• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Human Security Report

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
The Human Security Report

The report was produced by the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

It was funded by the governments of Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.


In a world where war, terrorism and humanitarian crises
can seem all-pervasive, the Human Security Report offers a
rare message of hope.

Drawing on research from around the world, this farranging study reveals that for more than three decades
positive changes have been quietly taking place.

Over the past 30 years the collapse of some 60 dictatorships has freed countless millions of people from repressive rule. The number of democracies has soared, interstate wars have become increasingly rare, and all wars have become less deadly.

In the early 1990s the number of civil wars began to
drop as well—a decline that has continued to this day.
And it’s not just wars that are in decline—notwithstanding
Rwanda, Srebrenica and Darfur—the number
of genocides and other mass killings is also dramatically
down worldwide.


Desmond Tutu

It’s easy to forget that things are actually improving at a very rapid rate. Often with the specific stories of atrocities around the world we become sensationalized. It’s very similar to how crime rates in Toronto have been dropping for the better part of our lives while public perception of crime is that it’s far worse.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Interesting. When was this report released?

I was just watching Bill Clinton's speech earlier this evening from London, Ontario. He was talking about how one of the most significant, albeit relatively unknown, developments of the past thirty years has been the fact that more than half of the globe now elects their own leaders.

Sounds very similar.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by AdRiaN
Interesting. When was this report released?

I was just watching Bill Clinton's speech earlier this evening from London, Ontario. He was talking about how one of the most significant, albeit relatively unknown, developments of the past thirty years has been the fact that more than half of the globe now elects their own leaders.

Sounds very similar.
I really don't know, I picked it up off the BBC but they didn't directly date the report. It may be as recent as in the last few days to weeks.


Actuallys its a fairly interesting read.
 

Hamza

TRIBE Member
does it cover the fact that the gap between rich and poor is getting larger? environmental degradation is rapid, new forms of illnesses are popping up?


Hmm...I guess I'm a dirty cynical bastard.


meh
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Hamza
does it cover the fact that the gap between rich and poor is getting larger? environmental degradation is rapid, new forms of illnesses are popping up?


Hmm...I guess I'm a dirty cynical bastard.


meh
Nope this report focuses on death not the crappy lives we lead.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
this is weird....

Figure 1.20 Expectations of violence: Experience versus reality

percentage of respondents
who think it likely they will
become victims of violence
in the next year.

United States 17
Canada 16


percentage of respondents
who had actually been
violently attacked or
threatened in a violent
way in the last five years.

US 12
Canada 13


percentage of respondents
with a household member
who had been violently
attacked or threatened
in the last five years.

US 12
Canada 14


"Pessimism about future violent crime threats is ubiquitous. In every country but Russia, substantially
more people expected to fall victim to violence in the future than their past experience would warrant."

(page 53 in part 1)
 
Last edited:

SlipperyPete

TRIBE Member
related, and I'm too scared to post new threads

World is more peaceful now than at any time in 12 years

Despite the daily horrors in Iraq and seemingly regular spasms of terrorist-sponsored violence, the world is a much more peaceful place than it was a little more than a decade ago, a new study says.

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of armed conflicts has declined by more than 40 per cent, while the number of the deadliest conflicts -- those involving more than 1,000 battle-related deaths -- has dropped by 80 per cent, said the Human Security Report, which was released here yesterday.

"Over the past dozen years, the global security climate has changed in dramatic, positive and largely unheralded ways," the report states.

"Civil wars, genocides and international crises have all declined sharply. International wars, now only a small minority of all conflicts, have been in steady decline for a much longer period, as have military coups and the average number of people killed per conflict per year."

The one dark spot, not surprisingly, is international terrorism, which has been on the rise since the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, though the death toll from such attacks is only a tiny fraction of war casualties.

The report was produced by the University of British Columbia's Liu Institute on Global Affairs, and was funded by several Western governments, including Canada.

It represents the first comprehensive effort to track the number of wars, both interstate and civil, raging around the globe, as well as the human toll from armed conflicts, terrorism and genocide.

Andrew Mack, a UBC professor who led the study, said yesterday it is time to put to rest some common myths, including the overarching view that the world is spiralling downward into violence.

"As is often the case with criminal violence, there is a huge disjuncture between what people believe is the case and what is actually the case," Prof. Mack said.

"What is actually the case is that we've seen this extraordinary improvement across the board in nearly all forms of political violence, except international terrorism, which doesn't kill a lot of people. And yet most people believe things are getting worse."

The report lays out what it calls "myths and misunderstandings," including: The number of genocides is increasing; wars are becoming more deadly and claimed the lives of five million people in the 1990s, and 90 per cent of those killed in today's wars are civilians, mainly women and children.

"None of these claims are based on reliable data. All are suspect; some are demonstrably false," the report said.

The report's authors calculated that civil and external wars killed about 700,000 combatants and civilians in 1950 but that figure dropped to about 100,000 in 1992 and 20,000 in 2002.

Prof. Mack acknowledged that his data end in 2003, but insisted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been raging for the past two years have not dramatically increased the death toll or reversed the long-term trend.

In 2004, there were just 25 armed secessionist conflicts under way in the world, the lowest number since 1976.

In addition to the Middle East, Africa remained mired in armed conflict. At the turn of the 21st century, more people were killed in wars in sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world combined.

Prof. Mack, a former adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, cited a number of reasons for the decline in armed conflicts around the world: the end of the post-colonial era and wars of independence; the end of the Cold War and ideologically driven engagements by superpowers and their proxies; the expansion of democratic government through much of the developing world; and the success of UN peacemaking and conflict resolution.

"There is absolutely no doubt that the UN has been a critical actor, albeit an imperfect one, in bringing the numbers down," he said.

Despite its failures in places such as Bosnia and Rwanda, the UN has frequently succeeded in preventing armed conflict or in maintaining peace once a conflict has ended.

Prof. Mack insisted the report is not offering a rose-coloured view of the world.

He noted there are about 60 wars being fought and a continuing threat of international terrorism, perhaps even of a terrorist group gaining access to weapons of mass destruction.

"We're not Pollyannaish on this. We don't necessarily think there is going to be an upsurge in new violence but we think it is quite possible," he said.

"But we also think that if the international community gets its act together, it could actually make a real reduction in the risk."

War waning across the planet

Wars between countries are more rare than in previous eras. The number of armed conflicts has declined by more that 40% since 1992. The deadliest conflicts, those with 1,000 or more battle deaths dropped by 80 per cent, and the number of international crises, often harbingers of war, fell by more than 70 per cent between 1981 and 2001.

****
Countries at war most between 1946 and 2003

Countries involved in the highest number of international armed conflicts:

U.K. 21
France 19
U.S. 16
Russia 9
Australia 7
Holland 7
Israel 6
Egypt 6
China 6
Thailand 6
N. Vietnam 5
Turkey 5
Jordan 5
Portugal 5
Canada 5
Chad 4
Libya 4
Spain 4
Syria 4
Italy 4
Iran 4
Ethiopia 4
Iraq 4
N. Zealand 4
S. Vietnam 4

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051018.wxunside18/BNStory/International/
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Re: related, and I'm too scared to post new threads

U.K. 21
France 19
U.S. 16
There seems to be a real disconnect between the number of international armed conflicts and the amount of flack these countries receive about their foreign policy over the past 50 years.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: related, and I'm too scared to post new threads

Originally posted by AdRiaN

U.K. 21
France 19
U.S. 16


There seems to be a real disconnect between the number of international armed conflicts and the amount of flack these countries receive about their foreign policy over the past 50 years.

I think its more a matter of everyone is forced to forgive the UK and France, the worst is behind them and they're getting better. The US frightens me in that it appears to be going the other way.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: related, and I'm too scared to post new threads

Originally posted by AdRiaN
There seems to be a real disconnect between the number of international armed conflicts and the amount of flack these countries receive about their foreign policy over the past 50 years.
I agree that the other western powers dont get nearly enough flack, even though the US is far more powerful and has committed a correspondingly greater amount of crime since WWII
America can serve as a convenient distraction from what your own country is doing
Some Canadians talk all about American imperialism this and American imperialism that...

# of governments US has attempted to overthrow since WWII: 40
# of countries bombed: 25
[edit: # of equivalent statistics Ive run into regarding other Western powers: none]

...either Willium Blum or the Human Security report is off by a fair bit

# of sections in "Human Security Report" dedicated to imperialism: ... well i havent seen the whole thing but im going to guess none
 
Last edited:

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: related, and I'm too scared to post new threads

Originally posted by deafplayer
I agree that the other western powers dont get nearly enough flack, even though the US is far more powerful and has committed a correspondingly greater amount of crime since WWII
America can serve as a convenient distraction from what your own country is doing
Some Canadians talk all about American imperialism this and American imperialism that...

# of governments US has attempted to overthrow since WWII: 40
# of countries bombed: 25

...either Willium Blum or the Human Security report is off by a fair bit

# of sections in "Human Security Report" dedicated to imperialism: ... well i havent seen the whole thing but im going to guess none

Willium Blum may very well be right, he may also be defining things differently and using different sources. However here is how this report defined and got its numbers.

Oh yeah and if imperialism was mentioned once I probably would have stopped reading it. Its over used its poorly used and its sceamed by teenagers the way anarchy used to be called

------------------------------------



Deï¬ning armed conflict
One of the primary sources of the Human Security Report’s
armed conflict data is the dataset created jointly by the
Uppsala University’s Conflict Data Program and the
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). The
main Uppsala/PRIO dataset now covers the entire period
from 1946 to 2003.

The Uppsala/PRIO dataset was selected for a number
of reasons.

° Unlike other datasets, it is updated annually.
° It is widely used within the research community.
° It is becoming increasingly recognised in the policy
community.
° It relies on more sources than other data collec-
tion projects.
projects.
° Its deï¬nitions are precise and coding of conflict events
can be checked by other researchers. (This is not the
case in some conflict datasets.)
° With the new data commissioned for the Human
Security Report (see Part II) the Uppsala/PRIO
dataset is the most comprehensive single source
of information on contemporary global political
violence.

The Uppsala/PRIO dataset has traditionally counted
only ‘state-based’ conflicts: armed disputes in which
control over government and/or territory is contested,
in which at least one of the warring parties is a state,
and which result in at least 25 battle-related deaths in
a year.6 The category ‘battle-related deaths’ includes
not only combatants but also civilians caught in the
crossï¬re. The data on most conflicts do not permit distinctions
between civilian and combatant deaths to be
made consistently.

Conflicts are also categorised according to their intensity.
‘Conflicts’ have at least 25 battle-related deaths
per year; ‘wars’ at least 1,000 battle-related deaths
per year.

H
Finally, the Uppsala/PRIO dataset divides conflicts
into four types. The two primary categories—interstate
and intrastate (civil)—are self-explanatory.

The third type is extrastate, a conflict between a state
and a non-state group outside of the state’s own territory.
This deï¬nition applies primarily to wars fought to gain independence from colonial rule.

The last category used by Uppsala/PRIO is internationalized internal conflict. This type of conflict is essentially an intrastate conflict in which the government, the opposition, or both, receive military support from another government
or governments, and where the foreign troops actively
participate in the conflict.7 The war in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, in which a number of foreign
military forces were operating within the country, is a recent example. Internationalized internal disputes rarely
make up much more than 10% of the total number of con-
flicts worldwide.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Re: Re: related, and I'm too scared to post new threads

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Oh yeah and if imperialism was mentioned once I probably would have stopped reading it. Its over used its poorly used and its sceamed by teenagers the way anarchy used to be called
That association kept me from even listening to the shit i did hear, nevermind seeking out better material, for years
And same with "anarchy"
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Just because a word is abused does not mean that the word itself is abusive.

Context is always very important, but I'm sure Ditto Much just meant it as a sort of anecdotal, tongue-in-cheek retort.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
Just because a word is abused does not mean that the word itself is abusive.

Context is always very important, but I'm sure Ditto Much just meant it as a sort of anecdotal, tongue-in-cheek retort.
It’s similar to my ‘anti-neo’, and my dislike of most usages of ‘Zionist’. A government report should not have to use pop-culture terminology to get its point across. Same token I don't like business buzzwords floating into my daily news or being spoken by my political representatives.

In itself the term isn't specific enough to be all that helpful it’s just too easy to apply. Without the negative connotation it can be used to describe to many circumstances for my liking and its application to the USA doesn't really add anything to the description. Most times I find people use the term for dramatic reasons rather than anything else. It’s a temper tantrum for teenagers and adults who have yet to face the fact that they've grown up.

In general when someone uses ‘neo’ I respond with a picture to remind us all how much more popular the term became after the movie the matrix came out. Before that really it wasn’t used in the same connotations. I think its time for me to pick an image for imperialism.

For now…

 
Top