José Posted June 1, 2007 Report Posted June 1, 2007 An index of pacifismGive peace a rating May 31st 2007 From The Economist print edition You can measure it, but can you understand it? WHETHER as an entrepreneur or as a philanthropist, Steve Killelea thinks the simplest maxims work best. And in business, a few basic ideas have served him well: from a headquarters in Sydney he has created a firm, Integrated Research, that supplies systems management for credit cards, stock exchanges and cash dispensers across the world. And as one of Australia's biggest (and most discreet) donors of aid to poor countries, he also likes to keep things simple: his mission is to help the “poorest of the poor” in practical ways. But uncomplicated maxims are not necessarily uncontroversial. Having overlaid the Irish Catholicism of his childhood with a dose of Tibetan Buddhism, he warms to the pacifist strain in the Asian creed. One of his favourite Buddhist sayings is that “your enemy is your best teacher”. More contentiously, the bottom-line-minded businessman and the pacifist in Mr Killelea come together in a conviction that peacefulness, like anything important, can and must be calibrated. “What you can't measure, you can't understand,” he says. That, roughly, is the chain of thought which prompted him to order up a new way of assessing countries' general condition: along with GDP, trade balance and so on, it will now be possible to check out a country's ranking by “peacefulness”. The methodology for the “global peace index” was devised by the Economist Intelligence Unit, our sister company. The index takes note of internal factors—crime rates, prison population, trust between citizens—and external ones, like relations with neighbours, arms sales, foreign troop deployments. Norway's top place reflects its calm domestic atmosphere and good relations with nearby states. In the case of Israel (119th), high military spending, a huge army and unresolved local conflicts are deemed to outweigh its low level of ordinary crime. Canada comes eighth; its American neighbour a dismal 96th, strangely just above Iran. The index will run into some flak. A country that applied the simple Roman maxim—“if you want peace, prepare for war”—would score badly. By unconditionally endorsing low military budgets and marking down high ones, the index may seem to give heart to freeloaders: countries that enjoy peace precisely because others (often America) care for their defence. Indeed, one of the ideas behind NATO and several other security pacts is that America's protection limits the need for medium-sized powers to be big military players in their own right. Still, perhaps the main thing about the index is not where countries are now, but how they change over time: if a country is getting more peaceful, presumably that is good—and if it is becoming less so, that could be a warning. Which way a nation is going may matter more than its ranking. But remember, some Buddhists say change is an illusion, no less than fixity: “By stating that there is neither motion nor rest, we follow the path of the middle.” http://www.economist.com/world/internation…tory_id=9266967 Rank Country Score 1 Norway 1.357 2 New Zealand 1.363 3 Denmark 1.377 4 Ireland 1.396 5 Japan 1.413 6 Finland 1.447 7 Sweden 1.478 8 Canada 1.481 9 Portugal 1.481 10 Austria 1.483 11 Belgium 1.498 12 Germany 1.523 13 Czech Republic 1.524 14 Switzerland 1.526 15 Slovenia 1.539 16 Chile 1.568 17 Slovakia 1.571 18 Hungary 1.575 19 Bhutan 1.611 20 Netherlands 1.620 21 Spain 1.633 22 Oman 1.641 23 Hong Kong 1.657 24 Uruguay 1.661 25 Australia 1.664 26 Romania 1.682 27 Poland 1.683 28 Estonia 1.684 29 Singapore 1.692 30 Qatar 1.702 31 Costa Rica 1.702 32 South Korea 1.719 33 Italy 1.724 34 France 1.729 35 Vietnam 1.729 36 Taiwan 1.731 37 Malaysia 1.744 38 United Arab Emirates 1.747 39 Tunisia 1.762 40 Ghana 1.765 41 Madagascar 1.766 42 Botswana 1.786 43 Lithuania 1.788 44 Greece 1.791 45 Panama 1.798 46 Kuwait 1.818 47 Latvia 1.848 48 Morocco 1.893 49 United Kingdom 1.898 50 Mozambique 1.909 51 Cyprus 1.915 52 Argentina 1.923 53 Zambia 1.930 54 Bulgaria 1.936 55 Paraguay 1.946 56 Gabon 1.952 57 Tanzania 1.966 58 Libya 1.967 59 Cuba 1.968 60 China 1.980 61 Kazakhstan 1.995 62 Bahrain 1.995 63 Jordan 1.997 64 Namibia 2.003 65 Senegal 2.017 66 Nicaragua 2.020 67 Croatia 2.030 68 Malawi 2.038 69 Bolivia 2.052 70 Peru 2.056 71 Equatorial Guinea 2.059 72 Moldova 2.059 73 Egypt 2.068 74 Dominican Republic 2.071 75 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.089 76 Cameroon 2.093 77 Syria 2.106 78 Indonesia 2.111 79 Mexico 2.125 80 Ukraine 2.150 81 Jamaica 2.164 82 Macedonia 2.170 83 Brazil 2.173 84 Serbia 2.181 85 Cambodia 2.197 86 Bangladesh 2.219 87 Ecuador 2.219 88 Papua New Guinea 2.223 89 El Salvador 2.244 90 Saudi Arabia 2.246 91 Kenya 2.258 92 Turkey 2.272 93 Guatemala 2.285 94 Trinidad and Tobago 2.286 95 Yemen 2.309 96 United States of America 2.317 97 Iran 2.320 98 Honduras 2.390 99 South Africa 2.399 100 Philippines 2.428 101 Azerbaijan 2.448 102 Venezuela 2.453 103 Ethiopia 2.479 104 Uganda 2.489 105 Thailand 2.491 106 Zimbabwe 2.495 107 Algeria 2.503 108 Myanmar 2.524 109 India 2.530 110 Uzbekistan 2.542 111 Sri Lanka 2.575 112 Angola 2.587 113 Cote d'Ivoire 2.638 114 Lebanon 2.662 115 Pakistan 2.697 116 Colombia 2.770 117 Nigeria 2.898 118 Russia 2.903 119 Israel 3.033 120 Sudan 3.182 121 Iraq 3.437 http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories….8231&EDATE=
G7H+ Posted June 1, 2007 Report Posted June 1, 2007 Le score médiocre de Singapour (seulement 5 places au-dessus de la France, pensez donc !) peut s'expliquer par sa surmilitarisation. L'absence de l'Islande dans ce classement est étonnante. On peut souligner le fait que, pour les libéraux, ce n'est pas la violence qui est pas à banir, mais bien l'agression.
Jesrad Posted June 1, 2007 Report Posted June 1, 2007 Je note la bonne place du Costa Rica, d'Oman, des EAU, et du Panama. Nauru, Vanuatu, Nevis, les Caïmans et le Belize ne sont pas dedans ? Et la Somalie alors ? Elle devrait être autour de 2,5.
Guest Arn0 Posted June 1, 2007 Report Posted June 1, 2007 On peut souligner le fait que, pour les libéraux, ce n'est pas la violence qui est pas à banir, mais bien l'agression.Même lorsqu'elle est légitime la violence est toujours un pis-aller.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.