Arnav Agarwal
McMaster University
US$9 trillion is the estimated size of the economic impact we would have experienced, had the world been completely peaceful in 2011. While the world become more peaceful in 2011 for the first time since 2009 according to the Global Peace Index, it is hard to ignore how much of the job is left to be done. From a Canadian perspective, a rise in the rankings to being identified as the fourth most peaceful country globally is a positive sign, leaving only Iceland, Denmark and New Zealand ahead of us. However, the index, published by the Institute for Economics and Peace, brings to light far more than the relative rankings of these countries in terms of their peacefulness: ranking the cost of violence.
How large is the potential impact of a completely peaceful world? Some of the largest threats on a global scale include climate change, poverty and economic instability. The estimated US $9 trillion is reported to be equivalent to the size of the German and Japanese economies combined, the former ranked as having the fifth largest GDP and the latter as having the third largest GDP globally in terms of purchasing power parity as of 2012. Furthermore, the amount is easily able to cover the entire amount allocated to deal with the European sovereign debt crisis with the European Financial Stability Facility.
Insight into the imbalance in resources allocated violent ends and those allocated for peace highlights a significant area of concern as well. Encompassing over one hundred and ninety member states, the United Nations provides an international forum and promotes progress in human rights and living standards through various programs and funds. The UN Millennium Development Goals seek to confront various global challenges, including the establishment of universal primary education, halving extreme poverty levels, and the prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS by 2015.
The regular budget of the organization of the U.N. is reported to be nearly $1.9 billion annually. Drawing approximately half of its annual total expenditures from the voluntary contributions of its member states. Its annual expenditure of $15 billion on peacekeeping missions, programmes, funds and specialized agencies could easily be covered by the $1 trillion in annual world military expenditures. This would pay for the U.N. system for sixty-seven years! A quick calculation on the potential impact of a complete reduction in violence yields staggering results as well: over six hundred years of the U.N. system’s expenditures are covered with nine trillion dollars.
It is evident that a reduction in violence carries with it an economic impact of great significance, but bringing an end to violence on a global scale does not happen overnight. The first step to embracing a peaceful world is realizing how much of it is left to unlock and explore by fueling efforts to live in harmony rather than to live apart. While a 100% reduction might be a mile away, even a 25% reduction in violence is reported to have an estimated economic impact of $2.25 trillion. We may be ranked as the fourth most peaceful nation, but the paradox lies in our obliviousness to how, as a planet, we are losing exactly what we’re fighting over. Knowing the impact of our actions is the first step to changing perspectives globally on nurturing a united world and making change happen: after all, every domino effect begins with a single domino.
Though I acknowledge the merit of the article, I am sceptical of the premise. We cannot just simply decide to call a time out on armed conflict expecting to wait and bare the fruit. Conflict is a complex issue tied up with and often the outcome of ethnic or religious difference. Much of the intra-state conflict which plagues the world today is within the scope of governments deciding to end inter-state conflict. Though I hate to be pessimistic, many structural issues which bring about conflict can only be resolved over long periods which bare changes to notion of identity and culture.
ReplyDeleteThat is not to say that we can't do anything; the global community can be present to provide the resources to make progress towards peace and reconciliation. However, before that can happen we need to recognize violence as a consequence of structural issues rather than the something that happens in a vacuum.
Calling for an immediate worldwide end to violence is basically as effective as calling for an end to evil. And you might as well speculate on the economic impact of death itself. And a united world can be good or bad, depending on what it is united under.
ReplyDelete