Political Economy: War and Humanitarianism. What would happen in a world war?

By Rocio Ferro Adams

Comment

Political Economy: war economy and humanitarianism.

International Assessment Summary at 17 April 2024

There are several media articles broadcasts which raise the question – What could we expect in World War III? No Government, nor any international institution has declared that the world has reached World War III status, but instead is confined to regional escalation and war, described also in terms of loss of life and increasing pressures to increase security and role for humanitarian agencies. In turn they describe personal more extreme insecurity during conflicts. What has raised political and public anxieties?

Some war and military policy thinktanks and international affairs journalist raise issues about a pending world war, about global vulnerabilities to attacks across borders, skies and underwater to communications cables – with potential damage to infrastructures across states and many thousands of people dead and wounding. War in both Europe and the Middle East in the form of the Israeli-Hamas and Russo-Ukraine wars have demonstrated tipping points of potential global escalation. These are largely treated as regional issues, that have regional solutions, but the international relations have included non-regional actors, the USA and UK who have political interests in the region of the Middle East to ensure stability for the global community.

Israel has been supported by allies in the Region, Jordan, Egypt, and by the UK and USA, who have intercepted retaliatory attacks since October 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel. These attacks from regional neighbour states Syria, Iran and Iraq, are related to factions which support Hamas, or who have associated groups living within their boarders, such as Hezbollah. Iran led a choreographed attack, but opinion is that it has not gained anything for Gaza but has instead raised its reputation with Iraq (RUSI Dr Hellyer and Dr Louise Kettle on ‘Is the Middle East Facing a Regional War?’). Iran being the strategic partner for a few nations in the Middle East in deterring Israel from further attacks or actions, but not for Western Allies. Iran has responded in a co-ordinated retaliation to Israeli airstrikes on its Embassy in Syria, by sending 350 armed drones to Jerusalem on 15 April 2024, with few ballistic missiles (possibly from Syria) getting through, (these have almost all been intercepted by Israel and through co-ordinated efforts with the USA, with neighbouring intelligence from the UAE and Saudi Arabia).[1] It is this war which is showing signs of incremental violence and conflict that has raised anxiety amongst the international community.

De-escalation could be achieved through recalibration of international relations and continuous discussion and diplomatic engagement, it is likely that more leverage could be used by the USA to change the behaviour of Israel in this conflict, to prevent further deaths. These attacks show signs of escalation, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have shared information with Israeli allies, where it has been said that the whole region could enter into war. The Abraham Accords were a way forward to normalising relations and this has had influence in diplomatic arrangements, where Saudi Arabia has been careful in its relationships in the region. International calls for restraint by Israel and Iran are being made, in the UK, diplomatic efforts continue with a clerical led Iran – Tehran continues to have dialogue with the UK.

UK security officials do not wish to turn the IRGC one of the most important Iranian resistance groups, a terrorist group, as communications and information about the conflict environment are vital to ensure some stability in the region. Condemnation of Iran has been wide spread, but there are different perspectives in the region and alliances to consider. China has also called on restraint, but sees this recent attack in terms of Iranian self defence [2]. At the same time 33,800 Palestinians are now dead, since October 2024, with Israel accused at the ICJ – ICC of disproportionate action and the increasing intent of genocide of Palestinian people for land in Gaza and the West Bank, evidenced through settler violence on Palestinian territory and Israeli political comment and Israeli government policy announcements about Palestinian people. The UN secretary General also accuses Israel of blocking aid, targeting aid workers, and causing famine, and the intended death of Palestinians.

The Facts -what evidence is there that supports the notion of incremental escalation

Case Study

On 15 April it was announced by OHCHR the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, that it believes that Israel has committed ‘domicide’ by using AI to target Palestinians in Gaza, and that Israel has committed acts of genocide and that this conflict is no longer about just attacking Hamas and rescuing hostages (many remain unreleased). The UN largely supports the international view that this war is now more about obtaining what is Palestinian territory, under a policy of “taking back Gaza”.[3] Condemnation of what took place on an Israeli population on 7 October remains high, but the response by Israel is largely understood by the international community to be disproportionate and documentation of atrocities means that there may be prosecutions for war crimes and genocide in the future. It is often the case that by law, that there should not be further support for Israel, that could further damage Palestinian people after the ICC statement on South Africa Vs Israel on 26 January 2024. Increasingly this has created the opportunity for more Israeli settlements on land which was not occupied, and which is considered designated land for Palestinians by the UN by previous international law and agreement. [4]

The UN could challenge Israel in the international courts by requesting land via a multilateral process. Egypt will be unhappy to give more than it can and Israel may continue to push against international law, but it is likely to loose international support, a single state solution is not trusted to contain Palestinian people safely under current threats and present treatment of civilians. Regime change would be necessary for a peaceful Palestinian settlement towards statehood. Rafha in Gaza has been hit by Israel with war planes and the IDF has pushed back into Northern Gaza, with tanks signalling war, rather than hostage recovery as the reason for the war now taking place. [5] Israel may seek to bring down the Iranian regime and it may believe that it would be supported by western allies, in exchange for more territory. Israel has confirmed that they will retaliate, just two days after the 15 April attacks by Iran, increasing the threat of war escalating in the region, which is likely to prompt further intervention from the USA, UK and France.[6] This would create another tipping point and amount to further escalation.

A World War would result in the redrawing of boundaries for the purpose of statehood, normally agreed under some form of allied group of nations who act as international arbiters. The Middle East region has not reached this state of conflict. No Government, nor any international institution has declared that the world has reached this level of conflict environment. However, Israelis are also becoming vulnerable and displaced due to the escalation of violent events – covered by the Jerusalem Post which is at times critical of the Israeli Government. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been very unpopular until the allied defence of Jerusalem on 15 April. There has been a shift in international support for the Prime Minister of Israel, with much greater international pressure on him to be restrained, and to enable aid into Gaza, where there are signs of famine. Some have accused allied support as not upholding the international rules based order, presumably choosing, in the old fashioned ‘way of warfare’ to support its friends, which observers claim weakens the international rules system by which peace is maintained. Some actions by Iran have therefore been argued to be reckless. Adding to this regional instability, there have also been signs of escalation of wars in other areas in the world which could in theory trigger a World War III.

Most surveillance of international relations has been conservative and contained about making statements which could suggest that we have reached a threshold, but larger parts of the world remain unaffected and there are a few significant shifts towards immediate war economy policies by some states. In fact you would expect to see incremental policy shifts overtime in a world war scenario (towards those outlined below). Existential threats (nuclear war) continue to be a real phenomena after the post-soviet era. Israel is one of 9 countries with nuclear weapons (USA, UK, Russia, France, China, North Korea, Pakistan and India) with Iran having the ‘potential’ to enrich uranium, it is unlikely that this threat is imminent from Iran, but possible. Iran has always tried to remain within the limits of monitored uranium enrichment (with sanctions applied). [7]

Some examples of countries that have reached higher thresholds of tension and conflict than normal include; Israel, Russia, and Ukraine, North Korea, where war economies are already in place. Amongst the EU countries, there have been policy statements to some degree by military experts and evidence of political incremental changes towards priority war economy planning. This can be found in Finland and Sweden. This re-shifting of alliances to NATO and policy statements by their governments about a security strategic position towards Russia, give a clear indication that Russia is not welcome on their territories and that it would face more than resistance, if confronted by a war, over any attempts to claim additional territory and resources for any wider conflict, or an Russian imperialist agenda. Finland has been culturally ready for some possible conflict with Russia since 1948 and it is continuing to strengthen its borders against Russia this year. [8]

All of the countries of the Northern European flank of NATO, have diverted resources to boost military spending in response to the war in Ukraine and increasing threats from Russia about European intervention in Ukraine. Norway has also, like Finland committed more money – $56bn towards military spending, after Finland’s called for more European military investment and further targeted responses to Russia’s aggression. [9]

These statements are no longer contained by diplomacy or politics. Since February 2022, neighbouring former Soviet states have been brought into support the Russian position including Belarus, which has accepted weapons on its state territories in response to increasing NATO and allied moves to boost its capacity and to accept Sweden and Finland into the Alliance, after Russia threatened these Northern Borders, in response to these countries’ condemnations of the attacks on Ukraine and the annexation of its territories. Military leaders from the Netherlands have expressed the likelihood of war with Russia within 5 years as high. Other European Union countries, such as Poland, Lithuania and Estonia, have also raised concerns that war with Russia, on similar timelines, is more likely now than before. It is therefore, not unreasonable to think about what these shifts in global alliances and structures mean, and are signalling.

When faced with the question, what worries ordinary people?

These events are outside the normality of ordinary people, but the realities of the possibilities of the impact of war are real. They may want to know what is happening and have clear communications, some people may not be aware what is happening and feel that it is too far away from home to worry about daily. But there have been questions in the popular press about conscription? What would happen to a general population at war and how do International Relations theorists and those providing surveillance of the conflict environment; in both the media, military, and security thinktanks (such as RUSI) and academia (war and security departments at international universities – at say Kings College, and LSE and military academies); perceive and assess the current situation to be? Kings College has a collection of monitory podcasts and The Royal Services Institute and Chatham House are producing academic surveillance on the international issues arising.

It is however, largely for governments and officials to respond, to co-ordinate policies and administer changes to adapt to the shift in current changes in World Order. But social forces can tip within a nation state, if citizens do not buy into the ideas, or trust policies agreed by parties to manage conflict, war and sometimes peace. Revisit Eastern Europe, such as the past and current situation in Kosovo, Serbia and relations with neighbouring states – these are less significant, but suffer moments of potential localised boarder and internal conflict – what can we learn from states reconstructed after war and their historical conflicts? This list must also include the the first and second Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (2020). (This is a good case study).

From a Political Economy perspective, we would expect some planning and public responses from state Governments and Global Institutions, as they either prepare, or respond diplomatically to the realities of conflict. At the heart of such assessments and planning, must be the prospect of proper equal protections for civilians (worldwide) and the most vulnerable, applied in international law. This is in addition to planning around war economy, economic recovery, reconstruction, and sustainability of resources, and basic services and the security of ordinary people.

What we already know from experience since 1945

A war economy during wartime, involves mobilising and allocating resources, to sustain violence. It may result in the production of a programme of allocation. States may increase the degrees of planning involved in such programmes and there is the introduction conscription for for civil defences (e.g Land Army and Bevan Boys), it can involve economic planning around Keynesian concepts, for miliary purposes, where military budgets stabilise business cycles. Supply chains are impacted and recession becomes a preoccupation. These programmes are country specific. Internationally there is predictable currency crisis, and expanding military forces. In terms of evidence of world war since 1945, only the USA has been continuously at war since September 11 and it has one of the largest miliary budgets in the world.

Historically, war economy (policies and planning, refocusing resources and investment), takes on a very specific arrangement between citizens, banking institutions and governments. State Banks protect and contain what is needed during war time. There may also be an acceptance of limitations to personal freedoms, these may be the rights and freedom to travel into certain areas; as there is restriction on fuel, transport and exposure to areas which are deemed dangerous. There may be conscription for the armed forces, protected jobs in teaching, nursing, medicine and transport and technology and farming and communications such as journalism and broadcasting. There is a large degree of change in jobs sectors, with closure of less essential areas often historical places, arts museums, and leisure facilities, as a war economy is driven by the need for human resources and ingenuity and skills, and technologies, directed towards fighting an aggressor.

Dan Reiker (2024) has produced some historical cases studies which are also helpful in examining the roots of World War I and the psychology of those who implement statecraft and then key events in World War II ( we can learn from experience and history, which gives us hope). What we would witness is typically a larger investment in the skills and education of armed personnel, trained to fight wars, educated in the international laws of combat and the operation of complex technologies, such as drones, robots and ballistic missiles. A permanent armed forces may see an expansion in its staff both armed and civil personnel, leading up to and during a conflict, in addition to the conscription of men and women. Technological expertise, engineers, and intelligence roles may increase to boost capacity. Governments will reorganise their civil servants, directed primarily towards a war effort.[ 10] Buildings and infrastructure (utility companies may be commissioned and rationed), confiscated possibly – even private property may be requested on behalf of the state or Crown for the purpose of fighting a war. Food, fuel, and human energy will be the most sought-after resources, along with safe places where some normality can exist for those not fighting a war, such as women and children and those in key roles. There are fewer goods and services, as wars tend to spill over into neighbouring areas. Trade is often disrupted, limiting essential goods, foods, fuel, and medicines.

Today, cyber security and technologies in military hardware may be of more significant importance for intelligence communications and sypher, and code, as well as the skills to build equipment using and replacing old and new technologies – increasing the rapid transfer of information and not known to a wider civilian population. You would therefore expect to see an increase in intelligence work, gathering, and decoding, as well as other surveillance techniques. The ability to work quickly and flexibly and in different languages remain an essential part of the skills necessary for an intelligence community to contribute to a war effort.

State resources begin to be diverted resources into military expenditure on hardware (tanks, missiles, and surveillance technology). Overtime this becomes a more intensive drain on a state, and allies, with resources diverted from bare services. But this is a phased processes and this is not felt immediately. It can take years for a war economy to recover, decades in fact and reconstruction is always essential along with the continuous application of international law. There may be military trails during and after a war and decommissioning of soldiers who must be reintegrated into society; into past or present roles to help build a new economy for the future and to return to loved ones. Large scale world wars would involve the UN and international agencies, who can provide humanitarian relief and organise war crimes investigations.

During reconstruction, there may be specific priorities on spending due to a limited budget; with more limited social and civil society support for education and enrichment activities, which promote wellbeing at first, but schools may remain open, hospitals and doctors, teachers and farmers may take on an important role in building back the nation.

There is a greater emphasis also on humanitarian approaches to war, for instance to be critical of corruption and attacks on civilians, and to be aware of the types of state conflict models which exist which may make humanitarian relief less successful or reconstruction more difficult. There are more rules and models and law which govern and dictate the way that humanitarian approaches to war, should be implemented and humanitarian support, advice and resourcing provided to nations – the conditions are monitored to avoid capture by states already deep in conflict draining resources and agreements for self-interested purposes that simply disincentivise the aim of achieving peace – war cannot be a perpetual existence for humans to thrive.

What sort of pressure might Humanitarian Agencies experience in a World War? The Overseas Development Institute Humanitarian Policy Group have provided in the past important reports that monitor changes in this field and their documents continue to be important contributions to this field of critical thinking about war relief. [9] However, there are tensions about agencies remaining neutral when in war, some perceive it more difficult to remain completely neutral and the documents published by Phillippe Le Billon and others such as Joanna Macrae, Nick Leader and Roger East in July 2000 outline the challenges Aid Agencies and relief agencies face when developing policies – there are risks and realities of which they are aware in the field during war time and during reconstruction. Theirs’ is a valuable and insightful contribution that should remain relevant for many more years. [11]

Why war economy planning falls within the study of international political economy and security studies in international relations.

There are various definitions of Political Economy applied by both economists and political science. To political scientists it is an inter-disciplinary subject which focuses on political and economic critical understanding of policies which impact state economies and people. It uses the application of policy choices by governments and their results and assessments. There are academics that study and write on war finance, and war economies that look to establishing peace. Some of this work is both current and historical, for instance Murray Wolfson, since before 1985 on the Cold War war economy, Paul Poast (University of Chicago 2024 publications), Rosella Capella (University of Boston 2024 Publications), and Dan Reiter present and historical publications on case studies (Emory University).

War economy is a key component of research studies in this field, in addition to the topic of finance, economic solutions, the role of democratic institutions and the power of political parties and governments to create change; there are aspects of the subject which include human equality theories, that through state infrastructures; access to employment, provision of social policies, and planning around state banking systems and the use of regulatory systems to achieve a balanced and stable system – so at this stage more can be done to refine a war economy plan through thought and theory. This is done in order (in theory), for the state to provide services to citizens, via a variety of economic and state models (often democratic systems, but can include the study of communist systems and the consequences of those models on people), but there is no specified moment when a war economy comes into force, or when planning should begin.

War Economy Environment

Leaders are more likely to start conflicts. Historically Political Leaders matter, their personalities, psychology (their physical and mental health), values, decisions and ideology influence moments to make war and peace. (Planned visits, meetings, negotiations). For researchers uptodate statements provide information about political positions before and during conflict). [12]
Political Parties are the power source for leadership, policy solutions and political power in politics and international relations, that shape economic decisions. Popularity of parties must remain reasonably strong for political leaders to remain in power. Unpopular governments or leaders can lose power, impacting the direction of a war.
It is a fast-changing environment, where there are strict controls on state Finances, military expenditure and re-prioritisation on spending; legislation making on topics such as tax raising powers. The state would consider protecting key work sectors in legislation.
Institutions are important and are protected, created or renewed during a war economy for the specific purpose of targeted war effort e.g. health services, military and government services. Taxation remains a means of raising war revenues. Measures are specific and targeted, but also an electoral compromise for politicians even during war time. See Paul Poast’s (2024) case study in Dan Reiter Edition ‘Understanding War and Peace’, on war taxation on redistribution trade-offs, between private investments and consumption and military purchases, “butter vs guns trade-offs”. Some areas of investment may cease or stagnate for the duration of a war. [14 ] Unpopular taxation can also compromise future election wins for a political party. Government access to finance (credit) and lower interest rates can influence a war, and its outcomes and the subsequent debt incurred by engaging in conflict.
Countries continue to trade whilst at war, such as in the case of the present Russo-Ukraine war. Trade dovetails with peace and co-operation and interdependence, but extreme competition can lead to further war. Further escalation of conflict risks include illicit smuggling of goods and people. This results in a breakdown of regulatory state measures and the ability to recover the normal tariffs (costs) of trading goods, encouraging perverse crime on people, fraud, human trafficking, coercive work structures and slavery for forced labour.
Governments work towards ensuring control measures to avoid this chaos. Government administration and officials are reorganised for the purpose of implementing new and preventative structures, policies and legislation, e.g. during World War 1 the USA introduced the War Revenue Act 1917 and The UK the Revenue Act 1916. The UK also introduced the Revenue Acts of 1942 and 1943. The USA also introduced the First Revenue Act in 1940 and a victory tax.
Across the world. Humanitarian relief is compromised, and targeted by a governments military forces or internal criminal groups. Clientelism and cynicism towards aid develops, and flows are disrupted and redistributed differently, but not to those most in need. There is widespread famine and disease in total wars. Death tolls increase.

Key questions and topics for consideration

How to protect resources and provide fair access to a population? Trade and transportation in international relations remains important in war time. Open and free trade will be desirable and lead to better growth and prosperity, but over competition can drive imperialism and war agendas. International regulation and state regulation remains an important means of reducing the risk of commercial interests overtaking government regulation.
To identify and protect the most vulnerable, by ensuring provision of some state support through welfare or aid, rationing (e.g to reduce inflation during WW II but not WWI ), education, war PPE e.g. gas or biological warfare, medicines, transport, food, and safety, and access to information and employment guidelines – pay for instance and taxation rules for employers on income tax may change.
How to protect state infrastructure from attack, such as nuclear power stations, gas and fuel depots and solar and wind power provisions, on land and underwater (the surveillance and protection of internet cables and other assets).
Movement of people and evacuation plans for populations. (Advice on how to respond to nuclear fallout and other general medical advice). This may involve prioritising and reorganising the health service, with plans and communications for the public, and clinical and clerical practitioners in the NHS.
Advice on conscription in all the Armed Forces (and payment to citizens) and listed work available in support of a war effort in guidelines from government, commerce, media, health, schools and transport and farming – agricultural businesses. There may be regional military co-operation through NATO or the European Security arrangements put in place since 2017, aimed at a future European Security Army. Brexit implies independence for the UK from some arrangements, but not from NATO and it is participating in the European Security framework, but may wish to treat its involvement in conflict on a case-by-case basis. The UK under Brexit is no longer part of Europol. Dealing with hybrid warfare and exchange of information about crime across Europe, would need to be considered under some arrangement to cover UK interests.
Public Broadcasting and News Paper Controls. And detailed communications for armed personnel and their families and the general public. There may be more embedded journalist in the field and remote reporting via video link something not see during WWII. (Instant communications and video footage).
Regular Government updates through press statements, is something the public would also expect. Covid-19 provides an example of how governments can provide regular update and to the public on public broadcasting forums.
Reorganisation of Government Departments, Cabinets and Committees and Parliamentary Committees would most likely happen. (e.g. a New Security and War Economy & Finance Committee). There may be a need for greater borrowing e.g. through issuance of Bonds and Government rising debt may become a problem later down the road of conflict – taxation has limitations and increasing interest rates can cause problems. New resolutions would need to be found within the international Banking Regime.
Advice for local councils, local service providers and of course contingency plans issued.
Advice to Parliamentarians on their roles, which may include adapting where they work and their location, the hours they work and how they work to deliver government business.
Acquisition or ‘new use’, by ‘new law’ of buildings, state infrastructure, transport and recycling, and technologies for military and non-military and military purposes; requiring new legislation for Parliaments to enact. The consequences of changes in law on individual liberties, families, children and the most vulnerable (those with disabilities and the elderly and the health very young babies and children) should be considered.
Tendering for military contracts and then an agreed monopoly market for a period of time, in advanced weapons systems and technologies (watch for rent seeking and patronage behaviours amongst companies seeking political patronage).(See Paul Poast’s Chapter on The Economics of War in Dan Reiter 2024). Governments may enter into a dual or monopoly arrangements on military contracts, without perfect competition.
It is more likely that NATO countries will be asked to commit more funds over time on military expenditure. But governments will tend to borrow highly and cheaper finance may not be an option, leading to high levels of government debt. (Access to affordable finance can help end or win a war, but does not guarantee a desired outcome alone. The lack of monies to fund conflict can also end a war).

How can theories in Political Economy help focus discussions?

History, cultures, and customs of nations give way to theories of economic systems and interactions, which can include rooted class systems and power structures in societies. International political economy looks at how international relations shape global economic interactions and promotes the idea that globalism and global trade means that economics and politics of one country and other government decisions do impact other countries. This was known as the political economy of international relations (IPE), prior to globalisation on a large scale and the construction of global networks, in greater intensity, into global mega constructions of international institutions and trade.

Traditional political economy is rotted in the Frankfurt School in the late 1800s- 1948 and Keynesian ideas and models. It was developed by the Chicago School from the 1950s and has continued to thrive as an interdisciplinary subject in political sciences across universities worldwide. Political Economy therefore touches on public choice theories, government bureaucracy and administration, the consequences of theories and policies and the applications of several related political science theories. It also has a practical application in assessing the role and significance of state agencies, international institutions, and NGOs, and the third sector, governance and economic models for sustainability and global perspectives on trade and commerce, and even health which, as we experienced with Covid-19 in 2020-2022, has had a huge impact on economic recovery and has produced political fallout in getting to understand what went right and what went wrong.

Reviewing the experience of the Covid-19 pandemic can have an impact on the way the global economy is restructured for recovery and individual state economic planning for the future. This is largely done through international organisations at an international and global level, by the IMF and World Bank and state forecasting agencies and State Banks and their individual Governments.

Importantly the significance of regulatory systems; covering food, trade, consumer goods and services, and critically the role of civil society – international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and regulation of goods (e.g. tariff structures) remain part of IPE. In humanitarian terms this may include subjects such as fair trade and fair access to services such as health and education, sustainable production, and sound environmental policies. There may be a dual economy market, during war time, where it is important to consider how much is invested in war and the ‘butter’ as Paul Poast (2024) outlines, that there are trade offs, and people need basic goods to survive and work. Monopoly on military and non-military goods may develop, which has cost implications for governments, therefore regulation of those markets becomes important. But this is just political economy of the state. In a planned and strategic ‘war economy’, you would expect to see international co-operation, diplomacy, and co-operation. There is some evidence of this critical approach in Europe with European funds for state recovery planning after covid and in the UK with the Covid-19 Inquiry.

There are several other considerations which are about the security of the nation, where there could be weaknesses in both infrastructure and a need for advice and expertise, but also for a need, for secrecy, speed, efficiency, and flexibility. War Cabinets at the heart of government are normal, along with better investment and administrative communications planning and awareness of official security enforcing hierarchies; limiting the possibility of information being leaked and that getting into the wrong hands (the enemy). The Security Services that exist within most nations are secretive and protected for good reasons, due to the sensitivity of their work. It would be expected that there would be tighter security arrangements on documents, information, conversations at the heart of government, including Cabinets and their committees, where the intelligence services can disseminate their reports safely and report back on intelligence gathered. Their operations can be essential in winning a war of information, with positioning, strategy, and targeted surveillance. Most democratic nations and European nations invest in national security departments, and during war time recruitment is specific, targeted, and vital; open minded to seek widely and to find a nations very best minds.

Military security is for the armed forces and the Navy and Airforce such as those attached to NATO to manage and co-ordinate military operations, but they can overlap in some situations where it is necessary to limit external contact, where there are limited resources, or where their skills are better suited to intelligence work. A mix of skills and backgrounds have always contributed to fast and efficient thinking and problem-solving ideas in war times. A war economy fits in both these areas of political sciences – there is a combination of both political economy and security analysis in international relations which enables a nation to be outward looking, and this is where I would be tempted to put the subject of a planned war economy in political sciences.

A humanitarian and ethical approach to war is vital.

Without some critical thinking about how war impacts real people and consideration for the hope of reconstruction, and repair of damage caused by war and to make them into real hope and dreams for a future, by investing in a nation, that then becomes more difficult in achieving political success, if strategies are weakened. It is vital that a war economy plan is not subject to infiltration, leaks, external influence and one that could be driven primarily by the advancement of careers, then the subject of business favours and corruption, or capture by an external power. These moments cause states to weaken before and after a conflict has taken place. And it is tied for the duration of a war to contracts which are of limited value, costly, politically, and morally (by international law) compromising to a nation’s future security.

There are ethics of war and therefore international humanitarian law must apply to combatants, non-combatants, the vulnerable such as the, elderly and children who should not be brought into conflict, but protected by humanitarian arrangements – protected from famine, death and poor security, shelter and wherever possibly safety. Culturally a nation will want to protect its customs and cultural identity – art works, language, heritage, and education, through schools and universities and its media and broadcasting, protected from propaganda and false information. Nations of people have a right to self-determination, self-protection and to have cultural protection for all and consideration of ethnic minorities and the most vulnerable during war.

States are bound by Treaties during war, international humanitarian law, international conventions and laws of war and engagement. They may enter new Treaties or obligations and my sign new International Conventions before, during and after a conflict. Parliaments continue to be the place for legal and political discussions, the judiciary and legal opinion remain vital to a healthy democracy. Human Rights would continue to be significant and its application in law important.

One key issue remains around what peace can be driven by theories of nuclear disarmament, in security and humanitarian studies. There is still hope that no more countries will enrich uranium to produce nuclear warheads to limit the damage which could be caused by a nuclear war. Here Pugwash and Academics in the field of Peace Studies during the ‘hottest’ moments of war, where there is an escalation of nuclear threats by nations, have much to contribute to the discussions. Does nuclear deterrence work? Those nations armed say – Yes, which is not always consistent with notions of regional stability through nuclear disarmament and the 1968/2003 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the most recent global approach to Peace through disarmament by Convention. With 190 signatory states worldwide, and new approaches agreed by signatory nations (mostly the global south) within the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which came into force in 2021; these do signal attempts at a new approach for World Peace. To seek to balance the argument, that not all nations support the use of nuclear weapons as a means to peace, that they also have a global voice and a place at the table of global politics.

Nuclear disarmament could change world dynamics and relations between states. The risks are otherwise, too great, and we could simply see the realities of the thinking described by such ingenuity of that of Hans J Morgenthau, ‘The Four Paradoxes of Nuclear Strategy’ (1964), producing unimaginable destruction.[15] Stockpiling of weapons, suggesting advantage and power, by one state over another, through ‘the competition of advantage’. The creation of new Cold War narratives, would therefore simply be the only option.

For now, regional problems, wars and conflicts must have regional and local solutions, to avoid further conflict, the rules-based system by which all states must abide must be protected for future generations.

[1] Urban Coningham 15 April 2024 Pulling Punches: Iran’s Failed Offensive Against Israel | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org) Also listen to Episode 74: Is the Middle East Facing a Regional War? | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

[2] Gabrielle Weiniger 16 April 2024 Hezbollah launches more drones as Israel debates response to Iran attack (thetimes.co.uk)

[3] OHCHR – UN Office Commissioner for Human Rights 15 April 2024 Gaza: UN experts deplore use of purported AI to commit ‘domicide’ in Gaza, call for reparative approach to rebuilding | OHCHR

[4] The Guardian online. James Burke in Jerusalem, 17 April 2024. Revealed: Israel has sped up settlement-building in East Jerusalem since Gaza war began | Israel | The Guardian

[5] Reuters Online by Nidal al-Mughrabi. Israeli tanks push back into northern Gaza, warplanes hit Rafah, say residents (msn.com)

[6] Toi Staff, The Times of Israel 17 April 2024. After meeting Herzog, UK’s Cameron says it’s clear Israel will respond to Iran attack | The Times of Israel

[7] Nuclear Weapons – Our World in Data

[8] Associated Press, Jari Tanner 4 April 2024. Finland will keep its border with Russia closed until further notice over migration concerns (msn.com)

[9] Background research. A Historical visit to Bletchley Park covering pre-war moments and1939-1945 Bletchley Park | Home Rocio Ferro-Adams 2024. Also online historical research at the Imperial War Museum and visits to Imperial War Museums (iwm.org.uk) Behind the Enigma, the authorised history of GCHQ, By John Ferris, Bloomsbury, describes the historical work of the intelligence agencies during war.

[9] Reuters online. Norway plans $56 billion defence boost to counter Russia (msn.com)

[10] The Political Economy of War: An Annotated Bibliography – HPG Reports 1 – Bibliography and literature reviews (odi.org)

[11] Philippe le Billon (with Joanna Macrae, Nick Leader and Roger East) 1 July 2000, The Political Economy of War: What Relief Agencies Need to Know | Humanitarian Practice Network (odihpn.org)

[13] Dan Reiter Ed, Understanding War and Peace, Cambridge University Press, 2024, pages 172-3. He also states that world wars were paid for by both taxation and debt. Also see The cost of war – UK Parliament

[14] ibid, page 192. Paul Poast states that World War I cost the USA $600bn at 2012 prices for 2 years and one year of war demobilisation. World War II cost the USA $5.5tn at 2020 prices in four years, page 192, taxation case study. Income tax was collected during WW1 and WWII, and taxes rose. The cost of war – UK Parliament, and U.S. Tax History Timeline: Class to Mass Tax During World War II (taxnotes.com)

[15] The Four Paradoxes of Nuclear Strategy, Hans J Morgenthau, The American Political Science Review, Vol 58. No.1 March 1964. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1952752

Bibliography

Paul Poast Understanding War and Peace – Google Books, Chapter 6 the Economics of War, Cambridge University Press, page175-203.

Charles Cater, political_economy.pdf (ipinst.org) International Peace Academy 2002 Seminar Paper.

Rosella Cappella (Zielinski) How States Pay for Wars. Cornell University Press, 2016. How States Pay for Wars – Rosella Cappella Zielinski – Google Books

Rosella Cappella-Zielinski and Kaij Schilde in European-Russian Power Relations in Turbulent Times, 2021, pages 29-58, Chapter Two, European Military Power Institutional Legacies and External Threat in EU Defence Co-operation. The University of Michigan Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.10202357.4

Robert Giplin, The Political Economy of International Relations, Princeton University Press 1987.

Flores-Macías, Gustavo A., and Sarah E. Kreps. “Borrowing Support for War: The Effect of War Finance on Public Attitudes toward Conflict.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 61, no. 5 (2017): 997–1020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26363915.

John Maynard Keynes. How to pay for the war. 1940.

Murray Wolfson, The Political Economy of War and Peace | SpringerLink, 1998.

Murray Wolfson. How to Pay for the War. A Practical Scheme for increasing our foreign trade. 1915.

Dan Reiter Ed, Understanding War and Peace, Cambridge University Press, 2024.

Wilfred Stokes. How to Pay for the War. A Practical Scheme for increasing foreign trade. 2009 Harper Press publishing. How to Pay for the War: A Practical Scheme for Improving our Foreign Trade : Wilfrid, Stokes: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Political Economy: War and Humanitarianism. What would happen in a world war?

Share this:

Leave a comment Cancel reply