Global Peace Index 2024 Released

The Institute of Economics and Peace has just released the 18th edition of its Global Peace Index (GPI). The GPI evaluates the current status of peace according to three metrics: social safety & security; presence of domestic & international conflict; and degree of militarization. The results from the report confirm the unfortunate reality that democracy and peacebuilding are currently on a historic backslide.

In a statistic which captures the essence of the findings, the GPI reports that there are 56 active conflicts in the world today, which is the most since the second World War. In fact, 97 countries have experienced a decline in peacefulness in 2024, which marks a record for any given year since the beginning of the index. Accompanying this increase in violence are larger ratios of military expenditure to size of GDP for 86 countries, indicating a frightening willingness to take up arms.

As expected, the effects of armed conflicts are devastating. For instance, more than 95 million people have been displaced from their homes thanks to prolonged violence. Over the last three decades, battle deaths peaked in 2022, with the Russo-Ukranian war contributing to this figure without doubt, producing 2000 casualties for nearly every month that it has been waged. The economic effects of these situations are crippling too: armed conflicts wrought an estimated total of $907.5 billion dollars of damages in 2023. In contrast, peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts were only allocated $49.6 billion last year, meaning that for every dollar countries lose from violence, they are only willing to spend six cents to solve the problem. Obviously, the return on investment in this transaction will continue, then, to be minimal.

The conclusions of the GPI should draw attention to the global crisis that the world is in the midst of. To compound on present worries, the reports leave out analysis on the impact of conflict and militarization on climate change, which simply cannot be ignored. If bold and drastic action is not taken by heads of state and intergovernmental organizations immediately, future generations will come to the rue the idleness of the present. The International Peace Bureau provides recommendations on how to alleviate current tensions through the Global Campaign on Military Spending and its Common Security Report 2022. For further information on how to militarization intersects with climate issues, see the report issued by the Conflict and Environment Observatory.

The full Global Peace Index 2024 report is here.

Climate & The Military: How Global Militarization Is Costing Us The Earth

By Alessandra Fontanella, Assistant Coordinator (IPB)

New Reports Show the Extent of Military Pollution on our Planet

Recent data from reports published by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR)and the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS), as well as from the Transnational Institute (TNI), Stop Wapenhandel, and Tipping Point North South (TPNS) demonstrate the overwhelmingly negative impact of global military activities on our climate.

The 2022 SGR report estimates that the world’s militaries contribute to 5.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas  (GHG) emissions. It also finds that if the world’s militaries were a country, it would have the 4th largest national carbon footprint in the world. To illustrate these findings further, if global militaries were combined they would be the world’s 29th top oil consumer, ahead of Venezuela and Poland.  SGR and CEOBS estimate the annual military carbon footprint of the US at 205 million tonnes, and 11 million tonnes for the UK.

Despite the new methodology that has enabled scientists to approximate the level of military carbon pollution, their estimations are limited. A lack of clear and consistent reporting of data by governments has made it difficult to provide accurate estimations of military greenhouse gas emissions – under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, governments are not obligated to report their emissions data to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Further, collaborative research by between CEOBS and Concrete Impacts: militaryemissions.org shows no yearly improvements on voluntary reporting by governments. It is also difficult for researchers to measure emissions from damage to buildings, eco-systems and reconstructions efforts post-conflict leading to significant data gaps.

Despite these limitations, the existing data is alarming and highlights the need for dialogue between governments, international organisations and civil society to work towards a global plan. Civil society can play a crucial role in advocating for the redirection of finance from the military towards funding climate change. The richest countries (annex II in the UN Climate Talks) have a military expenditure 30 times greater than what they allocate to climate finance for vulnerable countries and have failed to meet their obligation of providing $100bn a year to the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world. The redistribution of just one year’s military spending by the top 10 military countries towards climate finance would provide 15 years  (US $100bn) of the promised funding.

Moreover, a thorough set of data protocols should be put in place to enhance transparency and pave the way for more comprehensive and accurate data on global military emissions, as suggested by SGR. We must demand greater transparency and accountability from governments, and promote the dissemination of information about military emissions to increase public attention on governments’ military spending and activities.  Collective action in the peace and climate movements  is necessary to bring about a  reduction of military carbon emissions, and the redirection of spending in this sector towards mitigative action for our climate.

The best way to reduce military pollution on our planet is to reduce war. The International Peace Bureau is committed to promoting positive peace and justice, below we outline several recent actions that IPB has taken:

  • IPB’s year round campaign – Global Campaign on Military Spending (GCOMS) raises awareness of excessive military spending and aims to reduce global military expenditures.
  • IPB Council member Tyson Smith Berry Jr. hosted the panel “Climate Change & Common Security: challenges and solutions in Africa and the world at large” at the conference : From Conflict to Beloved Communities – A Series of International Gatherings on Peace, Justice and Non-Violence on November 8 in Juba, South Sudan.
  • For the COP 27 which recently took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, the IPB alongside the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and World BEYOND War (WBW)sent two open letters addressed to the UNFCC and Green Climate.
  • Visit IPB’s Youtube Channel to watch our broadcast updates from COP27 – focused on the events and activists that brought together the themes of peace and climate.

The Danish Referendum: Can Denmark Resist EU militarization? 

On June 1, Denmark will hold a referendum on the abolition of the defense opt-out, which is one of the country’s opt-outs from the European Union. Currently, Denmark is the only EU country with such an opt-out option. EU militarization has increased tremendously – European arms are sold all over the world with very few restrictions. Arms trade is a threat to peace, security and development, and the arms industry is a driving force behind increasing military exports and expenditure. 

Listen to a message from Lave K. Broche (Board member of the Danish People’s Movement  against the EU, active in the Danish UN Association and member of Danish social liberal party) on our Youtube channel:

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube’s privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

 

From his perspective, three points are crucial:

1.       Denmark is already a NATO member and does not face an immediate threat due to the ongoing war in Ukraine. However, the pro-EU side uses the fear and the ongoing war in Ukraine to promote the opt-out.  

2.       Danish visions for peace negotiations – if Denmark keeps the power over their defense and security policy and votes no, the country will have more possibilities to be a negotiator for peace.

3.       Denmark should support international law, an area that is deeply rooted in society – this means no wars or out of area operations without an UN mandate. 

If you are interested in this topic and convinced that Denmark should say no to EU militarization on June 1 , please use your voice and support the Danish population on making their decision! Here is a link to their support page: https://www.folkebevaegelsen.dk/support-us/

Would like to read more? Here is an article about Thales that sold weapons to Russia and that gets money from the EU: https://stopwapenhandel.org/killed-by-thales-military-technology-in-bucha/

or an article by Lave K. Broch about the legal aspects: https://thepeoplesnews.home.blog/2022/05/20/the-danish-referendum-is-about-sovereignty-in-defense-policy-vote-no/

To learn more about the EU militarization, please visit the European Network Against Arms Trade (ENAAT): http://enaat.org/