Socio-political conflicts often give rise to civil unrest or civil war. A number of countries that have plunged in civil war often depend on foreign aid as a response to humanitarian needs. Arguably, since the population is in civil conflict, the nation may not have time to concentrate on economic activities. The consequences war includes civilian casualties that are in need of humanitarian assistance and lack of economic development among other factors. A considerable number of studies seem to point on both positive and negative consequence of foreign aid in peace and war (Kang and Meernik 147). A school of thought encouraging foreign aid to conflict torn nations believe that such aids help in addressing humanitarian concerns of the civilian casualties. The second school of thought rejecting the humanitarian intervention through foreign aid believes that it promotes civil conflict. Thus, while foreign aid is a vital element of shaping socio-economic and political conditions in poor nations, the aid has negative consequences to nations at war.
Studies show that foreign aid directly affects the chances of civil war continuation (De Ree and Nillesen 305). The severe decrease of aid revenues inadvertently influence the domestic power balance and potentially create violence. Further, critics agree that aid cut would limit the ability of the government to meet the needs of her citizens (Kang and Meernik 153). Consequently, the nation would experience dissidents from its population. This conflict often influences the ability of the government to cling on power. Available literature shows that the rebels gain bargaining power over the government when the nation experiences aid shocks. To appease the dissidents, the government is to promise future resource transfers. Notably, some nations that have experienced civil conflict have resorted to providing the rebels with a stake in the government as a means of limiting the continuation of war.
Critics agree that dual sovereignty may complicate the conflict because of the competing means of acquiring state power (Nielsen, Findley and Davis 222). When the foreign aid directed to a nation facing civil war lands in the hands of the rebels, they tend to have the greater power to wage war. The civil war may take a long time to end especially when the international actors have a special interest in the nation experiencing civil war. Arguably, when the government receives foreign aid, it will not only have the ability to win the war, but also limit the number of possible civilian casualties. Players in the international scene tend to look at the foreign aid in terms of its possible effects especially in changing the lives of civilians as opposed to serving political interests (Goodhand 837). Nonetheless, when the foreign aid wrecks the peaceful coexistence in the nation, its withdrawal would be vital.
In countries where the foreign nations have vested interest, support to rebels has often been seen as a mechanism of prolonging the war while the foreign actors reap from the proceeds of war. Sub Saharan African countries are some of the nations that have plunged into civil war because of the dual sovereignty, which fuels the conflict, as opposed to limiting the duration of such conflict. Critics have demonstrated that if the government is receiving the foreign aid to serve as a military aid, it improves its grip over the nation. Largely, sustainable peace depends on international action during after the end of the conflict. For example, in the Sub Saharan Africa civil war results from socio-political conflicts that put the government and the rebels in different camps. These camps often depend on economic resources in expanding their political interest. Largely, in the absence of the economic resources, the warring sides often fail to advance their concerns.
Joshi argues that there is a correlation between foreign aid the GDP of the country (826). Such studies show that poor countries are the major beneficiary of foreign aid during peace and war. Interestingly, the donors do not harbor the idea of future conflict whenever they offer foreign aid to the poor countries. However, during conflicts various donors adapt various responses including limiting the aid to the government or to the rebels. Largely, the interplay between the rebels and the government define the prevalence of peace or war. Elsewhere, some authors have demonstrated that poor countries are likely to plunge into conflict that the rich nations. This finding tends to complicate the humanitarian response to the civil war. Nevertheless, donors might not lose confidence in their used in the right manner.
In conclusion, foreign aid has potential of fueling civil conflict in poor nations. The duration of the war often depends on the ability of the warring factions in the nation to amplify their socio-political interests. Largely, in the absence of aid, the government or the rebels lack the ability to sustain their interests. The consequence of this development is the reduction in the duration of the war. Arguably, the warring sides require the economic power to sustain their interest during the war. During the war, the government or the rebels fails to meet this requirement.
Works Cited
De Ree, Joppe and Nillesen, Eleonora. Aiding violence or peace? The impact of foreign aid on the risk of civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Development and Economics. 88, 2009, 301–313.
Goodhand, Jonathan. Aiding violence or building peace? The role of international aid in Afghanistan. Third World Quarterly, 2002, Vol. 23, No 5, pp 837–859.
Nielsen, A. Richard, Findley, G. Michael and Davis, S. Zachary. Foreign Aid Shocks as a Cause of Violent Armed Conflict. American Journal of Political Science 55(2), 219-232.
Joshi, M. “Post-Civil War Democratization: Promotion of Democracy in Post Civil War States, 1946–2005.” Democratization, 2010, 17:5, 826-855.
Kang, A. S., & Meernik, J. “Determinants of Post-Conflict Economic Assistance.” Journal of Peace Research, 2004, 41(2), 149-166.
