Huge story... largely ignored

Given that everyone's top wish, politicians and bimbos alike, is supposed to be 'world peace', you'd think that when a detailed, intensely-researched, highly credible report is published suggesting spectacular progress in that direction, it would be front-page news in the media.

You'd be wrong.

The Human Security Report 2005 published last week included the following astonishing, not-to-say exhilarating findings.
- The number of armed conflicts has declined by more than 40% since 1992. The deadliest conflicts (those with 1000 or more battle-deaths) dropped by 80%.
- The number of military coups and attempted coups has declined by some 60% since 1963. In 1963, there were 25 coups or attempted coups; in 2004, there were 10. All failed.
- Most armed conflicts now take place in the poorest countries in the world, but as incomes rise the risk of war declines.
- The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval without wars between the major powers in hundreds of years.
- Most of the world's conflicts are now concentrated in Africa. But even here there are signs of hope. Between 2002 and 2003 (the last year for which there is data) the number of armed conflicts in Africa dropped from 41 to 35.
- Wars have become dramatically less deadly over the past five decades. The average number of people reported killed per conflict per year in 1950 was 38,000; in 2002 it was just 600, a decline of 98%.

Of course there's still plenty of horror in the world, but good news should be celebrated, especially as there are pointers in the report as to how the situation can be improved further. One of the drivers of the reduction may have been a four-fold increase in UN peace-keeping missions. The total cost of these missions? The same as one-month of the US war in Iraq. Go figure.

"The wars that dominated the headlines in the 1990s were real - and brutal enough," the study says. "But the global media have largely ignored the 100-odd conflicts that have quietly ended since 1988."

The global media also, of course, largely ignored the report. Chances are this is the first you've heard of it.  I'm getting more and more angry about this...  the strange, unspoken, self-reinforcing alliance between media and public, which results in such a distorted world image being created. Drama, celebrity and parochialism inevitably trump insight, reason, and the global view. 

Comments

[Bryan William Jones]

Success and peace rarely result in increased sales of magazines and newspapers (or for many, TV viewers). That is, unless one can make glamor of success and advancement where people like to see the underdog succeed in novel areas through hard work and inspiration. However, even that audience is select and what routinely draws reliably large numbers of viewers/readers is fear, and abject fear of the unknown will draw those viewers back again and again.

The exploitation of fear has by and large always been present throughout history, but with the advent of global media distribution, it has become possible for powerful groups to exploit that fear to their advantage and spread tidings of impending doom to more than ever before. Of course Long Tail models also apply as it has become possible for small, isolated groups to reach more disparate and extreme populations, disseminating propaganda and various perceptions of reality that, also contributes to the drumbeat of fear.

Granted, there is an inherent bias to report notable events in the media and indeed a responsibility to report on events that have human relevance. But it is not simply a matter of technology providing better access to news on violence as there are always stories to be told that are not about wars and violence. The problem is allocating a weighting of those stories so as to get equal billing in media outlets in the face of political and financial influence in media outlets that promote fear.

[Steve Krause]

Thanks for pointing to this research, Chris.

To illustrate another aspect of the good news, I plotted (from 1946 to 2004) the number of countries versus the number of conflicts:

http://www.stevekrause.org/steve_krause_blog/2005/10/kudos_to_chris_.html

[Jason]

" as incomes rise the risk of war declines. "

Tell that to the nearly 2000 dead American soldiers. While the NUMBER of conflicts may be going down, was anything done to study how bloody they are? How the cost of wars has changed?

[whohah]

Sure, peace is good, but is more peace progress?

Isn't that a matter of each participant's perspective? The American colonies could have chosen peace, as could oppressed people everywhere today. But that wouldn't be progress, it would be surrender.

[Steve Krause]

>> While the NUMBER of conflicts may be going down, was anything done to study how bloody they are? <<

"The average number of battle-deaths per conflict per year--the best measure of the deadliness of warfare--has been falling dramatically but unevenly since the 1950s. In 1950, for example, the average armed conflict killed 38,000 people; in 2002 the figure was 600, a 98% decline."

[Quoted from the report's Overview, page 2. See http://www.humansecurityreport.info/HSR2005/Overview.pdf]

[Bryan William Jones]

What is missing from the analysis of armed conflicts involving countries with more sophisticated technology is that while battle deaths are dropping due to more effective body armor, the wounded are not being adequately documented. Body armor has become very effective in reducing massive trauma to the head and thorax, but wounds to the extremities of US soldiers in the middle east are truly astounding.

[Peter]

I would recommend, next time you are in Geneva, a visit to the ICRC museum (http://www.micr.ch/index_e.html). Among the exhibits documenting the horrors is a list of conflicts around the world painted on the walls in chronological order. The lists seemed to me to be getting longer; but perhaps the conflicts themselves are smaller. Or perhaps the names and locations were more familiar from the evening news programmes than they were in the past. In any case, battle deaths may be declining, but the numbers of refugees and IDPs ("Internally Displaced Persons" - a beautification of a horror on a par with 'ethnic cleansing') are increasing. And shockingly, the report has this: The global rape rate more than doubled between 1977 and 2001. This may reflect increased reporting rather than more rape; it could reflect both.

Things may be getting better, globally, but we are certainly not home free.

[Matt]

Actually, on the day the report was released I heard a live 20-minute interview with its principal investigator, followed by rebuttal, conversation and 1st person reports about war conditions from a representative of OXFAM on my national public radio station, the week the report was released. Didn't you folks hear this?

Oh right... it must be because I live in Canada, where the media sometimes seems to care a little more about peace. (or is it simply because the report comes from a Canadian source?)

Anyway, here's the URL for the show's index and summary page (scroll to part 3):
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2005/200510/20051018.html

and here is the interview in RealAudio format:
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/media/200510/20051018thecurrent_sec3.ram

Enjoy.

[Andy Hobsbawm]

One also needs to consider that while not so many people get killed in small wars, the disruptions to ordinary life (e.g. mass flights, refugees etc.) remain disproportionately high.

[Mark Stewart]

Yes, it is the first time I heard about it in Denmark. I checked The Human Secuity Report's website and can see that it was in the media in Denmark and many other places, but I guess we want to hear more about problems!
http://www.humansecurityreport.info/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=69

[tegmen]

mirc
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mırc

[Rhsz]

mirc
mirc
Türkçe Mirc
mirc indir

[ugurss]

Thanks You
------------------------------------------
sohbet-sohbet odaları-chat-muhabbet