Has the world become more peaceful?

A discussion of the empirical studies

Author: Nkatha Lucy

2011

Whether the world has become more peaceful is a very controversial issue in the discourses of international relations and international politics. Many studies have been carried out and reports written to show how the decrease in wars since the world wars. However, each institution tracking down deaths from conflicts has its own drivers and rationale of collecting data and they collect their data of different types using different methodologies. In most case, the data collected show reduced deaths and or reduced wars. If the reduction in the number of wars in the world translates to more peace, then we are living in better times. Peace studies entail the examination of wars, so this essay looks at the definition of peace and explore a couple of reports done to show increase and decrease of wars. In its conclusion the essay considers whether the statistical reduction of the number of deaths in wars is equivalent to more peace. What is peace? To determine how peaceful the world has become, one has to define what peace is. There are very many definitions of peace, and the most prominent ones tend to define peace in its negative. Some classical statements that explain the negative definitions are for instance, peace is the absence of war and if you want peace prepare for war. From those statements one can imply that peace and war are like the two sides of a coin; one cannot talk of the one side without flipping to the other side. The common tendency to define how peaceful it has become is to look at how to fight wars and win, how many wars are being fought or how many deaths have to be caused. For instance, armed conflict is defined as the incompatibility or disagreement between groups often on political, contestations over government or territorial disagreements.1 In these disagreements at least one of the
1

UCPD/PRIO definition - Armed conflict is also referred to as state-based conflict, as

parties must be a government of a state, and the results of the disagreement is at least 25 battle-related deaths. It means that the set standard of defining armed conflicts is often to meet certain object of a specific study. Similarly, how one defines peace is related to what is important to them (Christine, 1980). So if one concentrates on war, one will find the answer, which is the increase of peace in the decrease of wars2. Michael Howard put it well that: The first which most concerns the citizen, is to promote peace by promoting an understanding of the realities of war and of the problems which may lead to war. The second, which most concerns the professional, but also does or should concern the citizen, is to ensure that war, if it comes, is waged in the best possible way. Hobbes put it in his famous statement, the natural condition of man is a constant state of war. He assumed that all people are naturally equal and there are three underlying factors which causes of conflict; competition, diffidence and glory (Donnely, J. 2000). For these three reasons people will conflict. Hobbes further stated that men still possess a sense of reason that inclines them to peace3. So men have this potential to be peaceful and can actually figure out rules of coexistence and cooperation. But he was quick to point out that, without a government to enforce those rules, men are condemned to war. Relating the above to the contemporary international relations, I would concur with Hobbes, it is an anarchical arena, a state of war, where states can be liken to Gladiators who are constantly are pointing their
opposed to non-state conflict, in which none of the warring parties is a government. Retrieved from http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/ 2 UN Elites: Perspective on peace (S. Christine, 1980). Journal of peace research 1980 17: 30 http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/17/4/305 3 At paragraph 14 of chapter 13 of leviathan he says passions that incline men to peace.

weapons at each other (Donnely, J. 2000). Further, and in support of Hobbes arguments, fear and mutual suspicion are omnipresent features internationally because states, particularly the major powers, have the capacity to attack each other. But due to various uncertainties, these states resort to self-help means of continuous arms proliferation. Each states wanting to be better equipped or better prepared for war that the other state, this is the state of constant fear Hobbes talks about. But when neither of the states is guaranteed of a weaponry advantage over the other, to wage war and win it, then the states are drawn in a state of equilibrium this deters them from attacking each other4. Inasmuch as the state of equilibrium of power accounts for a reduction of war and conflict, it is not a good state. Since there is mutual suspicion from each state and this leads to arms build up, just in case defense is needed. As Hobbes clearly puts it, from equality proceeds diffidence5, fear, and from diffidence war there is no way for a man to secure himself, so reasonable, as anticipation6. This arms build-up that might be prudential in logic since it keeps at bay potential war wagers contributing to virtual peace, but sometime it may spiral another level and lead to pre-emptive war, a classical case in point being the attack of the US-Iraq attack of 2003. The foregoing explains how when you look at war, the answer of peace has to come from war. The instance where the US considered attacking Iraq shows that according to the US peace is attained when all the threats of nuclear weapons are removed.7 Further and in comparison, when one looks at peace from the
4 5 6 7

See Human Security Report, 2010/2011 Paragragh 3 of chapter 13 of the Leviathan (1651) Paragragh 4 of chapter 13 of the Leviathan (1651) see Obamas Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech 2009 at www.youtube.com

standpoint of peace, one gets the answer from peaceful means. For instance, Christine Slyvester puts it well when she argues that there are various competing definitions of peace8 and these definitions are subject to what one gives their focus on; war or peace. The first kind of peace she describes is the traditional type that conceptualizes peace as the absence of war, conflict and violence or the threat of it (direct violence).9 The second kind of peace is the structural peace that is characterized with indirect effects of conflicts. This peace is mainly geared to the economic well being of structures of an entity 10 and the respect of human rights. The third kind of peace is identified with the World Order Model Project, and it sees peace isomorphic with global health and emphasizes that peace has to be relevant with the social, economic, political and environmental challenges (cultural violence).11 All these definitions labor to show that peace is multidimensional. It therefore cannot be considered in the perspective war and death only. This is because the parameters that determine peace vary amongst people. Therefore, peace should be all inclusive, not only bearing the set standard of defining war and its absence, but should be keen on what the dichotomy of peace and war in both the social and political milieu. How these different perceptions of peace interconnect with each other without one surpassing the other is what makes peace. The fact is that peace is so rarely openly conceptualized and clearly defined in much international discourse other than in negative terms is the problem of peace (Richmond O. P, 2006). But based on Galtungs models of conflict, violence and peace - a clear distinction has to be made between direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence
8 9

Op.Cit Note 2 Op. Cit. Note 8 10 entity is means state in this essay. 11 Op. Cit. note 8

before it can be said that it is peaceful (Galtung, 1996). When conflict behavior has been changed, contradictions have been removed and attitudes have been changed, positive peace12 will then have been achieved. Peace a discourse of numbers? Recent discussions have made peace a discourse of numbers, and this is evoking a lot of criticisms. For instance, according to the 2011 Global Peace Index (GPI), if the world were peaceful, it would have saved more than 8 trillion dollars in the last year.13 GPI ranks 153 countries in the world by using its data on each nation's domestic and international conflicts, safety in society, and militarization. It measures a range of factors from violent crime and homicide levels to incarceration rates and weapons access14. The GPI fact sheet finds that a third year consecutively, there has been an annual decline in global peace resulting in a less peaceful world 15. It cites the social and political turmoil in the Middle East and North African nations (Arab Spring) during the early part of 2011 as one of the major contributors of less peace16. It further concludes that the broader global pattern is of increasing conict between citizens and their own governments and decreasing conict between nations and cites internal indicators such as the likelihood of violent demonstrations, level of internally organized conict, potential for terrorist acts and perceptions of criminality in society have all increased in this years GPI17.
12

Galtung definednegative peace as the cessation of direct violence and positive peace as the overcoming of structural and cultural violence. 13 http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011-Fact-Sheet.pdf 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid.

The index mainly uses the economic development and the social sustainability among other variables to measure peace. In contrast, the Human Security Report18 (HSR) 2009/2010 indicates a decline in armed conflict and wars. The report basically suggests that nowadays, there is less frequency to wage war.19 It further suggests that the countries of major power are reluctant to go to war and that the wars have become less fatal, in review of their statistics, less and less soldiers die on the battlefronts.20 It provides various arguments to support the decline of conflict depending on hypotheses like; decolonization; democracy; weapon proliferation; fewer territorial disputes; and international sanctions and peace building activities after conflicts.
21

Very recently, differing numbers of deaths in a war have been reported by the U.N and NATO, this conflicting data showing increasing battle deaths and decreasing battle deaths portray how peace has been made a discourse of numbers.22 Such conclusions do not pass without some criticism. The critics have questioned the inference that has been drawn after the analysis of armed conflict from post World War II to date (S. Michael, M. Andrew,
18 19

HSR relies on UCPD/PRIO dataset The Human Security Report 2009/2010: http://www.hsrgroup.org/human-securityreports/20092010/overview.aspx it finds 34 conflicts, including 5 international wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Congo Basin. 20 finds that the average war in the 1950s killed 20,000 soldiers and/or guerrillas each year, with war deaths averaging 155,000 in each year of the decade. Figures for the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were similar. In the new millennium's first decade, the casualty rate was about 3,000 per war; the average for all wars combined, having fallen to 95,000 by the 1990s, has been 27,000 (and 17,000 annually since 2002, with an all-time low of 11,000 in 2005.) 21 Op. Cit. note 19. See also, The world has become more peaceful. (2010) http://www.dlc.org

22

Coalition: Afghan Insurgent Attacks Drop, ( Deb Reichmann, 2011) http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2095726,00.html See also Differing numbers on Afghan War, added on September 30th 2011 at edition.cnn.com/video/

C. Tara and K. Joakim; 2009). Michael et.al argue that to arrive at a conclusion that the world is more peaceful based on the reduced battle deaths evidence blurs the study of what peace is. The focus on data collection methods in the criticisms sheds light on what others consider peace to be. Some other critics like sterud (2008) state that the data is collected in methods that are too restrictive. Therefore it fails to fully capture unique characteristics of some violence and provides inaccurate figures and distortion of the bigger picture of conflict. This essentially calls for a more inclusive definition of war or armed conflict. However, an all-inclusive definition of violence or conflict has been argued to be misleading in the sense that the understanding the causes and dynamics of violence in general and organized political violence in particular would not be fully achieved (Margareta Sollenberg & Peter Wallensteen, 2008). This is because data relating to deaths is collected to uncover trends over with regard to violent conflicts adhering to strict definitions of violent conflict, using criteria fatality thresholds and time frames resulting to conflicting findings (K. Kuehnast, C. J. Oudraat, & H Hernes, 2011).

Conclusion I agreed that measuring the extent of peace in the world is an empirical study, it is not a religious or faith based study, it is not about saying peace is good, war is bad, it is about getting what people want with less kind of destruction and death. Moreover, peace depends on the perspective one takes to view the circumstance and this can either be empirical or fundamental. But relying on the conflicting findings to show the trend of peace is not proper.

I believe that the causes of war have their origins in power struggles between states in an international system that lacks effective mechanisms to prevent deadly conflicts. Therefore, I would advocate for policies of peace through strength and alliance building as the surest means of guaranteeing national security and peace. I also believe in spreading democracy to avoid conflict. In addition, I tend to believe what determines peace is mainly dependent on how one defines peace. I end with the words of one Dorothy Thompson, peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflictalternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.

References 1. Christine Slyvester (1980). UN Elites: Perspective on peace Journal of peace research 1980 17: 30 http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/17/4/305 2. Donnely Jack (2000): realism and International Relations, 1-42. 3. Galtung, Johan, Peace by Peaceful Means (London: Sage, 1996) 4. Human Security Report, 2009/2010 5. Kathleen Kuehnast, Chantal de Jonge Oudraat and Helga Hernes (2011): Women and War: power and protection in the 21 st

century 6. Margareta Sollenberg & Peter Wallensteen (2008): How to identify conflict trends: A reply to yvind sterud, Conflict, Security & Development, 8:3, 375-382 7. Michael 408. 8. Michael Spagat, Andrew Mack, Tara Cooper and Joakim Kreutz (2009; 53; 934) Estimating War Deaths: An Arena of Contestation. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 9. Nardin, Terry (1998). War and peace, philosophy of. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London Routledge: Retrieved 10. Oliver P. On Richmond the September (2006): The 23, problem Conflict, of 2011 peace: & http://www.rep.routledge.com.virtual.anu.edu.au/article/S066 understanding 11. 12. liberal peace, Security Howard International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 40, No. 3. (Jul., 1964), pp. 397-

Development, 6:3, 291-314 yvind sterud (2008) Towards a more peaceful world? A Ramsbotham,O., Woodhouse, T., and Miall, H.(2005). critical view. Conflict, Security & Development 8(2), 223-240. Introduction to conflict resolution: concepts and defintions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press, 3-31.

10