Members of the party are encouraged to comment on current news, as if being interviewed, and send their items to Jeff Bolam, website editor, via
Please note, news articles from 2007 can
now be founds in the Archives page
26 May 2008
New Index Measures, Promotes Global Peace
A unique new index takes a business-like approach to promoting global
peace by ranking 140 countries and identifying the factors that place some
countries higher than others on the list.
Peacebuilding is tough," said Rick Barton of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, adding that the Global Peace Index (GPI)
facilitates the process by "defining the cultural [and political] attributes and
the institutions that are associated with states of peace."
The
countries in the GPI study represent 98 percent of the world's population and
are ranked based on 24 indicators, including military expenditures, arms
exports, prison population, internal conflict, political instability, displaced
persons, potential for terrorist acts, human rights adherence, and UN
deployments.
The findings of the first-of-its-kind study aim to "help
countries, businesses, and international organizations move towards peace," said
Barton.
Notably, a businessman discussing the GPI was "delighted to hear
and see peace finally connected with concrete numbers, with metrical indicators,
with concepts that can be weighed and compared, and yes -- even argued over,"
relayed Harriet Fulbright, president of the Fulbright Center, which promotes
peace and justice worldwide. "'This makes peace more definable and therefore
more real,' [the businessman] said. It also makes it easier to discuss action
items which, if listed and accepted, can help us work toward a more peaceful
world."
So what factors contributed to making Iceland the "most
peaceful" country in relation to the 139 others included in the study, and what
makes Iraq the "least peaceful"?
The "profile of a peaceful nation -- and this is characteristic of the top
quartile of the countries [in the Index] -- is the country tends to have a
well-functioning government, low violence within its borders, low corruption,
and good relations with its neighbors," explained Clyde McConaghy, president and
CEO of GPI.
Not surprisingly, 16 of the top 20 countries analyzed are
democracies in western or central Europe and most of them are members of the
European Union.
At fifth position, Japan stands out in its tier but
nonetheless shares many "peaceful" qualities with countries like Denmark (ranked
second) and Luxembourg (ninth).
Despite some minor political instability
related to Shinzo Abe's scandal-tainted tenure as prime minister, Japan can
boast having among the world's lowest rates of violent demonstrations and
homicides.
At the other end of the spectrum, Somalia precedes Iraq as
the second least peaceful country in the GPI.
"Somalia has not had a
nationally functioning state government since its descent into civil war in
1991," notes the Institute for Economics and Peace, the organization housing the
GPI.
The conflict between the Ethiopian-backed interim government and an
Islamic-based rebel movement has forced 1 million Somalis to flee their homes in
recent years.
The GPI also recorded a strong relationship between a
country's wealth and relative peacefulness.
Despite this general
correlation, however, the United States' ranking at 97 reflects its high levels
of military expenditure and armed engagement beyond its borders. The large
number of people in prisons in the United States also contributed to the
country's placement in the bottom third of the Index.
Characteristics of
peaceful and violent states can also be derived from an analysis of which
countries rose and fell most in the Index since its initial launch a year ago.
Angola (ranked 110) leapfrogged a dozen other countries thanks to
reductions in political instability, the likelihood of violent demonstration,
the level of violent crime, the homicide rate, deaths from organized conflict,
military capability, and access to weapons.
Many of these improvements
likely stem from the consolidation of the Angolan ruling party's hegemony -- and
ability to defuse local conflict -- five years after the end of a civil war.
Kenya (119), on the other hand, experienced a serious fall in the
rankings due largely to the internal violence that rocked the nation following
the contested presidential elections of December 2007.
Paraguay's (70) relative level of peace also suffered a setback in 2007 as
researchers recorded a decline in the overall respect for human rights. A rise
in attacks on journalists and reports of prison detainees being tortured while
in custody figured among these growing rights violations.
Despite these
regressions, however, "the world seems to be slightly -- and I emphasize
slightly -- more peaceful in 2007 than 2006," said Leo Abruzzese with the
Economist Intelligence Unit, one of the organizations behind the GPI. Abruzzese
attributed this optimistic conclusion to marginally lower levels of organized
internal conflict, violent crime, and terrorist attacks around the world.
Author: Ida Wahlstrom
Source: OneWorld
US
Released: 25 May 2008
(What is disturbing about this index is that the UK is placed 49th out of the 140 countries included in the analysis. In a later article Peace party analysts will suggest ways that the government could help tackle this low position by positive policy initiatives. Jeff Bolam.)
9 April 2008
Peace Party condems government proposals to militarise schooling
They just don't get it, do they?
The latest proposals from the government regarding the compulsory militarisation
of schools are another step down the wrong track completely.The public's
perception of the armed forces is that they are engaged in illegal, immoral and
unnecessary wars, due to the gross incompetence and totally flawed policies of
the government. Horrified at the alarming rise in gun crime at one point, they
can at the same time suggest more weapons training for children in schools. They
really don't make the connections, do they? There are plans afoot to
indoctrinate our youngsters into thinking that in certain circumstances (i.e.
when you are told so by a 'superior') it is perfectly all right to slaughter
fellow human beings. It isn't! It is admittedly a serious situation if those who
are supposed to protect us from harm and support and look after us are at odds
with the populace. Quentin Davies M.P. is apparently alarmed at the number of
children who have no idea of military life. He wants the militarisation of
schools to take place to brainwash children into accepting war and all the utter
horrors it entails. The appalling humanitarian disaster of Iraq should
be a turning point in the way governments conduct their foreign
relations. It won't be because the people who become our leaders are themselves
brainwashed into believing that the only way out of conflict situations is by
mass murder. Children should learn to recognise the scale of the ecological
disasters that are already upon the world and all the non-violent strategies
that can be put in place to replace warfare. All their energy needs to be put
into finding and helping to implement solutions to the
collapse in biodiversity, the peak oil crisis, climate change, energy problems,
social dysfunctionality and many other major concerns. Preparing more and more
of our youth to fight their way out of serious problems is madness itself, let
alone the signals it sends to grossly disadvantaged youngsters who desparately
need new directions in their lives towards healing relationships and life
enhancing, constructive and creative activities. Teaching them how to kill
people, sanctioned by an amoral government, is not the way to go. What is
particularly insidious and sinister is that this proposal to militarise schools
is a back door way to try to perk up recruitment into our armed forces which is,
not surprisingly, in the doldrums. The General Secretary of the NAHT is also on
the wrong track entirely claiming that there are children who need the
discipline, (enforced and top down) involved in army life. He claims that if
they have fragmented lives at home then this can help them. Only trouble is they
might well be further fragmented into pieces by bombs and bullets on a foreign
battlefield. A total re-think is needed with respect to this misguided and
inappropriate response. The world is crying out for new and imaginative
responses to the problems humankind faces. The Peace Party can lead the way with
these responses. Its Charter (see this website) is the essential guide to the
way forward that involves only total non-violence and full regard to ecological
integrity.
20 January 2008
Nuclear Power – a dirty, dangerous and expensive path
The Peace Party responded angrily to today's decision by the Government to support a new generation of nuclear power stations.
This week’s huge electricity and gas price rises are testament to the fact that placing basic services in the hands of business and the markets produces a poor deal for the consumer. Nuclear power is no exception and it seems that the government has been content to bow
down to the outlandish claims of its premier league lobbyists while conducting yet another farcically biased ‘public consultation’.
The nuclear industry cannot exist without subsidies; and once again it is the taxpayer that will foot the bill for decommissioning any future plants. Cleaning up the mess caused by the current generation of nuclear power will cost us a massive £70 billion.
1 Who knows how much we will be asked to pay next time round? These figures do not include the cost of dealing
with the long-term storage of dangerous nuclear waste. The Government’s latest idea is to spend another £1 billion of taxpayers’ money bribing a local community into accepting a dump on their doorstep.
2 Labour claim to have the answers but as yet no country in the world has found a satisfactory way of dealing with it. Gordon Brown believes it is in the UK’s best interest to opt for the most expensive, unwieldy, unproven and dirty energy option available. Even if we start building plants tomorrow, they
wouldn’t be operational until 2020, well after any energy crisis is likely to hit.
3. Meanwhile renewable energy is cheap, flexible and genuinely carbon neutral. The Government is already obliged to reach 20% generation by renewables by 2020 under EU law – something it fought tooth and nail against. A vote for nuclear will put even this conservative target in doubt. In taking the cowardly decision to support a new generation of nuclear, Brown is locking us into a doomed energy policy that will actively
damage the fight against climate change and do little more than line the pockets of the nuclear industry while leaving the taxpayer with a billion pound clean-up bill.
Jacqui Burke of Greater Manchester & District CND said: "What is interesting about this decision is that nothing has changed since Margaret Thatcher made the same announcement shortly after taking office; she committed us to 10 new nuclear reactors when in fact, 15 years later, only one had been built. There was nothing preventing
utility companies building new nuclear reactors then, and there has been nothing stopping them since: nothing but economics. Only the promise of state support and a weakened planning regime has made nuclear a contender now – but it’s a pitifully weak one at that."
The UK has a remarkable capacity for renewable power, some of the best in Europe. In Germany, more than 130,000 people are now employed in the renewables industry, with far better wind and tidal resources, the UK could go far beyond that
figure.
4. Unlike nuclear, a strong domestic renewables industry would be decentralised, diverse and flexible – in short a better deal for the UK.
References
1.. The UK's nuclear waste clean-up programme could cost more than £70bn, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4859980.stm
2. Secret deal will be followed by £1bn move to find long-term disosal facility for the most dangerous radioactive waste. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3312836.ece
3. Decoding Nuclear Nonsense II: The Real Evidence. E3G Consultancy. http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/Decoding_Nuclear_Nonsense_II.pdf
4. Solar Energy in Germany. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/london/03560.pdf
Peace Party Reflections on the Tragic Death of another member of the Bhutto Family
Any violence, be it the murder of an individual, murderous rioting, terrorism or outright war, anywhere in the world is abhorrent. It reduces us to a level of barbarity unknown elsewhere in the animal kingdom and denies the compassion and reverence for life
that the vast majority of us hold to.
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the subsequent killings of over a hundred people in Pakistan at the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 represent a further dreadful and regrettable loss of so many valued lives, at a time when there are so many inhumanities in the world crying out to be put right.
We in the Peace Party believe that the world will be a far more humane and peaceful place when everyone is involved in making decisions, but the death of
Benazir Bhutto has exposed as a myth the idea that the Pakistan People's Party stands for democracy. Rather, it appears to have accepted the rule of the Bhutto dynasty - an "elective feudalism". This would possibly have been little better than the present military rule, which has only created disorder and lawlessness.
Decisions need to be made collectively so that the creation of winners and losers is avoided. When there are no losers there is no fear, no hatred, no revenge, no terrorism,
no war.
Thank you, Benazir, and all other nameless individuals, who have so sadly lost your lives trying to bring about a better world. You have reminded us to re-double our own efforts, and of the need to have clearly stated core values and aims that everyone can embrace. Only with these accepted, will we be able to have justice and to remove the massive inequalities that continue to scar our world.
Tariq Ali - 'A tragedy born of military despotism and anarchy' - Guardian, 28.12.07.
William
Dalrymple - 'Pakistan's flawed and feudal princess' - Observer, Sunday, 29.12.07.
Ian Jack - 'Born to rule' - Guardian, 29.12.07.
Pakistan Is Bleeding by Arif Viqar
A
Wounded nations
Wounds
Are bleeding
A
Poverty stricken
Nations poverty
Is bleeding
The
Poor majority
Because of their
Poverty’s hunger
Are bleeding
The global
Economy
The
global
Consumerism
The global
Capitalists
Are
Exploiting
The hunger
The poverty
The backwardness
Of a nation
Of a third world nation
Is making the majority
Of that nation
The poor
Bleeding
The green flag
Has become red
With the blood
Of a nations people
Is crying out
To the world
That a nation
Pakistan is bleeding
Copyright (c) 2008 The Peace Party. All rights reserved.