Press Conference by Department of Economic and Social Affairs

 

to Present 2011 ‘Global Peace Index’

 

The world became less peaceful for the third year in a row, chiefly due to a surge in the risk of terrorism and fallout from the wave of civil unrest sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, according to the 2011 Global Peace Index, which also notes that violence cost the world economy more than $8 trillion in 2010.

“The 2011 Index was launched amid a fair amount of turbulence this year, and while the world became slightly more violent, the drop was less than last year,” said Clyde McConaghy, Board Director of the Institute for Economics and Peace, while presenting the survey’s findings at a Headquarters press conference sponsored by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.  It was launched yesterday in Washington, D.C., and London.

Compiled by the Institute for Economics and Peace, the Index was developed in consultation with an international panel of peace experts using data collected and collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit, whose Finance Director, Leo Abruzzese, also attended today’s press conference.  It aims to measure and rank the peacefulness of nations and regions.

Detailing the survey’s findings, Mr. McConaghy said that, while the popular protests characterizing the “Arab Spring” since the beginning of the year had been a key factor in lowering the peacefulness rating of North Africa and the Middle East, drops in the ratings of European countries grappling with civil unrest — such as Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain — were the result of the continuing fallout from the global economic and financial crisis.

He went on to say that Iceland had regained the top spot this year, overtaking New Zealand, the world’s most peaceful nation in 2010, while Somalia had dropped to the bottom of the list, replacing Iraq, which had held last place for two years.  The latter’s 2011 score had improved because of gains in several measures of safety and security, he said.

Iceland had rebounded from its 2008-2009 financial woes, he continued, adding that it shared the characteristics of many other nations at or near the top of the list, being small and democratic.  The rest of the top 10 were New Zealand, Japan, Denmark, Czech Republic (first time in that category), Austria, Finland, Canada, Norway and Slovenia.  Small islands were also among the world’s most peaceful States, he said.  On the other hand, the standing of the United States, despite having risen three spots to number 83, continued to be impacted by its huge prison population and an increase in deaths from external conflicts.  Those factors had undercut gains realized from falling domestic crime rates.

Mr. McConaghy said the survey gauged ongoing domestic and international conflict, internal safety and security, as well as militarization in 153 countries by examining 23 indicators of external and internal peace.  He went on to note that 14 of the top 20 most peaceful nations were Western European States, and that Malaysia had moved into the top 20 for the first time, holding the nineteenth spot.  Qatar, having moved up to twelfth, was the highest-ranking Middle Eastern country, though Kuwait had risen 10 places to twenty-ninth on the list.

He said the survey’s “top risers” included Georgia, Chad, Mongolia Thailand and Sri Lanka, the last of which had charted “strong improvement” in internal safety and security following the decades-long conflict that had ended in May 2009, with the Government’s victory over the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The countries losing ground in the 2011 peacefulness rankings were led by Libya, Bahrain and Egypt, Mr. McConaghy said.  They included the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Madagascar, which had experienced a “sharp deterioration” due to ongoing political instability following the island nation’s 2009 coup d’état.

As for regional rankings, he said Western Europe remained the least violent, followed by North America — with Canada jumping from fourteenth to eighth on the Index as a result of improved relations with neighbouring countries regarding sovereign claims to the Arctic.  Next came Eastern Europe, where Ukraine was the “greatest riser” due to increased political stability.  The Asia-Pacific region was the fourth most stable, followed by Latin America, where Colombia’s score had improved by the highest margin amid rising political stability, though it remained the region’s “least peaceful” country.

Those regions were followed by the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa, the world’s least safe region, he said.  Botswana’s ranking was the highest at 35, and increased political stability in Malawi (39) and Chad (141) had also been positive developments.  Yet, the region’s overall rating was undercut by ongoing political tension and violence in Somalia, Sudan and elsewhere.

Stepping in to outline the methodology behind the numbers, Mr. Abruzzese acknowledged that “any index that rated and ranked countries based on peacefulness will be controversial”.  He underscored, however, that since its introduction five years ago, the Index had remained objective and apolitical.  The data was gathered from international sources, including United Nations reports, he said, adding that qualitative (more subjective) indicators such as levels of political stability and instability were drawn from a team of global peace experts.

The 23 indicators were broadly based on internal or external conflict, safety and security, and the level of militarization, he continued.  Another step examined determinants of “peacefulness”, such as crime rates, number of prison inmates, and level of education or income.  Another determinant was the level of corruption prevalent in a particular country, because graft tended to have an impact on all other indicators, including development and socio-economic conditions.  Countries with higher rankings tended to have high incomes and high measures of democracy, he added.

As for the “Arab Spring”, which had triggered a “major deterioration” in the peacefulness quotient of North Africa and the Middle East, he said in response to a question that he hoped the Index would in the coming years be able to track whether the institutions created in the wake of the public uprisings were bearing fruit.

Responding to another question, Mr. McConaghy said the Index had been developed as a tool for Governments and policymakers, as well as non-governmental organizations, academics and philanthropists.  Hopefully the survey would pique the interest of the global business community, especially since corporations had a role to play as responsible investors in countries’ development activities.  “We are clearly hoping that analytical, rigorous and ongoing measures might help Governments adopt policies to enhance or maintain levels of peacefulness,” he added, citing anti-corruption and education as being among the key priority areas.

One reporter questioned the entire scoring methodology of the Index, asking whether the Institute had looked for a way to offset some inconsistencies.  For example, it seemed that a country engaged in almost total repression of its population — “brutally keeping the peace” — would score well, while others, where public protest was encouraged or which had high numbers of police officers, would score poorly.

Mr. McConaghy said the Index was not based on political judgement, adding that peace — notoriously difficult to define — was generally characterized as “the absence of violence”.  Therefore, the indicators were selected as being the best available data reflecting the incidence or absence of peace, obtained from a range of objective sources and compiled by experts.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record