01 Jun Global Peace Index
The Economist Intelligence Unit has released its new “Global Peace Index,” which ranks 120 nations according to their relative peacefulness. The organization based the rankings on 24 peacefulness indicators, divided into three categories: (1) measures of ongoing domestic and international conflict, such as the number of external and internal conflicts fought between 2000 and 2005, the estimated number of deaths from external and internal conflicts, and relations with neighbouring countries; (2) measures of societal safety and security, ranging from the level of distrust in other citizens to the level of respect for human rights and the rate of homicides and violent crimes; and (3) measures of militarisation, such as military expenditure as a percentage of GDP and number of armed services personnel per 100,000 people.
Here are the 25 most peaceful nations in the world, according to the Index:
1 Norway 1.357
2 New Zealand 1.363
3 Denmark 1.377
4 Ireland 1.396
5 Japan 1.413
6 Finland 1.447
7 Sweden 1.478
8 Canada 1.481
9 Portugal 1.481
10 Austria 1.483
11 Belgium 1.498
12 Germany 1.523
13 Czech Republic 1.524
14 Switzerland 1.526
15 Slovenia 1.539
16 Chile 1.568
17 Slovakia 1.571
18 Hungary 1.575
19 Bhutan 1.611
20 Netherlands 1.620
21 Spain 1.633
22 Oman 1.641
23 Hong Kong 1.657
24 Uruguay 1.661
25 Australia 1.664
And here are the 25 least peaceful:
96 USA 2.317
97 Iran 2.320
98 Honduras 2.390
99 South Africa 2.399
100 Philippines 2.428
101 Azerbaijan 2.448
102 Venezuela 2.453
103 Ethiopia 2.479
104 Uganda 2.489
105 Thailand 2.491
106 Zimbabwe 2.495
107 Algeria 2.503
108 Myanmar 2.524
109 India 2.530
110 Uzbekistan 2.542
111 Sri Lanka 2.575
112 Angola 2.587
113 Cote d’Ivoire 2.638
114 Lebanon 2.662
115 Pakistan 2.697
116 Colombia 2.770
117 Nigeria 2.898
118 Russia 2.903
119 Israel 3.033
120 Sudan 3.182
121 Iraq 3.437
Such rankings are bound to be controversial — especially when the U.S. comes in one place higher than Iran. Here is what the EIU has to say about its methodology, which it freely admits is open to challenge:
The difficulties in defining the concept of peace may partly explain why there have been so few attempts to measure states of peace across nations.
This project has approached the task on two fronts — the first aim is to produce a scoring model and global peace index that ranks 120 nations by their relative states of peace using 24 indicators. The indicators have been selected as being the best available datasets that reflect the incidence or absence of peace, and contain both quantitative data and qualitative scores from a range of trusted sources. The second aim is to use the underlying data and results from the Global Peace Index to begin an investigation into the relative importance of a range of potential determinants or “drivers” that may influence the creation and nurturance of peaceful societies, both internally and externally.
As with all indexes of this type, there are issues of bias and arbitrariness in the factors that are chosen to assess peacefulness and, even more seriously, in assigning weights to the different indicators (measured on a comparable and meaningful scale) to produce a single synthetic measure.
Readers? What do you think?
I’ll tell you what I think, all right. The United States is, as Martin Luther King said, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” It belongs on the very bottom of the Global Peace Index. Can you handle the truth, America?
I’m curious if they cound peacekeeping operations against countries. Though the militarization thing seems somewhat peripheral, in that they already account for actual fighting. There’s nothing inherently warlike about having a large army – in fact if it deters potential aggressors it can promote peace.
Aside from (1), the criteria don’t really seem related to peace at all. Perhaps they should label it something like quality of life or freedom from violence or something?
Of course, considering Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn’t expect to be considered all that peaceful. Considering we’ve been the aggressor in the two most recent wars, why are we not lower? What are Myanmar and Uzbekistan doing all the way down there?
The ranking is ludicrous. Countries that have had weeks of uncontrollable rioting (France) — or that assassinate their own politicians and export military aid to those killing civilians in neighboring countries (Syria) — rank significantly above the United States? Countries like Japan and Germany get credit for peace largely because their military aggression (in living memory) was crushed and then constitutionally forbidden? If all that counts as peace, I prefer to focus on more useful metrics. Neville Chamberlain’s rather infamous 1938 speech illustrates the folly of seeking peace with too little consideration of other factors.
If we’re in a quantitative mood, here’s a postworthiness index: score, which measures probability of posting, as a function of (a) whether the news shows New Zealand in a favorable light, and (b) whether it shows the United States in a poor light. Which is okay, I think, since a lot of each are otherwise neglected.
Joking aside, the index seems a little peculiar. For example, it puts greater weight (60%) on internal (e.g., homicide rates, percentage incarcerated) than on external measures. And on the external front, it counts against peacefulness not just warmaking and aggressive acts, but also things that may be purely defensive or deterrence-oriented — militarization, as someone said above — so “peace” may equate with pacifism. Unless I misread, it also counts against a state whether it participates in multilateral (including UN, AU, etc.) deployments.
On balance, I tend to to think that improving a powerful nation’s peacefulness rank — though good in many respects, both in terms of homicides and wars of aggression — might, if done the wrong way, be inversely correlated with maintaining world peace.
If I were in a quantitative mood I would track how many of Professor Heller’s posts have NOTHING to do with international law and EVERYTHING to do with anti-Americanism.
In fact, I will start now:
Not IL (1), IL based (0)
Bonus category – anti-American (1)
I’m sure Professor Heller can well acquit himself, but I find your accusation wholly without merit and more than a little tendentious. Pray tell, what do you mean by “anti-Americanism”? Under any possible definition that I can think of I can’t see how Professor Heller’s posts have been “anti-American.” In addition to the subject matter of the index itself (cf. treatises on international law from its origins into the contemporary period, and across the political spectrum), not a few of the above categorical indices touch upon issues directly or by implication related to both international law and politics, and thus are appropriate to a blog “dedicated to reports, commentary, and debate on current developments and scholarship in the fields of international law and politics.”
Lighten up, maybe. FWIW, I was amused by the bold font more than anything, and thought the post was completely blogworthy and appropriate. Peacefulness is a useful thing to try to measure, and it’s not surprising that a state with “peace through strength” as an occasional platform/policy won’t do too well on a broad assessment like this. Of course, the odd war or two isn’t going to help either — nor, apparently, are high levels of violent crime and imprisonment as a policy response.
As to the relation with formal international doctrine, it is an interesting one that I hadn’t really focused on. The law on use of force draws some sharp lines between being subject to armed attack and virtually everything else. Do indices like this suggest that we should stop treating armed attack, and the possible use of force in response thereto, as being so singular?
My thanks to Ed and Patrick. As for “NewStream Dream” — you might want to re-read the description of the blog. Last I checked it said that Opinio Juris is “[a] weblog dedicated to reports, commentary, and debate on current developments and scholarship in the fields of international law and politics.” Something tells me most people would conclude that a global peace index qualifies as “international politics”…
Professor Heller and Patrick, Why highlight the U.S. in bold? Last time I checked the blog is not for current developments in anti-Americanism. Why not highlight Iran? As far as Patrick’s comments go, there has to be some line between pointing out the U.S.’s flaws and rampet anti-Americanism. I concede that it is really hard to draw that line, and even more difficult to articulate, but I think Professor Heller simply crosses that line all the time. The majority of his posts have nothing to do with international law, and the only “politics” is to find some study in which he highlights the U.S. as either a global villan or false-prophet of global equality. He NEVER points out the other side, like the recent study of how Germans are flooding into the U.S. due to the lack of opportunity in their home country. Is America perfect, far from it. But I find Professor Heller to be no better than a well-educated Vargold, see the first post. The vast human rights abuses in Venezuela (nothing on this board recently about that country that I can remember), China, Russia not to mention the daily violence committed against women in most Muslim countries,… Read more »
TNSD, You can’t accuse Professor Heller of crossing “that line all the time” if you cannot articulate precisely what you mean by “anti-Americanism” (i.e., you can’t define the line in the first instance). However hard it is to decide where to draw the line, you first need to have at least have some prior idea of what that line is. I understand rampant anti-Americanism as an ideology unremittingly hostile to the Constitution of the United States, including the values and principles found in its Preamble as well those expressed or implied in the rest of the document. These principles and values frequently revolve around questions of democratic theory and practice, in which case Professor Heller does not write posts hostile to such values and principles (or in any way advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government or the abandonment of its founding charter). In short, Professor Heller does not display anything remotely resembling “anti-Americanism.” It is simply not true that the majority of Professor Heller’s posts “have nothing to do with international law.” Professor Heller often provides a perspective that is infrequently found both in mainstream mass media or in international law and international relations literature. If it is largely… Read more »
erratum: “have” redundancy in second sentence
Patrick,
I think it’s quite clear how TNSD defines “anti-Americanism”: as criticism of the Bush administration. Clearly one cannot be a progressive or left-wing (I’ll accept either as a description of my politics) and still love America, because progressive and left-wingers dislike Bush — and Bush is America.
Demonizing debate and criticism as un-American is the oldest rhetorical trick in the book. And, like you, I agree that it’s pathetic. But at least we have TNSD and the 28% of Americans who still believe — all evidence to the contrary — in Bush to keep our nation safe. The other 72% who loathe Bush should just go start their own country somewhere.
Kevin
😉
Dear Patrick and Professor Heller, I thought of posting a long angry rant where I make fun of Patrick for sending a smiley face and then I try to come up with some definition of anti-Americanism etc. Instead of doing that, I want to tell you both a little about myself. I do that because both of you want to dismiss me as some Bush loving, flag waving guy who thinks that anyone who says a bad word about the USA is a yellow-bellied French loving lefty. Neither of which are true. Without giving away too much, I am a young international law practitioner. I have worked for the UN in various parts of the world (mostly unpaid). I have some experience vis-a-vis the ICJ. I have a JD and a LLM with a focus in international law. Here is the big kicker, I am a card carrying member of the Democratic party. As someone in the proverbial loop, I am telling you (Professor Heller) that you simply go too far on this board. You paint all of us IL people in a bad light by posting all these rants about the US. You attract people like Vargold “into the… Read more »
TNSD, There is absolutely nothing I said that should allow you to draw the inference that I “want to dismiss [you] as some Bush loving, flag waving guy who thinks that anyone who says a bad word about the USA is a yellow-bellied French loving lefty.” How did you come up with that? [Incidentally, not a few Democrats voted for Bush and the Party is only a shadow of its former self, so the fact that you identify yourself as a card carrying member says very little about your politics.] You make politics sound like a dirty word. While conceptually distinct, international law and politics in the real world if not in theory are invariably and inextricably intertwined (it would be rather tedious to cite the enormous amount of literature on this point). I can’t believe you attained a JD and a LLM with a focus in international law without having learned that. You appear to have an extremely naive if not simplistic understanding of the history and purposes of international law. And, with all due respect to him, you accord Professor Heller far too much influence and credit if you think his posts are capable of “paint[ing] all of… Read more »
TNSD, You mean like this post, in which I criticize Egypt for its discrimination against women in the legal profession? A couple of other thoughts. First, it is particularly sad to see a Democrat with experience in international law brand those to the left of him or her as “anti-American.” Such Liebermanesque rhetoric does more to advance the right’s agenda than anything I could ever say on this blog. Second, feel free to make an actual argument concerning my alleged proclivity to go “too far” with my “rants.” Are you referring to rants like the Global Peace Index, where my only “editorial” comment was to put the U.S. and New Zealand in bold? (Which I did, of course, because I live in New Zealand and the blog, along with the bulk of its readership, is in the U.S.) Or do you have others in mind? By all means, bring specific posts to my attention and we can debate whether they qualify as “rants” — a term that is apparently synonymous for you with “strongly critical.” Third, I note with a certain amusement that you ignore all of my posts that don’t fit your casual (and condescending) dismissal of my voice… Read more »
China has posted an occasional comment and I, for one, would love to have him guest blog…. (I happen to be reading his book at the moment as I am writing a piece comparing US, Russian, and European views of international law.)
Patrick,
My thanks, as always. Ironically, many people who practice international criminal law think that I am much too conservative for the field, because (1) I consistently criticize the ad hoc and hybrid tribunals for not adequately protecting defendants’ rights, and (2) in my scholarly work I use criminal law theory to point out the serious problems with the Rome Statute’s substantive criminal law.
I can’t win for trying… 🙂
Kevin
Chris,
I finished China’s book a couple of weeks ago and would also like to see him guest blog. Somehow I’ve missed his comments.
In response to the requests for specifics to discuss, I found these comments troubling because I think they show AA in that they attribute US participation in a “conspiracy”: For starters, in the post: Surprising Evidence Bush Planned to Invade Iraq Before 9/11, Professor Heller talks about how much he “like{s} a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person.” This, however, is far more problematic. In the post: Posada Carriles is a Free Man, Professor Heller speaks of a conspiracy to free Posada in the following quote: “I wish I could say that I am surprised by the decision, but I have been predicting that Posada would walk free for more than a year. The Justice Department says it is “reviewing Cardone’s decision” for possible appeal. I’m not holding my breath.” Understand, Posada was “freed” by an independent Article III court. Yet, for Professor Heller, Posada’s freedom fits into a US plan to sock it to Cuba. In fact, the aforementioned post is especially curious given Professor Heller previously said in the prior post “New Evidence Against Posada Carriles — From the FBI!” that “to give credit where credit is due, it seems that the FBI is doing… Read more »
TNSD, A few thoughts. First, your selective memory is once again convenient — and apparently intentional. I do like a good conspiracy theory. (And no, I don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.) But, of course, I specifically rejected viewing 9/11 as a Bush conspiracy as both ridiculous and counterproductive for a more intelligent critique of his administration’s antiterrorism policies. Not that you would ever know it from your comment… Second, you might want to read my (numerous) posts on Posada before claiming that I engage in some kind of conspiracy theorizing. My position has been very clear from the beginning: namely, that the DOJ has been doing everything in its power to avoid having to prosecute Posada’s terrorist acts, which were directed against a government that the Bush administration (like the others before it) loathes. You’ll notice that in my very first post I did not blame the federal judge for ruling that Posada could not be extradited to Cuba or Venezuela, but instead focused on the DOJ’s complete failure to contest Posada’s claim that, if extradited, he would face torture. More recently, I have focused criticized the DOJ’s unwillingness to detain and prosecute Posada for his terrorist acts… Read more »
As an aside, I think the idea that it is anti-American to imply that the U.S. could ever be part of a conspiracy is patently ridiculous. Remember that little conspiracy called Watergate? Or Iran-Contra? Were the journalists who uncovered those dark chapters of our history (and I’m certainly not comparing myself to them) “anti-American” for having the temerity to suggest (shudder) that they were, in fact, conspiracies?
Kevin,
Inspired by your parenthetical comment and to change the subject: have you read Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (2007)? (A whopping 1,600+ pgs.!) I haven’t, but the reviews thus far suggest it should put to rest all conspiracy theories on the subject. The assassination of Malcolm X: now that involved a conspiracy of some sort…..
Prof. O’Donnell, don’t make up your mind regarding the JFK assassination until you have listened to the tape-recorded revelations by E. Howard Hunt on his deathbed to his son. This is available (free) on his son’s website: http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/
Well, this thread has taken an interesting turn.
As per Mr. Heller’s earlier remark, it is easy to be right-wing in International Law in the same manner it is easy to be left-wing in Petroleum Engineering.