China Violence, China Peace

Well, my first objection is that even though New Zealand is ranked number 2, they somehow seem to have dropped us off the map. Or are China Law Blog's margins to narrow?

I would say James Taranto's objections have more to do with the study treading on his ideological toes than reason. America's [ahem] assertive military posture may help keep Norway and Germany safe, happy and peaceful, but there is more to the equation than just American military spending and deployment, and America's assertiveness has a pretty big downside for people in places like Iraq. And Israel? Well, I hardly bother reading the news from Israel anymore, because it's the same every day. Should be called the 'olds' really, as in 'same old'. Hamas fired rockets into Israel, a suicide bomber took out a bus or a pizza joint, Israel sent tanks and helicopters in to the West Bank or Gaza or wherever to blow up what it says was a Hamas bomb factory. Israeli army bulldozers knock over the houses of suicide bombers, leaving their families homeless. Can't give countries a higher ranking just 'cos they're on "our side".

And I'd agree that Iran's and Syria's rankings look a bit dodgy, but then again, one could take issue with his characterisation of those countries. Can't demand countries have a lower ranking just because they're on "the other side".

But yes, it's just some silly conversation piece. Shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Oh dear. As a contributor to the rankings on this one, and for China in particular, I suppose I should weigh in. (I should emphasise that I'm speaking as an individual rather than for the company here, and that I was only involved in putting together a few countries' scores rather than assembling the methodology, so my understanding of some of the details is possibly a little fuzzy).

1) Of course it's a conversation piece, much like the Economist's Bic Mac index. This doesn't mean that it lacks value. It can highlight certain issues and stimulate discussion among policy makers and the press, as it clearly has done.
2) It's a piece of sponsored research, undertaken for a rich philanthropist (Steve Killelea - see the recent article "Give Peace a Rating" in the Economist for more on him), and thus while the EIU maintains editorial independence, the study's methodology will inevitably reflect to an extent the issues etc that he is particularly interested in.
3) I agree that free riding is a significant criticism of the end result, but (as Chris has already mentioned) the US is hardly a global exemplar when it comes to spreading peace and harmony.
4) I think what a lot of the commentary has missed is that a lot of the scoring is actually determined at internal peace rather than international action. Countries with civil conflicts (Israel, Sri Lanka, Lebanon etc) pack out the lower ranks.
5) I suspect the value of such an index may be limited at first, beyond its use as a coversation piece and filler for endless NGO press releases. However, there's been nothing like it before (certainly covering so many countries), and it may prove useful in future years to see how it correlates with other factors, for example economic growth.

chriswaugh_bj --

NZ, isn't that where Vikings come from? Actually, with the new HBO show, Flight of the Conchords having just come out, the leaving out of NZ is particularly egregious.

I think Taranto's point is that there is more to violence than just numbers. I guess by this study's standards, the US's violence rating would have gone way up for our fighting back against Japan in WWII.

I am not sure this study even makes for good conversation as I find it so absurd I have not even bothered to talk about it with anyone. I would call it weekend blog filler.

Duncan --

I went relatively easy on the study in the post because I am giving it the benefit of the doubt because it is its first try, but I have to ask again what this study hopes to achieve and what it expects to achieve. All that work juts to create a really mediocre conversation piece?

Does it even make sense to combine internal with external and should not external be much more heavily weighted towards actual attacks on neighbors rather than expenditures and should not constant threats like those emanating from Iran and funding of terrorism (again, see Iran) count for something/more?

Also, I think it very strange that you describe Israel's wars with external enemies (the West Bank and Gaza have never been recognized as part of Israel) a civil war.

I'm going to take another shot at this map and Duncan since he part of this farce.

Iraq is a less peaceful country than China, Saudi Arabia or North Korea (who has oddly been omitted)?

This just smacks of gross panda hugging and UN pandering. Yes, the US deserves a "yellow" at worst for Iraq in particular, but leave out NK? Saudi Arabia spawned 11 of the 13 9-11 hijackers and at best answered with a shoulder shrugging "I dunno" and china, well, no one can say enough about china's "peaceful rise".

Is News Corp or the Murdoch Family involved with this rating system?

Phil --

I actually think I agree with you. As crappy as the methodology of this study is, I say more power to them for actually trying and for putting it out there.

Chris's comments reflect my own thinking although Dan's response is also reasonable. I'm not saying I disagree with Taranto that the ordering is bad. I guess I just detect an inherent pro-Israel bias in Taranto's comments that are not born out by the reality of the situation. I take issue with language such as "force." That is, I'm not sure Israel was forced into the war with Lebanon, but perhaps that's just my opinion.

Also, maintaining that other countries are free because we saved their ass in dubya-dubya-two ignores a lot of the (sometimes reasonable) discomfort that a lot of those countries feel at continued US military presence (e.g., South Korea).

To explain my comment on the human rights report, I was referring to China's annual response to the American report. China's is often filled with similarly unnuanced description, and therefore this peace report might be appealing.

USA is externally and internally "more peaceful" than India? This study is a farce!

CLB: Actually, the only quibble I have with your characterisation of Iran is that a good friend of mine who has been there told me that he has never seen women so respected than when he was in Iran. Oh, and I've read of Iranian Jews choosing to leave Israel to return to Iran (No, I don't understand that choice either, but they seem to think they'll live better in Iran than Israel. There's no accounting for taste.) The rest of what you say about Iran and Syria I agree with wholeheartedly. Really. Those are two regimes in desperate need of well-targeted smart bombs.

And I was trying to avoid politics. I don't think it's about politics, it's about badly done criticism of a study that really needs to be criticised. There are many points on which the study should be criticised, and Taranto should have checked his politics at the door and focussed on those real points. And the big point I would choose to criticise the study is the very suspicious choice of which countries to include and which to leave out. The most glaring examples being: Morocco but not Western Sahara; Ethiopia but not Eritrea or Somalia; and Sudan but not Chad. Those are three sets of very closely related conflicts, and three points on which the study could have been shown up for the rubbish it is, but Taranto chose to argue from his political persuasion.

Have I made myself clear? I hope so. I'm looking at this as textual analysis, not politics. Taranto should've criticised this study, but he should've chosen a better angle to attack it from.

And I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what this HBO show is.

jc --

That actually would make for an interesting chart.

Duncan --

I've given up on this study, mostly for the reasons set forth in my response to chriswaugh_bj above.

chriswaugh_bj --

Yes.