As a New Zealander, I was both delighted and concerned to discover that my country is considered the most peaceful in the world by the 2010 Global Peace Index (GPI), a publication developed by an international panel of peace experts in collaboration with the Economist Intelligence Unit and published by the Institute for Economics and Peace.
On one hand, I think the world needs initiatives like this. The study’s founder, Steve Killelea calls the GPI “a wake-up call for leaders around the globe”, and I hope he is right. But, given the factors it examines—such as levels of violence and crime within a country, plus military expenditure and wars—the GPI unfortunately glosses over some interesting realities.
First, if you do believe peace can be achieved at the end of a gun, it unfairly vilifies countries like the United States who, though they account for 54 percent of global military spending, tend to use this spending to ensure the “peace” of their allies and neighbors. So countries sheltering under the military wings of a world power can happily slide up the index by letting the US (and the other top spenders like Russia, the UK, France and China) slide down.
Being a strong believer in nonviolent solutions to conflict resolution, I commend the GPI for bringing people’s attention to the scale of military spending by these countries. Most of the time I think what the US would call “ensuring peace, freedom and stability,” is just another name for exploitation and empire-building. Unfortunately, the beneficiaries of this so-called “peace” are never challenged about their complicity in global conflict.
And complicit we are.
The New Zealand government sent troops to support the US-led invasion of Afghanistan immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks. They have been there ever since. According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian between 20,000 and 49,600 people may have died of the consequences of the invasion. It is estimated that in Afghanistan there are 1.5 million suffering from immediate starvation, as well as 7.5 million suffering as a result of the country’s dire situation.
No matter. The NZ government uses rhetoric about “security” and “fighting terrorism” as a justification for the continued involvement of the NZDF (Defense Force). The language used by the government creates the image of altruistic action by the military. Soldiers are “peacekeepers” sent to do “reconstruction”—which obscures the reality that the Afghani government was installed by the US for economic reasons. It was only after the media revealed that the NZSAS (Special Air Service) was there that the government admitted to their involvement. They loudly trumpet the “reconstruction team” as “humanitarian aid” when in fact they are there to prop up the US military occupation.
A few years later, many of the New Zealand public watched in horror as the US invaded Iraq alongside the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland. When this invasion first occurred, Kiwi activists organized some colorful protests and marches to raise awareness, which further bolstered the general anti-US sentiment in the country. Our Government at the time assured us we wouldn’t be involved in the war, and reassured by that fact, we allowed ourselves to sit back and busy ourselves again with the important business of disliking everything American.
How wrong we were. Research by investigative journalist Nicky Hager makes it clear that our very own Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) have been heavily focused on supporting the US War on Terror since September 11, 2001. When the US switched it’s attention to Iraq, so did we. It seems while New Zealand sits happy at number one on the GPI, our own tax dollars are funding an intelligence operation that supports the very same wars we once condemned. We have become, unwittingly, a vital cog in the intelligence grabbing that so erroneously frames the crimes against humanity being perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere by the United States of America.
And that’s only the wars we are involved in. Internal conflicts are happening all around the world and they are causing death and poverty on a massive scale. In Sudan for instance, 4.9 million people are now displaced. Poverty fuels conflict. Conflict exacerbates poverty. In fact, the same researchers that produce the GPI estimate that violence costs the global economy $10.5 trillion a year. That sure puts our measly Aid spending (currently somewhere around $119.6 billion) in perspective huh?
As the famous economist Jeffrey Sachs once said, “aid for the poor guarantees security for the rich”. What a no-brainer, right? Instability will grow where poverty festers. Yet economically rich countries continue, for the most part, to fail dismally in their commitments to overseas aid and development.
New Zealand’s track record is particularly dismal. We committed to a United Nations target that all developed countries should give 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) as Official Development Assistance (ODA) by 2015. The 0.7 percent figure may sound complicated, but it is actually quite simple. For every $100 earned in the country, the country gives 70 cents in aid.
Currently however, New Zealand gives only 0.3% of GNI as ODA, despite repeated campaigning by the NGO sector and NZ public. That puts us roughly 18th in the OECD, behind big military spenders like the UK and France, and behind the Aussies whom we love to criticize for their involvement in Iraq. And since the 0.7 percent that we promised to give is (obviously) a percentage, not a figure in absolute terms, the actual amount rises and falls as our GDP rises and falls. Our commitment to ODA is more of a moral statement than a financial one, and we can be doing a lot better.
Finally, does the GPI really pick up on what’s going on at home here in New Zealand? We might be the world’s safest nation for some, but not if you’re a child or a woman.
Looking at UNICEF and OECD reports on Child Poverty in “developed” countries, New Zealand has a poor record of standards in caring for its children on just about every index. One in six New Zealand children lives in poverty, meaning they are more likely to live in poverty than any other group. A third of children live in overcrowded conditions, and we have the highest rates of youth suicide in the entire OECD. This is unacceptable in a country as wealthy as New Zealand.
Violence against women is another issue that continues to persist as one of the most heinous, systematic and prevalent human rights abuses in the world. The GPI has been criticized for not including indicators specifically relating to violence against women and children. If it did, New Zealand might not enjoy its celebrated status. In one national survey, 35 percent of the women interviewed reported being physically assaulted by an intimate partner.
I’m not trying to be overly critical of New Zealand. We have our issues, but we have plenty to be proud of as well. We enjoy a heritage of peacemakers and heroes, like Te Whiti and Tohu, Kate Sheppard, and Sir Edmund Hillary, and strong stands on issues like Apartheid and Nuclear Power. But that is no license to rest on our laurels. If we are to be true to our heroes, we must continually strive ever upwards and onwards. If we are truly to be ranked as peaceful, we should follow in the philosophy and footsteps of our pioneering peacemakers from Parihaka, when they reminded us:
“No good thing has ever been wrought by force …
there is no reason why force should continue to have power over us.”
“Being a strong believer in nonviolent solutions to conflict resolution,” you offer (not surprisingly) no workable solution outside of “organiz[ing] some colorful protests and marches to raise awareness, which further bolstered the general anti-US sentiment in the country.”
Men like Kiwi Bill Apiata VC and his mates in the NZSAS make the world a safer place.
“Not surprisingly?”
I can only assume from this comment that you are familiar with my opinions and knowledge, or perhaps that you are skeptical of the ability of non-violent adherents in general to offer workable solutions to war and conflict?
Whatever the reason, allow me to assure you that non-violent alternatives to war exist, and in fact are very successful. Some of the 20th century’s harshest oppressors were removed through nonviolent conflicts. Currently, groups are using civil resistance to obtain rights in nations such as Azerbaijan, Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Honduras, Iran, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe, and other places. In places such as Tibet, West Papua, Western Sahara and the Palestinian Territories, groups are fighting nonviolently for self-determination. You can learn more here:
http://bit.ly/cOBx3c
Alternatives to war in Afghanistan and Iraq were then, and are now, plentiful, workable, well-founded and well-researched. I perhaps wrongly assumed that these were common knowledge, and so did not focus on them in my article.
Examples can be found here for Afghanistan:
http://bit.ly/ddzoQm
(Chomsky’s and Dodge’s are two of my favourites)
And here for Iraq:
http://bit.ly/9EQTnJ
(The seattlepi is nice quick intro)
Am I skeptical of “ability of non-violent adherents in general to offer workable solutions to war and conflict”?
Absolutely, because they do not.
“Some of the 20th century’s harshest oppressors were removed through nonviolent conflicts.” It’s not surprising that this statement is left hanging with no support, because it is laughably false. Imperial Japan? Nope. Nazi Germany? Nope. Stalin’s Soviet Union? Nope. Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Nope. Taliban in Afghanistan? Nope. Darfur? Nope. Hussain in Iraq? Nope. How about Mao’s China? Nope. Can you at least give me one or two of these imaginary harsh oppressors removed with non violent means?
I’ll pass on any drivel from Chomsky. He’s about as intellectually dishonest as they come.
Non violent means can and do affect change in democratic systems of government. Unfortunately many areas of the world are not blessed with democracy and some of those just so happened to be some of the “harshest oppressors” you speak of.
“Can you at least give me one or two of these imaginary harsh oppressors removed with non violent means?”
Yes. I’m surprised you don’t know of them, since this is a non-violent action blog.
In Chile, General Augusto Pinochet tortured and killed thousands of dissidents, but a nonviolent movement developed a way to topple him.
The apartheid regime in South Africa made public assemblies in black townships illegal and threatened or even assassinated nonviolent organizers, but the indigenous nonviolent resistance was still able to shatter the regime’s internal and international support.
In the Philippines, over 70 opposition workers were killed before the 1986 election, but people still successfully organized and nonviolently dislodged dictator Ferdinand Marcos from power soon afterwards.
And the Solidarity movement in Poland opened up oppositional space where little had previously existed, both before and after the communist regime imposed martial law.
I supplied a link to this very information in my previous response. Here it is again.
http://bit.ly/bo17VI
This website outlines clearly the most recent scholarship on non-violent conflict. If you are genuinely interested in learning the facts about non-violent movements, I strongly suggest you check it out.
“Non violent means can and do affect change in democratic systems of government. Unfortunately many areas of the world are not blessed with democracy and some of those just so happened to be some of the “harshest oppressors” you speak of.”
This is just plain wrong, and again betrays a basic lack of knowledge on the history of non-violent movements and the results they have achieved. Nonviolent action is not limited to domestic conflicts within a democratic system. It has been widely used against dictatorial regimes, foreign occupations, and even against totalitarian systems. http://bit.ly/cjQ5Oj
I’d appreciate it if you read (or at least glance over) the articles or websites I reference to support my points before you begin to refute them. If we don’t read each others source/support material, what is the point in having a conversation?
Some more brief case studies here, including a description of the Otpor (Resistance) movement in Serbia that rose up again against Milosevic in a carefully planned nonviolent struggle, causing his dictatorship to collapse.
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsfb39.html
As with D. Killon, being a strong believer in nonviolence, and being both a devout and passionate progressive Christian, I really enjoyed reading this article. We came across Amnesty International today, and I think we might be doing something along the human rights lines, as I believe it is not only our duty as Christians, but also as fellow human beings. Like New Zealand, I’m ashamed to say, that allthough great improvements have been made in Australia in regards to equality for women, our track record in relation to the treatment of women probably isn’t much better. We truly need to work on this. In addition,while a respect his opinion, I beg to differ, whether New Zealand is the world’s safest country. That title, I think, belong to Norway. Why? It’s the only country that has never been to war. Really good response by you though, D Killon, and all the best.
Norway is a fascinating country… high standard of living, never been to war. They do sit on a lovely big oil deposit though, which has put them in a relatively comfy position for a while now. What will happen when it runs out? I hope they are prepared…
Norway deployed troops to Iraq and currently has about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan.
Never been to war? I suppose if you totally disregard history that would be correct.
Haha, on digging further you’re quite right. Thanks for pointing this out. It’s true about the oil though. I’d like to see Norway’s peak oil strategy.
😉
Yes, the continental shelf is kind to the Norwegians. They have about 40 years or so on known reserves. Norway’s a bit to socialist for my taste.
I’ll dig into your other post when I have some time to give it a thoughtful read.