the mandate of the latter, thanks in greatmeasure to the peace negotiation process with the FARC in Havana. Following this, the costs of war leave languid scenarios, while the cost of peace gives a reflection of encouragement spaces for institutional strengthening. In addition, this aspect leaves errors that both the Colombian and the guerrillas had when opting for the dynamics of armed conflict financing, which have left structural problems that are challenges for the construction of peace.

References

• Valencia Agudelo, Germán Darío;Alderid Gutiérrez Loaiza and Sandra Johansson. (2012). Negotiate peace: a synthesis of studies on the negotiated resolution of internal armed conflicts. Political Studies, 40, Institute of Political Studies, University of Antioquia, (pp. 149-174).
• National Historical Memory Center. (2013). Enough! Colombia: War and dignity memory. Recovered from http: // centrodememooricahistorica.GOV.CO/DOWNLOADS/REPORTS2013/SINGOYA/CHAPTERS/ENOUGH-YA-CAP2_110-195.PDF
• Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of Tolima, Violence in Tolima (Ibagué: Government of Tolima, 1959).
• Castellanos, j. (2013). How much does war cost us? Colombian armed conflict costs in the last decade. Bogotá: Grancolombiano Polytechnic Editorial
• Comptroller General of the Republic (2003). Third Evaluation Report of the Colombian Plan [online], available at http: // www.collective -listed.org/IMG/PDF/Report_Contraloria_2003.PDF recovered: September 28, 2012.
• National Planning Department (2002), National Development Plan 2002-2006, towards a community state [online], available at https: // www.DNP.GOV.CO/PND/PLANSDEVELLOIVERSE.ASPX recovered on September 30, 2012.
• National Planning Department (2006), Balance Plan Colombia 1999-2005 [online], available at http: // www.DNP.GOV.CO/PORTALS/0/ARCHIVERS/DOCUMENTS/DJS/DJS_DOCuments_publications/Bal_plan_Col_espanol_final.PDF recovered: August 22, 2012.
• Time. (September 25, 2016). How much has the war in Colombia cost? Obtained from the time.com: http: // www.time.com/data/how-ha-scored-the-war-in-colombia-56526
• Galtung, j.(1998). Violence, war and its impact. On the visible and invisible effects of violence. Taken from: http: // network.PUCP.Edu.PE/WP-Content/Uploads/Library/081020.PDF
• Hegre, H, Sambanis, N (2006) Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results On Civil War Onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 50 no. 4, 508-535.
• International Stockholm Institute for Peace Research (SIPRI). YEAROOK 2012, ARMAMENTS, DISARMALA, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. 2012 [online], available at http: // www.Sipri.Org/Yearbook/2012/Files/sipriyb12summary.PDF recovered: January 17, 2013.
• Pizarro, e. (2004). Balances and perspectives of the armed conflict in Colombia. Colombia: Grupo Editorial Norma.
• Valencia, l. (2017). War expenses versus peace expenses. Week. Recovered from https: // www.week.com/Opinion/ARTICLE/LEON-VALENCIA-GASTOS-DE-LA-GUERRA-VERSUS-GASTOS-DE-LA-PAZ/494058
• Vinyamata, e. (2015). Conflictology. Paz y Conflict magazine. University of Granada. January 2015 8 (1), pp 9 – 24
• Zartman, i. W. (2009) Conflict Resolution and Negotion. In The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Part III Methods of Managing Conflict. Sage. PP 322 – 339