My RSS Feeds
Things Are Going Better In The World!?
For the first time ever an objective and seriously well-funded study has appeared investigating the number of armed conflicts us apes are into. "The Human Security Report 2005" from the Human Security Centre shows us a world in which wars, genocides, mass murders, coups, civil wars, arms trade etcetera are all rapidly falling, together with the average number of battle-related deaths per armed conflict per year. It defines a population of primates who, suprisingly, seem to be well on their way towards world peace.
Sounds incredible, but maybe it doesn't. The oddest part about this is they state more than once there is no official data available on such crucial statistics and trends. The stupidest things are under constant scrutiny but in this case the high and mighty can't even agree on the definition of "armed conflict".
For this report they took some very cold and strict definitions. If a conflict has more than 25 battle-related deaths a year it's an armed conflict. With more than a 1,000 casualties a year it's a war. If there's only one state involved it's a civil war, is it fought on other territory than the nation's it's an extra-state conflict (with the colonial wars as the primary denominator)
A couple of notable figures from the report:
- Only 5% of all conflicts in the 90's had an international nature. Actually, the US-Somalia, US-Afghanistan and US-Iraq are about the only ones.
- The last colonial war ended in 1975.
- From 1975-1991 the number of civil wars doubled.
- After 1989 more than a 100 conflicts were ended in peace. Almost none of those even made the press, contrary to conflict outbreaks, which always attract huge media attention.
- After 1991, following a short flare up due to the fall of communism, the number of civil wars has dropped to pre-1974 levels.
- The ending of the Cold War, and with it the end of funding for idealistic wars worldwide by both communists and capitalists, the UN's capability to finally focus on it's actual long-standing tasks instead of drowning in Cold War politics and the ending of the colonial era are the main factors driving down these figures.
- Africa remains a huge problem, with a little over 40% of all conflicts being fought out on that continent.
- The fall of the Soviet Union caused major instability in regions of central Asia, which is the reason for this region being the only one in which the number of conflicts has drastically risen since 1992.
- Almost half of all conflicts on the planet is being battled out in Asia.
- The number of international crises (which could cause a new international conflict) has dropped to pre-Cold War levels once Gorbachov took office.
- More than half of all post-WWII battle-related casualties were caused in 5 major wars (the Chinese revolution, the Korea war, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq and the wars for Afghanistan between 1978 and 2002).
- The US have a military budget of $420.7 billion for fiscal 2005.
- Both Russia and China have a military budget of about $50 billion for fiscal 2005, thereby ranking second in the world.
- The UN has an annual budget of about $4.5 billion.
- 239 out of 327 terrorist attacks on US soil between 1980 and 1999 were executed by American splinter factions, usually right-wing extremists.
Ah well. You can read the entire report yourself here, I advise everybody to at least take a quick glance at it. It's written in very accessible language.
The main question is of course: Are we finally learning? Or have just grown too decadent? When was the last time a (reasonably) wealthy area had a war? In the meantime it would seem that us Europeans have indeed finally learned how to talk each other to utter braindeath instead of shooting each other. Except the poorest areas, the Balkan. Things went wrong yet again over there, although some improvement seems to be noticeable, provided the necessary wealth is cultivated.
Is it possible, even with today's relative wealth, that Europe will revert to it's pre-1950's state? That we will once again be doing what we've been pretty good at for at least the last 3,000 years: Crushing each others' skulls over some stupid argument?
On the inside we're basically still the same primates struggling to comprehend their world. Who learn nothing of their past unless it's to satisfy our direct needs. Philadelphia 2005 was an excellent example of what it takes to revert usually very civilized people to that very primitive state. Within a couple of days the entire city had fallen into complete disarray and anarchy, the purest of its kind.
It goes to show how thin our layer of civilisation actually is. Although we can do things that would make our ancestors consider us gods, we're just as easily thrown back to their level once those things are no longer available for whatever reason.
From that point of view war is possible anytime anywhere, domestic or internationally.
On the other hand there is a huge number of mechanisms which our ancestors lacked. Even the Dutch laws are probably infinitely more complicated than the Roman Empire ever conceived. Not to mention European legislation and global rules and regulations. On top of that we have committees, parliaments, houses, councils, courts and so on always contemplating this legislation. Although that obviously doesn't stop everything, it is a deciding factor nonetheless. Aside from that there's always the "why". Almost every war being waged nowadays, especially the international ones, are waged over completely different "whys". Interests are intertwined more than ever and are far different from the old days. Thanks to this web of interests and influences a complex structure exists that you will have to wage war on as well if you're going to do so. If The Netherlands invaded Germany today a lot of very influential parties would very unhappy because of their interests in Germany, while others would be infuriated simply because of the major uncertainties that are involved in waging war. A lot of examples come to mind, and all of the parties have interests, and none of them is too shy to shut up about it. A number of those parties can exert real influence, complicating matters even further. Add the media to that mix, stir up a bit, and it becomes very hard for a democracy to wage war successfully. None of the nations caught in this complex web of international relations and interests will start a total war lightly.
This image is of course tainted by "pet projects" like the war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Due to the one-sidedness nature of these wars it has in fact become easier to wage war. But that's against a bunch of Mullah's waving AK-47s who can be carpet-bombed by bunker busters untill they give in, or else it takes the fun away.
But even then it's easy to see that the situations there are threatening to spiral of control. The American national debt has risen to unprecedented record-heights, the president's popularity hasn't been this low for decades and a strong current of relentless criticism has surfaced. The next presidents & cronies will have to be walking on eggs to prevent the wars, which started out as television wars, won't completely ruin the economy and therefore indeed the entire country.
In short, although its in part our wealth which is preventing us from taking up the club and the bow again, it's our intricate economy- and democracy-woven web of factors which make waging a war a really tricky business. Besides, classical contributors like nationalism and so on are imprintable, however that's considered "bad for business" and thus it's becoming a rarity.
This report sheds new light on humanity. Any place war disappears, the rebuilding effort takes its place. This rebuilding effort should be properly focussed on growing prosperity, democracy and globalism. Up untill the level where waging war has become a purely economical business, which we will still exercise, albeit much more carefull and on a completely different scale.
