Press Conference on 2010 Global Peace Index

 

The world had become “marginally less peaceful”, in the last 12 months, Clyde McConaghy, a Board Member of the Institute for Economics and Peace, said today at a Headquarters press conference on the results of the Global Peace Index for 2010.

Highlighting key findings of the Index, Mr. McConaghy said internal country indicators, such as the likelihood of violent demonstrations, homicide rates and perceptions of criminality within society, were major drivers that created a less peaceful world.  On the regional level, many countries in Latin America and South Asia had become less peaceful within the past year.

Also participating in the press conference were Andrew Williamson, Global Director of Economic Research for the Economist Intelligence Unit; and Kerry Kennedy, human rights activist and writer.

Providing an overview of the Index and other findings, Mr. McConaghy said it was an initiative launched in 2007 with the aim of ranking countries on the basis of their “peacefulness”, defined as an absence of violence.  There had therefore been much debate about the meaning of peace, given the analytical approach taken in creating the Index, he said, noting that a short, sharp and measurable definition was needed.

With regard to the economic situation, he said results showed an ever-strengthening relationship between economic growth and peacefulness, a correlation allowing for an estimation of the economic value of peace.  By considering peace in economic terms, those compiling the Index had been able to measure the value of both static peace — activities involved in violence that could be redeployed for other means, but added nothing to overall economic growth –- and dynamic peace, which included activities foregone as “opportunity costs of violence”.

Overall, the economic cost of violence to the global economy was an estimated $7 trillion annually, he said, noting that if there could be even a 25 per cent reduction in global violence the levels, a total of $1.5 trillion could be freed up for use in addressing major issues facing humanity, including financing the Millennium Development Goals for one year and the European Union’s “20-20-20” environmental targets.

Mr. McConaghy said there had been several recognized areas of improvement since 2007, including a decrease in military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).  Regions such as the Middle East and North Africa had improved most in relative terms, while countries such as Ethiopia, Mauritania, Hungary, Lebanon and Haiti were among those rising fastest in ranking.  Countries ranked at the top of this year’s Index — New Zealand, Iceland, Japan, Austria, Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Finland and Sweden — were considered the most peaceful countries in light of the indicators used.

Asked why Latin America was considered less peaceful, Mr. McConaghy said the level of homicide, as well as the level and intensity of internal conflict, were major indicators that had generally worsened in the past year.

Addressing the upcoming one-year anniversary of post-election protests in Iran, Ms. Kennedy said those protesting were “striving for peace, justice and a Government that is responsive to the needs of the people”.  In that regard, the Index — having developed a definition of violence that allowed measurement of Government performance — was a tool that could be used globally by those attempting to create a more just and peaceful world, she added.

When asked about potential beneficiaries of a less peaceful world, Mr. McConaghy noted that, in the context of the Index, the opposite of peace was violence rather than war.  Ms. Kennedy added that those who stood to benefit from increased violence included Halliburton, the oil services company, as well as arms manufacturers, companies running prisons, the entire criminal justice system and people involved in the sex trade.

Asked how the compilers had concluded that peacefulness had declined in South Asia, Mr. Williamson said much of the change in the region could be attributed to internal conflicts, an increase in military spending and relationships with neighbouring countries.  The important aspect of the Index was that it was a “completely impartial, independent and dispassionate assessment”, which did not judge or assign blame, he said, adding that it was used essentially to measure the outputs of country indicators.  Rather than attempting to explain internal issues, it required others to use it to investigate the possible causes of an absence of peace.

Asked how closed countries like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were measured, he said it was very challenging.  A team of more than 100 analysts at the Economist Intelligence Unit covered the political and economical situation of 200 countries daily.  Where possible, the team desired to incorporate data from respected and published sources, including the United Nations and the World Bank.  In the case of more difficult countries, he said, analysts developed estimates or spoke with Government officials.  Although perfection could not be guaranteed in such cases, he was confident that the team could produce the best possible hard data.

Responding to a comment that some countries may not see the Index as useful in improving their current situation, Mr. McConaghy said such countries should not use it, noting that the most peaceful countries tended to enjoy high levels of primary and secondary school education and regional integration.  They also had low levels of corruption, he said, adding that countries currently ranked low on the Index could work to achieve similar levels.

Addressing the similarity of information included in the Index and that provided by the United Nations Development Index, Mr. McConaghy said the latter had been used as a source for the Global Peace Index, which had been hailed by several organizations — including the United Nations, World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — as “a very positive step forward” and a valuable database.  It was now included in the databases of those organizations as another useful metric for helping countries improve, he said.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record