or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Follow-up of Steve's Global Peace Index post |
ETWolverine |
06/01/07 |
I have now read the report. Thanks, Steve, for the link to the report.
Here's my take on it.
The Global Peace Index report put out by Visions of Humanity makes certain assumptions about what constitutes “peace” that are not necessarily true.
The report used 24 separate indicators of what constitutes peace, each quantified, translated to a 1-5 score and then given a weight within the overall index. The problem is that not all of the indicators used necessarily mean what the report assumes they mean. For instance, the report looks at the number of guns per 100,000 people as an indicator of “internal militarism” and “crime”, when in fact the opposite may be true… gun ownership may very well be a deterrent to both crime and internal militarism. Another example: the percentage of GDP used to support the military is considered an indicator of militarism, when in fact a strong military may be a deterrent to other countries making war against them. The number of population jailed per 100,000 might actually be an indicator of decreasing crime rather than an indicator of violence. And why is the indicator “Potential for terrorist acts” given the LOWEST weight of any indicator in the list? Terrorism would seem to me to be the single greatest threat to world peace in the modern era.
The indicators are as follows:
Indicator---------------------------------Weight (1-5)
Level of distrust in others--------------------4
Number of internal security
officers per 100,000 people------------------3
Number of homicides per 100,000 people---------4
Number of jailed population per 100,000--------3
Ease of access to weapons of minor destruction--3
Level of organized conflict (internal)---------5
Likelihood of violent demonstrations-----------3
Level of violent crime-------------------------4
Political instability--------------------------4
Respect for human rights-----------------------4
Volume of transfers of major weapons
as recipient per 100,000-----------------2
Potential for terrorist acts-------------------1
Number of deaths from organized conflict-------5
Military expenditures as a percentage of GDP---2
Number of armed services personnel
per 100,000 people---------------------------2
UN Deployments 2006-07
(percentage of total forces)-----------------4
Aggregate number of heavy weapons
per 100,000 people---------------------------3
Volume of transfers of major weapons
as supplier per 100,000----------------------2
Military capability/sophistication-------------2
Number of displaced people as a
percentage of population---------------------4
Relations with neighboring countries-----------5
Number of external and internal
conflicts fought: 2000-05--------------------5
Estimated number of deaths from
organized conflict (external)----------------5
Furthermore, the report tries to combine indicators of external war, internal war and crime into a single index. However, this ignores the fact that the reasons for each are different, and thus cannot be dealt with as a single item. Bringing an end to external war in a specific country will not necessarily end crime or internal conflict within that country. Lowering crime will not necessarily bring an end to war, either internal or external. To try to deal with all of these issues under the single banner of “peace” is naïve and shows a lack of understanding of what causes crime, war and internal conflict.
Finally, this report does nothing to state whether a specific war is or is not necessary. Nobody would rightly argue that defeating Hitler in WWII was a “bad” thing or that the war should not have been fought. Peace was not as desirable as victory against Hitler in that case. There have been other ‘righteous’ wars in the past as well… the war to free Kuwait from invasion by Iraq is a good example. Stating that armed conflict is bad without putting the conflict into context is naïve and not very useful to establishing true world peace.
For these reasons, I find the Global Peace Index report to be lacking in substantive information that can be used to bring peace. While it is an interesting attempt to quantify “peace” I believe that it fails in its goals of defining and quantifying peace and determining the indicators of peace.
What's your take?
Elliot |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
