As I welcome new students to my World Politics class, I thought I would offer up some factoids that provide a partial snapshot of the world. In International Relations, security concerns always seem to come first, so this post will look at violence around the world.
To be honest, I often hear people talk about the world being more dangerous nowadays and I have no idea what they are talking about. Part of it is a generational thing. I grew up during the Cold War when mutual assured destruction was only a 30 minute minute missile flight. As a kid growing up in NJ, I could see the Twin Towers from my bedroom window and was all too aware that New York City was undoubtedly the target of several Soviet ICBMs. As horrific as the 9-11 attack on the WTC was, it pales in comparison to the destruction that hung over our heads during the Cold War.
Cranky old-guy ramblings aside, as a scholar I also look at the data and it almost universally describes a world that is less violent and conflictual. First, consider the level of conflict between nations, which is the traditional source of man-made death and destruction. The 2013 Human Security Report has a couple graphs (below) that show that number of battle deaths from state based conflicts (what most folks call wars) and the number of conflicts themselves have decreased since the end of the Cold War. (Note: the captions to the graph are from the original figures in Human Security Report.)
While interstate conflict and warfare is not quite a thing of the past, we have been seeing very little of it lately and that is a very encouraging sign. Of course, the fact there has been little of it lately is no guarantee that more of it won't flare up in the future, but we should not be blind to the fact that we are living in an uncommonly peaceful time. Indeed, the 2013 Human Security Report examines the debate over whether or not we are in the most peaceful period in all of human history.
If this doesn't make you feel sanguine about national security, it is worth pointing out that the US currently spends far more than anyone else in the world. Indeed, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that in 2012 the US spent 6 times as much as on defense China, 11 times more than Russia, and 27 times as much as Iran. Indeed, US spending accounted for 41% of global defense spending in 2012 and is equivalent to the amount spent in the same year by the next 15 largest defense spenders in the world. Furthermore, eleven of those 15 nations (Canada, Israel, Italy, Australia, Germany, South Korea, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and the UK) have close security ties to the US and two (India and Brazil) are democracies that do not appear to pose a threat to US interests.
Of course, China's economy is growing and, along with it, their military budget. If, and when, the Chinese economy approaches the size of that of the US, it is conceivable that they could spend a comparable amount on their military as the US. However, they currently spend about 1.24% of their GDP on defense (about the same percentage as Germany and Italy), which is far less than the roughly 4% that the US spends. So, even if the US cuts defense spedning, it will be in the lead for a while. It also is interesting to note that the Chinese spend about as much on building High Speed Rail ($100 billion) as they do on their military ($102 billion though some estimates run as high as $126 billion). Therefore, while Chinese military growth bears watching, we should not be overly alarmed by it at present (or we might leave part of the worrying to Japan).
Okay, that's a quick look at interstate security, but what about terrorism? After all, concerns about terrorism are almost certainly on people's minds when they say the world is more dangerous. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (or START) reports that terrorist attacks have been increasing in frequency and destructiveness over that past few years. In 2012, saw a record high of 15,400 people killed in terror attacks, which exceeds the previous high of 12,500 in 2007. However, 54% of these attacks and 58% of the deaths from terror have been concentrated in three countries: Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. START has a nice interactive map that shows the location and intensity of terror attacks in 2012 that lets you visualize the distribution of terrorism around the world.
While one doesn't want to minimize concerns over tens of thousands of deaths, we need to put this into perspective against the number of deaths that occur from interstate warfare. If you scroll back to the first graph (Figure 1.1 from the 1023 Human Security Report), you'll note that the graph is marked in hundreds of thousands of deaths. So, the 2012 deaths from terrorism would be plotted at 0.15 on the graph. Again without seeking to trivialize the horrors of terrorism, one has to point out that terrorism does not come close to producing the levels of fatalities that occur in interstate wars. This is especially clear if you note that the HSR Figure 1.1 does include World War II which caused millions of deaths each year.
START also has a layered graph that shows the number of terrorist attacks since 1971. If you click on thegraph (which is necessary to see the latest years in the data), you will note that the number incidents in the past few years is about the same as the previous peak in 1991. You will also see that the late 1980s and early 1990s was period of frequent and widely distributed terrorism. Interestingly, 2001, the year of the 9-11 attacks, came at the end of a period with unusually low numbers of terrorists attacks. Also, if you switch the graph from its default display of incidents grouped by country attacked to incidents grouped by type of attack, you will note that bombings and armed assaults have become much more prevalent, which has made terror attacks more indiscriminate and deadly on average.
So, what do we make of all this? I think we should avoid drawing broad conclusions from this data in favor of adopting a broader perspective. I would suggest that our growing concerns with terrorism, while entirely valid, are partly driven by diminished concerns about interstate war, which is potentially greater threat to a larger number of people. Put more informally, we should be so lucky to live in a world in which terrorism is our biggest security threat. Also, when we look at terrorism, we have to recognize that it is currently trending to be more of a regional threat than a global one. Something to keep in mind when you watch the upcoming season of "24."
No comments:
Post a Comment