.
June 17 marked the release of the ninth annual Global Peace Index (GPI). The report, generated by the Institute for Economics and Peace, reveals a remarkable divide between the world’s most and least peaceful countries. This report and its predecessors focus on what increases peace, rather than what causes conflict, in an effort to identify structures and institutions that create peaceful societies.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted the release and first discussion of the 2015 GPI. Aubrey Fox, Executive Director of the US office of the Institute for Economics and Peace, moderated a panel discussion among Ambassador Rick Barton, Melanie Cohen Greenberg, and Matt Wuerker. The discussion was preceded by a description of the 2015 GPI by Daniel Hyslop, who is Research Manager at the Institute for Economics and Peace. Regarding panelists, Barton served as the US Representative to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations from 2009 to 2011 in New York; Greenberg is President and CEO of the Alliance for Peacebuilding; And Wuerker is a Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist for POLITICO.
We are Becoming Less Peaceful
The 2015 Global Peace Index ranks 162 countries, covering 99.6% of the world’s population, according to 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators of peace. These indicators fall into three major themes: the level of safety and security in society, the extent of domestic or international conflict, and the degree of militarization.
Hyslop described an array of findings from the report, but specifically highlighted three key takeaways: there is a mass disparity between the most and least peaceful countries, we spend an excessive amount of money on violence, and there is a strong need for a shift in how we think about peace.
Countries with high levels of peacefulness rarely experience yearly changes in their GPI score, whereas less peaceful countries experience frequent score fluctuations. In 2014, 81 countries became more peaceful and 78 countries became less peaceful, generating a 2.4 percent deterioration in the average country score. Iceland, followed by Denmark and Austria lead the index. Notably, though, the seven least peaceful countries in the world—Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia, and Sudan—have consistently deteriorated in peacefulness in recent years, distancing them from other countries on the index.
Hyslop’s second takeaway, the financial burden of violence, highlights that violent means of peace building are economically startling. 13.4 percent of the world’s GDP is spent on violence. This amounts to US$14.3 trillion in the last year, which is equivalent to the collective economies of the UK, Spain, Germany, France, Canada, and Brazil. Since 2008, the amount of money spent on violence has increased by 15.8 percent. A fractional 10 percent decrease in the amount of money spent on violence would generate $1.43 trillion, which could be used to promote industries that increase peace and build the economy.
Hyslop stressed that modernized views of peacefulness are crucial for decreasing conflict. Approaching peace building as a long-term project, rather than focusing on yearly or bi-yearly goals is essential for increasing peacefulness. Furthermore, a shifted focus from causes of conflict to influencers of peace will offer understanding on how to increase and sustain peace around the world.
Three Panelists and a Determined Focus on Peace
During the panel discussion that introduced the release of the 2015 GPI, panelists provided diverse and though-provoking analysis of the index.
Barton highlighted the “silent majority” epidemic, wherein the majority of the world craves peace and opposes violent solutions, but silently accepts the global precedent of combating conflict with war. Encouraging change, he rejected anti-modernism, which follows the status quo of using conflict to increase peacefulness, and encouraged targeting conflict through non-violent means.
Greenberg continued Barton’s analysis by highlighting the bottom of the index’s concentration of conflict. She advocated for reduced military spending and increased peace-building spending, the latter being both inexpensive and effective.
Finally, Wuerker, as a member of the media, pointed out that 21st century journalists typically report exciting, violent-filled news as opposed to peaceful, inspiring new because they are striving to gain viewers. Although news focused on violence attracts an audience, such reporting is detrimental to the global community because it reinforces the status quo of viewing violence as a solution to conflict.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
2015 Global Peace Index: Winners, Losers, and the Need for Change
White bird sitting on barbed wire fence
June 23, 2015
June 17 marked the release of the ninth annual Global Peace Index (GPI). The report, generated by the Institute for Economics and Peace, reveals a remarkable divide between the world’s most and least peaceful countries. This report and its predecessors focus on what increases peace, rather than what causes conflict, in an effort to identify structures and institutions that create peaceful societies.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted the release and first discussion of the 2015 GPI. Aubrey Fox, Executive Director of the US office of the Institute for Economics and Peace, moderated a panel discussion among Ambassador Rick Barton, Melanie Cohen Greenberg, and Matt Wuerker. The discussion was preceded by a description of the 2015 GPI by Daniel Hyslop, who is Research Manager at the Institute for Economics and Peace. Regarding panelists, Barton served as the US Representative to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations from 2009 to 2011 in New York; Greenberg is President and CEO of the Alliance for Peacebuilding; And Wuerker is a Pulitzer Prize winning editorial cartoonist for POLITICO.
We are Becoming Less Peaceful
The 2015 Global Peace Index ranks 162 countries, covering 99.6% of the world’s population, according to 23 qualitative and quantitative indicators of peace. These indicators fall into three major themes: the level of safety and security in society, the extent of domestic or international conflict, and the degree of militarization.
Hyslop described an array of findings from the report, but specifically highlighted three key takeaways: there is a mass disparity between the most and least peaceful countries, we spend an excessive amount of money on violence, and there is a strong need for a shift in how we think about peace.
Countries with high levels of peacefulness rarely experience yearly changes in their GPI score, whereas less peaceful countries experience frequent score fluctuations. In 2014, 81 countries became more peaceful and 78 countries became less peaceful, generating a 2.4 percent deterioration in the average country score. Iceland, followed by Denmark and Austria lead the index. Notably, though, the seven least peaceful countries in the world—Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Somalia, and Sudan—have consistently deteriorated in peacefulness in recent years, distancing them from other countries on the index.
Hyslop’s second takeaway, the financial burden of violence, highlights that violent means of peace building are economically startling. 13.4 percent of the world’s GDP is spent on violence. This amounts to US$14.3 trillion in the last year, which is equivalent to the collective economies of the UK, Spain, Germany, France, Canada, and Brazil. Since 2008, the amount of money spent on violence has increased by 15.8 percent. A fractional 10 percent decrease in the amount of money spent on violence would generate $1.43 trillion, which could be used to promote industries that increase peace and build the economy.
Hyslop stressed that modernized views of peacefulness are crucial for decreasing conflict. Approaching peace building as a long-term project, rather than focusing on yearly or bi-yearly goals is essential for increasing peacefulness. Furthermore, a shifted focus from causes of conflict to influencers of peace will offer understanding on how to increase and sustain peace around the world.
Three Panelists and a Determined Focus on Peace
During the panel discussion that introduced the release of the 2015 GPI, panelists provided diverse and though-provoking analysis of the index.
Barton highlighted the “silent majority” epidemic, wherein the majority of the world craves peace and opposes violent solutions, but silently accepts the global precedent of combating conflict with war. Encouraging change, he rejected anti-modernism, which follows the status quo of using conflict to increase peacefulness, and encouraged targeting conflict through non-violent means.
Greenberg continued Barton’s analysis by highlighting the bottom of the index’s concentration of conflict. She advocated for reduced military spending and increased peace-building spending, the latter being both inexpensive and effective.
Finally, Wuerker, as a member of the media, pointed out that 21st century journalists typically report exciting, violent-filled news as opposed to peaceful, inspiring new because they are striving to gain viewers. Although news focused on violence attracts an audience, such reporting is detrimental to the global community because it reinforces the status quo of viewing violence as a solution to conflict.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
