Canada climbs to 4th in world peace ranking


Canada has been deemed the fourth most peaceful country in the world, behind only Iceland, Denmark and New Zealand on an annual ranking of peacefulness released Tuesday by the Institute for Economics and Peace. The organization is an Australian-American think-tank that produces the Global Peace Index using data from the Economist Intelligence Unit to show how valuable peace can be.

Rising from eighth place last year, Canada reached fourth place in the Global Peace Index as a result of reduced troop casualties in Afghanistan. The least peaceful place in the world, according to the ranking, is Somalia, which had the same position last year. The civil war in Syria caused it to suffer the worst drop in the ranking, falling 30 positions, followed by Egypt and Tunisia, largely due to the Arab Spring uprisings last year.

Overal the world is a more peaceful place this year than in 2012, says the GPI report, mostly because of budget cuts from six of the world’s top military spenders: Brazil, France, Germany, India, UK and the US, as well as improvements in the Political Terror Scale, which measures levels of political violence and terror.

The report attached to the GPI rankings also put a monetary tag price on the world’s peace:

If the world was completely peaceful in 2011, the additional economic impact would have been an estimated US$9 trillion (equal to the size of the German and Japanese economies combined). While a total elimination of violence may not be possible an achievable 25% reduction in violence could reap a peace dividend of at least US$2.25 trillion.

This amount would easily cover the European Financial Stability Facility’s $1 trillion allocation to deal with the European sovereign debt crisis while also covering the yearly cost of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Filed under:

Canada climbs to 4th in world peace ranking

  1. But… but…. I thought Harper was turning Canada into a war-mongering gun-crazy country? I’ll bet Harper just bought Canada a good spot with the barrels of oil money he’s been stealing from taxpayers. Anybody who’d say anything good about Canada under Harper has to be a Con-Toady. They clearly haven’t factored in the Eco-Terrorism currently under way in Black-Tar-Death-Sands Alberta.

    • If Harper had been prime minister in 2003 we would have gone into Iraq.

      • Is that a fact? Or just idle speculation from someone with Harper Derangement Syndrome?

        • It’s common knowledge Harper supported the war in Iraq. From Macleans, “Stephen Harper’s twisted walk back on Iraq”:

          Harper stood in the House of Commons in January 2003, to remind MPs that as early as the previous October, “I noted that there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein operates programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. Experience confirms this. British, Canadian and American intelligence leaves no doubt on the matter.”

          Therefore, Canada must help depose Saddam Hussein. Failure to do so, Harper said, “is not fitting with the greatness of our history or with our standing as a nation.”

          Later in March, the Bloc Québécois provoked a Commons vote on a motion “that this House call upon the government not to participate in the military intervention” in Iraq. As fate would have it, the vote came on March 20. The 50 MPs who voted nay — who did not want Canada to stay out of Iraq — included almost every Alliance MP present, including Stephen Harper.

          Later that day the U.S. and the United Kingdom finally began their bombing campaign against Baghdad. Six days later, Harper told the Commons: “We should be there with our allies when it counts against Saddam Hussein.”


  2. Harper must be furious. Given how he is beefing up the military and building new military bases to fight alongside the Americans in the “war on terror” (read: invading oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries) and the “war on drugs” (read: recolonizing the Americas) he must be deeply offended by the report.

    After all, Harper was the prime minister who changed Canada’s role in the world from peacekeepers to Royal war-makers and deserves to be recognized for his glorious achievement.

    Walkom: Is Stephen Harper’s global military policy delusional or just plain mad?

  3. This is a joke, right? A country that bombed Libya with gusto, that has declared its willingness to attack Iran, that has been encouraging Israel to commit crimes against humanity, whose prime minister cannot wait to bomb Syria, is considered “peaceful?”

    • “bombed Libya with gusto” = “brought peace to the people of Libya”
      “willingness to attack Iran” = “protecting world peace”
      “encouraging Israel to commit crimes against humanity” = A complete lie
      “cannot wait to bomb Syria” = “wants peace for the people of Syria”

      Some people have no idea what the word “peace” actually means. If you think letting dictators like Ghaddafi and Assad slaughter their people en mass is peaceful, I’m sure the people there would have something to say about it. If you think sitting idly by while a phycho like Ahmadinejad builds a nuclear bomb, while threatening his neighbours with nuclear destruction is peaceful, you don’t understand what a nuclear bomb can do.

    • it appears to reflect mostly violence within a country and it looks like a country’s armed forces as well.

      heck, harper doesnt care about peace here – if he did he would make sure he bought the icebreaker he promised.

  4. you mean than in 2011, surely

  5. This is like saying Barrack Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Sorry Canada, No.

Sign in to comment.