Forum: Peace (almost) on Earth. Really.

Forum: Peace (almost) on Earth. Really.

Forum: Peace (almost) on Earth. Really.
Strange but true, the world is less war-torn than you might think, reports Frida Ghitis
Sunday, January 01, 2006

Is it me, or has the holiday season taken on a gloomy tone in recent years? Among the New Year's wishes I received this year came some that sounded downright apocalyptic. If the world survives, the well-wishers seemed to suggest, then we can consider it a happy new year. The prevailing view, it appears, is that the world is on the wrong path, and headed for probable destruction. Wars everywhere, massacres, bombings, killings. Things have never been worse.

As it happens, exactly the opposite is true. The world, believe it or not, has never been a more peaceful place.

Turn on the television or read the newspaper. Death and destruction fill the pages and the airwaves. Take a step back from the explosions and the funerals, and scan the entire horizon beyond the soldiers and the war zones, and the picture is quite different.

That's what researchers of all stripes have been doing in recent years, and virtually all of them are discovering the same thing: peace on Earth. That's the trend in this troubled world of ours: less war, more freedom, more peace.

One of those studies, released a couple of months ago at the United Nations, concluded that the number of armed conflicts has declined by 40 percent since the end of the Cold War. And last year had the lowest number of civil conflicts in almost 30 years, according to the 2005 Human Security Report. That includes not only wars between countries, but civil wars and all forms of violent political conflict. Only terrorism is on the rise.

And in perhaps the best news of all, the study (funded by the governments of Sweden, Norway, Canada, Britain and Switzerland) found that the number of deaths per conflict is plummeting along with the decline in the number of wars.

This is all hard to believe when your own country is at war. When civilians, soldiers and journalists are dying in Iraq or Afghanistan; when terrorists are killing tourists in London, Bali, Madrid and Jerusalem; when genocidal armies are slaughtering civilians in Darfur, it doesn't sound like a world at peace. Death and war are resisting stubbornly, but peace and democracy have clearly gained the upper hand.

The U.N. report from last October, conducted by researchers working under Andrew Mack at the University of British Columbia, corroborates the findings of other studies. This spring, Monty Marshall of George Mason University and Ted Robert Gurr from the University of Maryland arrived at similar conclusions. The number of wars, they found, is trending down from a high of 49 at the end of 1991 to just 25 at the end of 2004, the lowest number since 1976. Ah, you say, but the number of wars is not what matters. It's the kind of war. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Gurr say fighting in many of the remaining conflicts is "low-level and de-escalating."

Many people will find it disturbing to even acknowledge the decline in armed conflict at a time when wars still rage. The authors are quick to point out the remaining -- and very serious -- risks, such as the possible emergence of new genocidal conflicts and the upsurge of terrorism. But ignoring what is a reversal in one of the most horrific practices in human history can blind us to the ways in which progress has been achieved. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Gurr warn against underestimating the progress as a disservice to those who have made the changes possible.

Diplomats, politicians and scientists offer a range of explanations for the astonishing drop in the level of worldwide conflict. Diplomats say it was diplomacy. The United Nations likes to highlight its peacekeeping operations. And many political scientists argue that the so-called unipolar world that came after the Cold War, with the United States left as the sole and overwhelming superpower, may be the key factor reducing the level of conflicts. No longer do we have proxy wars, with the two superpowers arming their satellites as adversaries. The United States has the muscle to persuade nations (say India and Pakistan) to hold their fire. And no nation has the strength to take on America one on one, even while Washington sends its soldiers to faraway lands.

Democracy, say many scholars, is the key factor in bringing peace. When the public has power, the public (eventually) pushes for peace.

The most encouraging explanation for the outbreak of peace comes well documented by Freedom House.

The non-partisan group has just published its 2005 global survey "Freedom in the World." The survey examines the status of civil liberties across the world, looking at indicators such as freedom of the press, the rights of women and the rule of law. Freedom House concluded that, "the past year was one of the most successful for freedom since Freedom House began measuring world freedom in 1972." The group's researchers found the most significant improvements in the Arab world, which still lags the rest of the globe in freedom, but is showing measurable movement.

Sure, there's a long way to go. To the families of the dead, surveys and global charts mean little. For the people of Darfur, still facing genocide, the improving global picture provides no protection. Freedom is a most personal matter. And yet, there is reason for optimism.

When people of all political persuasions agree that the world has become a more peaceful place, perhaps it's time to turn off the all-news networks just for a moment and contemplate what is happening: Truly, we may be moving towards peace on Earth.




Frida Ghitis, an international television journalist for over 20 years, is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television" (fghitis@yahoo.com).