Over three billion people live off of less than $2.50 every day. With over half the world's population struggling to make ends meet, closer research shows that many of these people reside in developing nations. In these countries, almost all are currently war zones, leaving the question: What is the connection between warfare and poverty? This idea comes from researching various countries who are both considered developing and are fighting wars at the same time, in order to determine the relationship between the two. Poverty and war are two problems often intertwined in the same country. There is a huge connection between war and poverty, including the sale of ammunition, relationships between third and first world countries, and huge military
…show more content…
Guns have a long lifespan, so when other countries export them they can still be around for many years after. For example, countries gave firearms to Africa during the Cold War and 639 million guns are still circulating around the globe today and contributing “to political chaos and civil wars that block development and cause enormous human suffering” (Avery). These weapons kill over 300,000 people every year many of them women and children who couldn't afford to leave their homes and move to a safer places without violence and civil wars. Had they had the help, money, and support these countries need, thousands of innocent lives could be saved and possibly even civil wars avoided all together in the first place. A country caught in a civil war has much greater chances of stopping advancement and more likely to fall prey to poverty. Two African countries, Burundi and Burkina Faso, both had very similar rates of economic growth until Burundi broke into a civil war during the 1990s. By the end of the civil war, Burundi had over 300,000 deaths and Burkina Faso's economy was two and a half times richer (The Economist). Had Burundi not been divided by civil war, it is highly possible that their economy would be stable and it would not be considered third world. War introduces death and poverty into a country, draining …show more content…
A rebel leader once quoted that “life is so cheap, it pays to rebel” emphasizing that due to the dramatic situation he and his country were in, he felt compelled to take drastic actions in an attempt to create a better life because when you have nothing to loose, it's not hard to risk it all. When people are unhappy and do not have the necessary sources to live, they often feel forced to turn to,”strategies that may also include fighting, looting, support for armed groups and participation in illegal activities” (Justino). Even if the country isn't broken out into a full blown civil war, violence rates do go up as the people attempt to support themselves since their government is unable to do so. Many of these countries also feel as civil wars are their only option due to the fact they want a change in government that is not happening. People sign up for wars to have their voice heard and grievances solved (Justino). If their government had already solved their country's problem of poverty and allowed everyone access to education, jobs, healthcare, happiness, and natural basic rights, the people may not have turned on their governments system avoiding many wars
Guns have a long lifespan, so when other countries export them they can still be around for many years after. For example, countries gave firearms to Africa during the Cold War and 639 million guns are still circulating around the globe today and contributing “to political chaos and civil wars that block development and cause enormous human suffering” (Avery). These weapons kill over 300,000 people every year many of them women and children who couldn't afford to leave their homes and move to a safer places without violence and civil wars. Had they had the help, money, and support these countries need, thousands of innocent lives could be saved and possibly even civil wars avoided all together in the first place. A country caught in a civil war has much greater chances of stopping advancement and more likely to fall prey to poverty. Two African countries, Burundi and Burkina Faso, both had very similar rates of economic growth until Burundi broke into a civil war during the 1990s. By the end of the civil war, Burundi had over 300,000 deaths and Burkina Faso's economy was two and a half times richer (The Economist). Had Burundi not been divided by civil war, it is highly possible that their economy would be stable and it would not be considered third world. War introduces death and poverty into a country, draining …show more content…
A rebel leader once quoted that “life is so cheap, it pays to rebel” emphasizing that due to the dramatic situation he and his country were in, he felt compelled to take drastic actions in an attempt to create a better life because when you have nothing to loose, it's not hard to risk it all. When people are unhappy and do not have the necessary sources to live, they often feel forced to turn to,”strategies that may also include fighting, looting, support for armed groups and participation in illegal activities” (Justino). Even if the country isn't broken out into a full blown civil war, violence rates do go up as the people attempt to support themselves since their government is unable to do so. Many of these countries also feel as civil wars are their only option due to the fact they want a change in government that is not happening. People sign up for wars to have their voice heard and grievances solved (Justino). If their government had already solved their country's problem of poverty and allowed everyone access to education, jobs, healthcare, happiness, and natural basic rights, the people may not have turned on their governments system avoiding many wars